I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Peter Bernard Ladkin,

Climate change is real indeed; it has been fluctuating for billions of years. Personally, I have no doubt that humans have influenced it somewhat during recent hundreds of years, but having looked at the research results of scientists in opposition with IPCC "findings" I seriously doubt that arriving at CO2 neutrality would have any significant impact on the ongoing climate change.


Science has no answers to all questions yet, therefore the request "if you don't think those causes are linked to anthropogenic global warming, then you owe us some other causes and some reasoning from those causes to the drastic phenomena which are being observed" does not seem fair at all. It should be  enough to point out the faults in a hypothesis showing why it can not be true; as Einstein has said, a single proof of a fault is sufficient for invalidating a theory, no need for unanimous herds of scholars.


Regarding "(a) these gases are there in much higher quantity than in previous years" - then why is there no consistent correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? Missing correlation excludes causation.


Regarding "(b) um, the gases “trap” heat in the biosphere" - CO2 effect cannot be described that simply; one should look into upgoing thermal radiation, water vapor and saturation topics as well, Planck and Schwarzschild curves.


Regarding "(c) the effect you expect from that is indeed present" - this is most likely true, but the magnitude seems to be greatly exaggerated by some scientists, and in particular by many well-meaning but ignorant activists these days.


I undertook a simple test to see whether the experiment offered by the nature last year - reduced anthropogenic CO2 output due to COVID-19 - proves that such limiting would show up in measured athmospheric concentrations. I downloaded the UK Metoffice forecast for monthly average CO2 concentrations at NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory at Mauna Loa over 2020 that was made long before the COVID-19 effect was anticipated, and compared these figures to actual 2020 measurement data from the Mauna Loa lab. Surprising or not, but the differences between forecasted and measured values were similar to previous years, and the measurement results also correlated well with previous year. To an engineer, this is an indication that the proportion of the CO2 entering the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is significantly smaller than expected; since carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas with seasonal fluctuations in the atmosphere observable in real time, there seems to be no logic in claims that COVID-induced reduction shall be observable in the distant future. Anyone can repeat such tests.


Bringing in some ageism does not remove the fact that an emeritus with 40+ years of professional experience should understand climate processes better than an agitated teenager.

Peter Bernard Ladkin,

Climate change is real indeed; it has been fluctuating for billions of years. Personally, I have no doubt that humans have influenced it somewhat during recent hundreds of years, but having looked at the research results of scientists in opposition with IPCC "findings" I seriously doubt that arriving at CO2 neutrality would have any significant impact on the ongoing climate change.


Science has no answers to all questions yet, therefore the request "if you don't think those causes are linked to anthropogenic global warming, then you owe us some other causes and some reasoning from those causes to the drastic phenomena which are being observed" does not seem fair at all. It should be  enough to point out the faults in a hypothesis showing why it can not be true; as Einstein has said, a single proof of a fault is sufficient for invalidating a theory, no need for unanimous herds of scholars.


Regarding "(a) these gases are there in much higher quantity than in previous years" - then why is there no consistent correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? Missing correlation excludes causation.


Regarding "(b) um, the gases “trap” heat in the biosphere" - CO2 effect cannot be described that simply; one should look into upgoing thermal radiation, water vapor and saturation topics as well, Planck and Schwarzschild curves.


Regarding "(c) the effect you expect from that is indeed present" - this is most likely true, but the magnitude seems to be greatly exaggerated by some scientists, and in particular by many well-meaning but ignorant activists these days.


I undertook a simple test to see whether the experiment offered by the nature last year - reduced anthropogenic CO2 output due to COVID-19 - proves that such limiting would show up in measured athmospheric concentrations. I downloaded the UK Metoffice forecast for monthly average CO2 concentrations at NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory at Mauna Loa over 2020 that was made long before the COVID-19 effect was anticipated, and compared these figures to actual 2020 measurement data from the Mauna Loa lab. Surprising or not, but the differences between forecasted and measured values were similar to previous years, and the measurement results also correlated well with previous year. To an engineer, this is an indication that the proportion of the CO2 entering the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is significantly smaller than expected; since carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas with seasonal fluctuations in the atmosphere observable in real time, there seems to be no logic in claims that COVID-induced reduction shall be observable in the distant future. Anyone can repeat such tests.


Bringing in some ageism does not remove the fact that an emeritus with 40+ years of professional experience should understand climate processes better than an agitated teenager.