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

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Is that right? What is the reasoning behind that estimate? Why do others disagree with it?

If you are unable to refute these statements of Dr. Hayden, perhaps they are true? Although my degrees are not in physics, I find his points to be highly likely.

The trouble is, so far you have been pointing to a bunch of dubious sources. At some point, I have to ask why on earth you believe this stuff. If you can't give any reason (despite having been asked) then that tells us you are not able to judge the scientific worth of the material you are pointing us to.

Since we seem to be in the questions game: isn't calling a source "dubious" another form of ad-hominem, disregarding the fact that such sources provide analysis and links to indubitably valid science or peer-reviewed research ?

I am happy to answer the question "why on earth you believe this stuff". As you have rightly pointed out, "nominally-impressive academic title does not necessarily mean much". Nevertheless, having learned many years ago that thousands of dedicated scientists of great integrity question the "scientific consensus" on CO2 as the "climate control knob" as sold by the IPCC, one might develop doubts. Mine were aggravated since several leading scientists in my country explained how their research does not support the IPCC angle, and how their non-conforming research is systematically oppressed by refusing grants and publication. I have learned a lot from the websites that I have shared here.

Another point: every now and then we hear of some scientists or officials publicly deserting from the "climate alarmist" camp and joining the "climate realists", but I cannot remember hearing of a single one jumping in the opposite direction. Even one of the initial pillars of warmism, Dr. Roger Revelle who first mentioned global warming in a government report in 1965, turned to be a sceptic shorthly before his death ("What to Do About Greenhouse Warning: Look Before you Leap", 1991). One might be surprised to see how many sceptical scientists are stepping out from the shadows - have a look at the World Climate Declaration of 2020.

I notice this week's summary discusses a paper by Richard Lindzen, one of the people you have mentioned.

If one has not heard of prominent scientists like Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Legates, Dr. Humlum, Dr. Happer, Dr. Koonin, Dr. Vahrenholt and many others holding up the debate in climate science, one might indeed not have any idea that such debate still exists. This is not an accusation - public media typically avoids referring to scientists or research hinting that the "climate crisis" is not severe enough.

Look at point 4). Apparently this gentleman doesn't read the newspapers. He wouldn't be ablt to say that in a lecture anywhere in California. Or, I imagine, many places in Louisiana. Or in the Eifel. And it passes in this supposed review also without comment. So there are at least two people not reading newspapers :-)

With all due respect, I cannot accept grethaesque exclamations based on newspaper articles a hard evidence. There is enough historic evidence demonstrating that wildfires, floods and heat waves of recent years are of lower magnitude than the ones 100+ years ago, or inbetween. Supporting research is available.

In 2017 I happened to be in beautiful Koblenz where the 2021 flooding caused great damage. Nevertheless, while water level reached 654 cm on July 16'th, I can see on one of my photographs that historic floods have exceeded a 1000 cm mark with many over 800 cm in previous centuries. Some of the floods may certainly be intensified due to human activity - more structures on land, less water absorption capability - but not necessarily CO2.

Talking about Germany: chancellor Merkel may have been a climate sceptic - as Nature notes: 
"Although Merkel maintained close ties with the research world, there is one crucial policy area in which her decisions have not always been backed up by science. Germany is not a leader when it comes to phasing out fossil fuels. In the past, Merkel has even shown irritation at warnings of dangerous climate change from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

I always enjoy a civilized debate based on scientific arguments. Hopefully the climate inquisition shall not be institutionalized in Europe and the debate extends, until the truth comes out and unjustified policies are abandoned.

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Is that right? What is the reasoning behind that estimate? Why do others disagree with it?

If you are unable to refute these statements of Dr. Hayden, perhaps they are true? Although my degrees are not in physics, I find his points to be highly likely.

The trouble is, so far you have been pointing to a bunch of dubious sources. At some point, I have to ask why on earth you believe this stuff. If you can't give any reason (despite having been asked) then that tells us you are not able to judge the scientific worth of the material you are pointing us to.

Since we seem to be in the questions game: isn't calling a source "dubious" another form of ad-hominem, disregarding the fact that such sources provide analysis and links to indubitably valid science or peer-reviewed research ?

I am happy to answer the question "why on earth you believe this stuff". As you have rightly pointed out, "nominally-impressive academic title does not necessarily mean much". Nevertheless, having learned many years ago that thousands of dedicated scientists of great integrity question the "scientific consensus" on CO2 as the "climate control knob" as sold by the IPCC, one might develop doubts. Mine were aggravated since several leading scientists in my country explained how their research does not support the IPCC angle, and how their non-conforming research is systematically oppressed by refusing grants and publication. I have learned a lot from the websites that I have shared here.

Another point: every now and then we hear of some scientists or officials publicly deserting from the "climate alarmist" camp and joining the "climate realists", but I cannot remember hearing of a single one jumping in the opposite direction. Even one of the initial pillars of warmism, Dr. Roger Revelle who first mentioned global warming in a government report in 1965, turned to be a sceptic shorthly before his death ("What to Do About Greenhouse Warning: Look Before you Leap", 1991). One might be surprised to see how many sceptical scientists are stepping out from the shadows - have a look at the World Climate Declaration of 2020.

I notice this week's summary discusses a paper by Richard Lindzen, one of the people you have mentioned.

If one has not heard of prominent scientists like Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Legates, Dr. Humlum, Dr. Happer, Dr. Koonin, Dr. Vahrenholt and many others holding up the debate in climate science, one might indeed not have any idea that such debate still exists. This is not an accusation - public media typically avoids referring to scientists or research hinting that the "climate crisis" is not severe enough.

Look at point 4). Apparently this gentleman doesn't read the newspapers. He wouldn't be ablt to say that in a lecture anywhere in California. Or, I imagine, many places in Louisiana. Or in the Eifel. And it passes in this supposed review also without comment. So there are at least two people not reading newspapers :-)

With all due respect, I cannot accept grethaesque exclamations based on newspaper articles a hard evidence. There is enough historic evidence demonstrating that wildfires, floods and heat waves of recent years are of lower magnitude than the ones 100+ years ago, or inbetween. Supporting research is available.

In 2017 I happened to be in beautiful Koblenz where the 2021 flooding caused great damage. Nevertheless, while water level reached 654 cm on July 16'th, I can see on one of my photographs that historic floods have exceeded a 1000 cm mark with many over 800 cm in previous centuries. Some of the floods may certainly be intensified due to human activity - more structures on land, less water absorption capability - but not necessarily CO2.

Talking about Germany: chancellor Merkel may have been a climate sceptic - as Nature notes: 
"Although Merkel maintained close ties with the research world, there is one crucial policy area in which her decisions have not always been backed up by science. Germany is not a leader when it comes to phasing out fossil fuels. In the past, Merkel has even shown irritation at warnings of dangerous climate change from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

I always enjoy a civilized debate based on scientific arguments. Hopefully the climate inquisition shall not be institutionalized in Europe and the debate extends, until the truth comes out and unjustified policies are abandoned.