# Austrian Analyst: Things With Greenhouse Effect (GHE) Aren’t Adding Up…”Something Totally Wrong”

## Something is rotten with the GHE

By Erich Schaffer

Introduction

The greenhouse effect (GHE) is a well established theory which most people consider a solid fact, even those who are otherwise “critical” over global warming. On the other side there are some voices who “deny” the GHE with flatearther-like arguments, which seemingly only adds to the credibility of the theory. This is a very odd situation, since the are huge issues with the GHE hidden in plain sight.

“Without GHGs, the Earth would be a frozen planet with a temperature of only -18°C, or 255°K”. This definition is all too familiar to us all and the experts naming it are legion. The 255°K isthe result of a (relatively) simple formula.

(342 x ((1-0.3) / 1)  / 5.67e-8) ^0.25 = 255

342W/m2 is the amount of solar radiation (the exact number may vary), 5.67e-8 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and ^0.25 (or the 4th root) represents the Stefan-Boltzmann law according to which radiation is a function of temperature to the power of 4.

Black body assumption trouble

The interesting part however is (1-0.3 / 1). 0.3 is the albedo of Earth and 1-0.3 os thus the absorbtivity, which is the share of solar radiation the Earth absorbs (~70%). The 1 below the comma, which is usually omitted, represents emissivity, which is the share of LWIR emitted by the Earth relative to a perfect black body of the same temperature. In other words, it is being assumed Earth would be emitting just like a perfect black body if it were not for GHGs. And that is where the trouble starts.

The basic problem

Quite obviously there are two factors that “violate” the assumption named above.

1. The surface of the Earth, mainly consisting of water, is not a perfect emitter, pretty much like any real surface. Although it is not the scope of this article, it can be shown there is a significant deviation from 1 (in the 0.91 to 0.94 range). One needs to look up Fresnel equations, the refractive index of water and so on to sort out this subject.
2. Clouds interfere massively with LWIR emissions. Actually this is common wisdom, as “clear nights are cold nights” and most people have made the according experience. Even the IPCC states clouds would block a 50W/m2 of SW radiation, retain a 30W/m2 of LWIR and thus have a net CRE (Cloud Radiative Effect) of -20W/m2 [1]. Of course those -50W/m2 of SW CRE are already included in the formula above (part of the 30% albedo), while the 30W/m2 of LW CRE are not.

For this reason we need to make some minor corrections to the GHE as presented above. Basically Earth receives some 240 W/m2 of solar radiation (= 0.7 x 342) and is meant to emit some 390 W/m2 at 288°K at the surface. Next to a temperature of 33°K, the GHE would thus amount to about 150W/m2 respectively (=390-240).

Since in reality the surface is not a perfect emitter, the 390W/m2 are totally inaccurate. In fact it is easy to call it “fake science” whenever someone claims this number, or an even higher one. Rather we need to reduce this figure by at least 20 W/m2 to allow for a realistic surface emissivity. Next we need to allow for the 30 W/m2 that clouds provide and thus our GHE shrinks from 150 W/m2 to a maximum of only 100 W/m2 (150 – 20 – 30).

For the sake of clarity we should rename the GHE to GHGE (greenhouse gas effect) as this is the pivotal question. How much do GHGs warm up the planet? It is important so see that GHGs were attributed with their specific role in a kind of “diagnosis of exclusion”. If it were not for GHGs, what would be the temperature of Earth? Any delta to the observed temperature can then be attributed to GHGs.

Such a “diagnosis of exclusion” is always prone to failure, be it in the medical field or anywhere else. Essentially a large number of variables need to be taken into account and the slightest mistake in the process, will necessarily cause a faulty outcome. For that reason it should be considered an approach of last resort, maybe helpful to treat a patient or solve a criminal case. As a starting point in physics it is a no-go, and as we can see, it delivers wrong results. But maybe that is the reason why it was chosen in the first place. Faulty approaches give a certain freedom of creativity.

GHGE being notoriously exaggerated

Still, we have not broken any barriers so far. Yes, the GHGE is notoriously being exaggerated and anyone who claims Earth would be 255°K cold if it were not for GHGs, is either incompetent, or simply lying. You cannot excuse such a claim as “simplification”, since exaggerating the GHGE by some 50% at least is certainly beyond negligible.

On the other side, this does not deny the global warming narrative at all. One might consider downgrading climate sensitivity a bit, which would only result in climate models better matching reality. Even then, this will only put things on a healthier and more appropriate basis, eventually supporting the theory of CO2 induced global warming.

Digging deeper

So far I have not introduced anything substantially new, but only pointed out to what is known and yet constantly forgotten. Especially the CRE in its quoted magnitude is pretty much an undisputed fact of science. Although I do not know exactly what the origins of these estimates were, experts like Veerabhadran Ramanathan already zeroed in on it in the 1970s. Satellite driven projects like ERBE or CERES later confirmed and specified those estimates.

The net CRE of -20W/m2 thus can be found in the IPCC reports, NASA gives detailed satellite data on it, and even “sceptics” like Richard Lindzen name and endorse it[2]. Such a solid agreement is not just good for my argumentation above, it is also great for the GHGE itself. In fact the negative CRE is pretty much a conditio sine qua non. If clouds were not cooling the planet, the scope for GHGs might become marginal.

There are indeed some issues with the CRE I need to talk about and things are not nearly as settled as I just suggested.

1. Whatever experts name a net CRE of about -20 W/m2, they refer to the same sources, which are ERBE and CERES satellite data.
2. This are not satellite data at all, but models which are getting fed with some satellite data, among others.
3. These models were largely developed by the same people who predicted the negative CRE in the first place. They might not even have a (significant) GHGE if the result would not turn out how it did.
4. A closer look on these model results show totally inconsistent outcomes over time. Regions with massively negative local CREs turned into having positive CREs, and vice verse.[3]
5. The only thing which really held constant over time was the overall negative CRE of the named magnitude. Of course, that is a precondition to the GHGE and cannot be put into question, if “climate science” wants to have an agenda.

There is yet another side to it. Obviously the net CRE is the sum SW and LW CREs, which can easily be formulated as CREsw + CRElw = CREnet. Since the CRElw is what is being forgotten so notoriously (as it diminishes the GHGE), we could assume there might be a motivated tendency to minimize the CRElw. Given the logical restrictions, this can be achieved by making the CREnet as negative, and the CREsw as small as possible. In other words, there is a trinity of issues with the CRE.

1. The -50 W/m2 of SW CRE. This figure is pretty low as compared conventional wisdom, according to which clouds make up for about 2/3s of the albedo, or almost -70W/m2.
2. The net CRE of some -20 W/m2. We are going to have a look into this hereafter.
3. The LW CRE of +30 W/m2 which is reducing the GHGE as shown above, but for some strange reason tends to be “forgotten”.

Putting things to the test

Since the net negative CRE is “confirmed” by nothing but models of dubious nature, since logic might suggest the opposite (to cut a long story short) and the whole GHGE theory totally depends on it, this question made a perfectly legit target for fact checking. It is the one pivotal question it all boils down to. Is the CRE negative indeed and how could we possibly put it to the test?

As on my previous works in forensic science it seemed mandatory to pass by any conventional approach subject to predictable restrictions. Rather you will have to go beyond the understanding of those who might conspire so that their possible defences turn futile. And of course this would require brute force of intellect, creativity and a bit of luck to find an appropriate leverage.

At least the latter turns out to be a friendly gift by the NOAA. Under the title “QCLCD ASCII Files” the NOAA provided all METAR data from US weather stations[4]. Regrettably they pulled these valuable data from their site soon after I downloaded it, and the alternative “Global-Hourly Files” is not quite working[5].

The METAR data, as far I understand, are taken at airports and contain, next to usual meteorologic data, cloud conditions originally meant to assist aircraft operating around these airports. The data are anything but perfect for our scope and are subject to a couple of restrictions. As a rule, cloud condition is only reported up to 12,000 ft, yet individual exceptions may occur. Then this cloud condition is reported in 5 different “flavours”, which are CLR, FEW, SCT, BKN and OVC, or combinations of which. For our purpose any combination will be reduced to the maximum cloud condition.

Even if this is not an ideal data pool, it meets a lot of necessary requirements. First it is a totally independent data source, which has never been meant to be used for climate research. Second these data have been collected by many people, who may have made individual mistakes in the process, but were certainly not systemically biased. Third these data are thus “democratic” in nature, not controlled by the bottle neck of a few experts. Eventually, and that is the most important point, we need no models here, but we can look straight onto the empiric evidence.

The Result

First I need to tell how such basic research gives you amazing insights otherwise not available anywhere.

You will not get to see what you like to, or expect to see, but what there is. Just like Christopher Columbus searching for India and finding America, you will have to take things for face value. Analyzing the data back and forth, using different perspectives, this was not a simple look up to confirm a certain expectation, but rather a process of continuous learning. Accordingly there are lots of results giving excellent insights into the nature of clouds, or their impacts on climate respectively.

This graph was taken from Harvard’s educational site [6] on the subject. Here, like in later iterations of the ERBE / CERES modelling, the northern Pacific is meant to be one of the areas with a massively negative CRE, which are of special interest to me.

Since the Aleutian islands are US territory, my NOAA data set included 10 stations located right there.

For the years 2016 and 2017, these stations report about 325,000 valid datasets, with almost 60% of which being overcast. So it is indeed a very cloudy region.

Once we resolve the cloudiness/temperature correlation by season, we find a very typical outcome. OVC skies are correlated with lower temperatures in spring and early summer, and with higher temperatures throughout the rest of the year. This pattern has been seen in all subsets featuring distinct seasons and is due to surface temperatures lagging behind solar intensity.

It is an analogy to the day/night cycle, where clouds hold down day time temperatures, while keeping nights relatively warm. It is about the relation of incoming SW to outgoing LW radiation. As clouds interfere with both radiative fluxes, their primary effect will be relative to which of these fluxes is stronger. In spring surface temperatures lag behind solar intensity, LW emissions will be relatively weak and thus clouds are cooling. In autumn this relation naturally reverses and then clouds are warming.

Note: These “tidal effects” are a direct representation of the LW CRE. Although it goes way beyond the scope of this article, such data are very helpful in assessing the actual magnitude of the LW CRE.

A huge surprise

Finally, if we add up the above results and look at the annual average (thus seasonally adjusted), we are in for a huge surprise (or possibly no more at this point). The correlation between clouds and temperature is strictly positive. The more clouds, the warmer it is, and that is in a region where models suggest a massively negative CRE.

Obviously something is totally wrong here.

I am confident the METAR data are correct, and I am certain my analysis is correct, since I have gone over it many times and the outcome is consistent with all the different perspectives. Instead, the ERBE/CERES models are wrong when compared to empiric evidence a.k.a. “reality”. That is not much of a surprise given a track record of inconsistent results.

And as much as the Bering Sea looks like “a perfect match” to fact check these models, the problems go far beyond the region. No matter where ever I looked, a negative CRE could not be found.

Just the tip of the ice berg

Yet this is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course you need to check for biases to see how much a correlation also means causation, and there are a few. Humidity, as much as it may serve as an indicator for the assumed GHG vapour, is indeed correlated with cloudiness (78% rel. humidity with CLR, 85% with OVC), but this delta is a) influenced by rain and b) too small to explain what we see.

More importantly, this analysis is all about low clouds up to 12.000 ft and it is undisputed the net CRE turns more positive the higher up clouds are. Then there is the subject of rain chill, which makes clouds look statistically colder than they are. Finally temperatures are sluggish relative to ever changing cloud conditions and we would certainly see a larger delta in temperatures if respective cloud conditions were permanent.

Systemic GHE failure

Unlike what I named before, this is not just a scratch on the GHE theory, but systemic failure. If clouds warm the planet indeed, and all the evidence points this way, the very foundation of the theory is getting annihilated. Not that GHGs might not play a certain role in Earth’s climate, but the size of the GHGE will be only a fraction of 33°K, and one that is yet to be precisely determined.

[1] 5th AR of the IPCC, page 580

[2] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/29/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-414/

[3] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-annual-mean-SW-LW-and-net-CRE-of-E55H20-E61H22-and-E63H23-to-CERES-40_fig2_335351575

[5] Documentation does not fit the data format, for some reason I am unable to locate temperature readings, the format itself is hard to read, and finally for some reason these data, station by station, do not correspond to those of the “QCLCD ASCII Files”

[6] https://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/ccf.html

### 38 responses to “Austrian Analyst: Things With Greenhouse Effect (GHE) Aren’t Adding Up…”Something Totally Wrong””

1. If You look at the Arctic temperatures You can find a curve that correspond to no GHG during winter and a lot during summer:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.php

2. Great article, but it’s even simpler than that:

The GHE is just geothermal flipped upside down.

http://phzoe.com/2019/11/11/why-up-is-not-down/

http://phzoe.com/2020/09/10/fouriers-accidental-confession/

http://phzoe.com/2019/12/06/measuring-geothermal-1/

http://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/

Correlation is not causation. Causation runs the other way, if anything:

Clouds don’t warm anything. It takes warmth to create them and prevent them from raining/snowing out. A cold night will generally have fewer clouds. It’s not the lack of clouds that makes it cold.

1. It’s not as simple as that – here in Oz a clear warm day, cloudless and 20 – 30 C… if the night is also cloud free then it will be bitter cold, maybe 3 – 8 C.

The day warms the ground (including man made structures, concerete, roads, etc) and the lack of the cloud blanket means that heat leave very quickly as night falls.

So, in this case, it IS the lack of clouds making it cold, not the other way around.

1. In Spain, in the summer (late June through to end of August), cloudless nights are warm nights. The temperatures tend to track humidity.

Of course, cloudy nights often follow cloudy days, or days where clouds set in, during the late afternoon, so of course, temperatures begin to drop significantly say around 18:00 hrs, whereas with cloudless skies, summer night temperatures stay warm to around 02:00 hrs, only then dropping off in earnest.

It is not uncommon, on cloudless days and cloudless nights, to see 33degC daytime temperatures and a temperature of around 30degC at midnight, and 28deg C at 02:00 hrs..

3. I too believe that non-precipitating clouds have an overall warming effect. For the moment I leave aside the fact that evaporation/precipitation cools the underlying surface and provides a major negative feedback on surface temperature.

Cloud formation is a thermodynamically reversible process, that is, if the conditions that led to formation of the cloud are differentially reversed, the cloud disappears. This means that the formation of the cloud has no effect on the energy balance at cloud level. Shortwave is reflected upward but longwave is reflected downward, net zero.

So why the temperature effect? It involves the radiation clear window. The absorption spectrum of water vapor has a region that is transparent to infrared under clear skies. But under a stable cloud deck window IR is absorbed by the cloud and reflected downward. Our experience is that under clear skies daytime temperatures are much higher and nighttime temperatures are much lower, because the radiation clear window is open all of the time.

So overall the earth is a better radiator under clear skies than under clouds, because with the fourth power exponent on the Stephen Boltzmann equation, the radiating power at the higher daytime surface temperature is greatly increased. As I mentioned, when it rains the situation changes and the cooling effect of the water cycle takes over.

4. Erich Schaffer,

A great piece of research!
I intuitively feel that your idea about clouds and CRE (Cloud Radiative Effect) are on the correct path. That summer clouds (overall) help to maintain warmer summer temperatures, and that during the winter they rarely keep the lower troposphere warmer, fits better with experience.

Now what effect does this have when this planet experiences low solar activity? More cloud initially? And if the low solar activity persists?

1. I do not care too much over “cloud feedback” for a couple of reasons. First the “GHE” as suggested above is much smaller than assumed, thus there is not so much room for (natural) climate variability, unless it is due to the sun. Second there is a significant number of observations inconsistent with current climate models (autonomous warming only starting in the 70s, no warming in the Antarctic, the lack of the tropical “hot spot”, diminishing pan evaporation despite increasing temperatures and declining cloud cover..). All these problems can be easily solved if you change certain assumptions, which have proven wrong anyhow. What if it is not about CO2, but artificial cirrus clouds???

1. E. Schaffer,
Thanks for the reply. More points for me to ponder. From everything else I’ve read, listened to and viewed, CO2’s ‘greenhouse’ effect is so slight that it is lost in the noise of natural variations. Professor Happer lays out much of this out in his many video lectures, and printed articles.

Nice that the ‘settled science’ is so riddled with holes

5. Now of course I am just a dumb Carpenter , but I think that the reason we are all of a sudden getting warmer so much faster , is due to the great increase in Solar Power . The heat that is emitted from these giant solar farms has to be heating the air on the Planet at an exponential rate . I have been next to a Solar Farm on a freezing cold New England day , and the heat that comes off these panels looks like asphalt on a 100 degree day in August . How can this NOT be heating our air on the Planet ? Plus , if you take all of the asphalt and black roofs on homes , and we are Super Heating The Air !!! I don’t know , just food for thought ????

6. Zoe, Back radiation at nightime has been measured both with clear skies and cloudy skies. The difference is enormous.

1. Measuring “back radiation” is a troubled thing. The problem is, most “back radiation” is re-absorbed within the atmosphere and if we added it all up, we would have thousands of W/m2 in total “back radiation”. Of solar radiation about 160W/m2 get absorbed at the surface, and about 80W/m2 within the atmosphere. We never made a difference over that. However, with “back radiation” we totally ignore the huge amounts getting absorbed in the atmosphere. I guess that is because the “back radiation” GHE model would instantly fall apart if we did..

1. Great point.
Care to add a comment here?:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/15/the-surface-energy-budget/

7. Gravity is an acceleration – work being done.

The earth heats itself. The mass of the earth has an intrinsic heat output, which is totally ignored and completely changes the GHG equations.

1. I go with the flow!

Ignoring the temperature of the Earth just under the surface is just plain wrong and all the surface balance calculation only prove that the temperature cannot change if the same amount of energy comes in and leaves the system.

The sun light is not needed to heat the inner Earth.

2. “Work is a measure of the energy expended in applying a force to move an object.”
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp05/Work_Force_times.html

NOTE – an “object” must be moved by the force for work to be done, otherwise you are creating energy, which is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy.

A very old freshman physics lab experiment involves placing buckshot in a long hard cardboard tube of known length, measuring the temperature of the shot, and then rotating the tube so the shot goes to the top and then falls the length of the tube. Repeat and count those repeats. Then measure the shot temperature. It will have risen. The number of times the shot falls is multiplied by the length of the tube to get the distance fallen, from which the amount of work done on the shot can be calculated. It should roughly agree with the increase in temperature of the shot when done.

The buckshot sitting in a gravitational field will not increase in temperature. You have to cause it to fall in the gravitational field, and that falling will raise the temperature, after which it will cool when left alone. The temperature will be less than (Ideally equal to, but it’s never 100%) the energy you used to manipulate the shot. It will never exceed it.

8. Clouds….. ah. Well. From this very blog, just last year

“NASA: We Can’t Model Clouds, So Climate Models Are 100 Times Less Accurate Than Needed For Projections

NASA has conceded that climate models lack the precision required to make climate projections due to the inability to accurately model clouds. ”

https://notrickszone.com/2019/08/29/nasa-we-cant-model-clouds-so-climate-models-are-100-times-less-accurate-than-needed-for-projections/

1. I know, but these problems start a lot earlier than they concede. When they say they “can’t model clouds” they mean cloud feedback to global warming. But if you take a closer look at these ERBE / CERES models you can easily find huge inconsistencies all over the place. For instance, in the ERBE map I present in the article, parts of the Antarctic sea are purple, indicating some -80W/m2 in CRE. This has been completely removed in later models, yet it is a blunder of epic dimenions.

The problem is, the whole Antarctic is receiving only little solar input, for obvious reasons. Accordingly clouds can not block a lot of solar radiation, so that the CREsw has to be relatively small. On the other side however, there is a huge delta in temperature with regard to the continent (extremely cold) and the surrounding water (relatively warm, if the water is not frozen). The CRElw thus needs to be small over the continent, but pretty large over the Antarctic sea. So the CREnet should rather be positive over the sea, and likely negative over the continent. The fact that they got this “inverted” (and later retracted, thus conceding they were wrong) just makes me scratch my head. You can not possibly be that incompetent on the very basics..

9. It is a clear night out there in the heavens. Mars is seen up in the sky at about two O’clock right now. The low temp is about 48 degrees F, nice weather on this day.

The daytime high temp is in the high 60s to the low 70s for the next ten days or so, the ground temp during the day is a steady 70 degrees plus during this late summer season.

The Sahara is holding plenty of heat and the tropical depressions are sending all that heat to the north on the North American continent right now. Just my humble opinion.

A cloudy night will be an insulating layer, the night time temps will be above freezing, clouds retain warmth.

The low temp over night was 29 degrees Fahrenheit, didn’t hurt the melons and you cover your tomatoes.

Almost to the autumnal equinox, then Fall, then winter weather.

Winter is coming.

10. Reminds me of Solveig’s song. The poor woman’s man is gone, but she’ll wait for him until next month. Or until spring. Or until next year. Or until the afterlife.

11. Some time back Pierre posted research from a Swiss researcher where the researcher did empirical experiments that showed that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas, or its effect is far weaker than expected.

This may be slightly off topic here, but this Swiss research may explain why with large variations in CO2 levels over the millenia temperature has been shown to be independent…

12. Mr. Schaffer, I am sorry but I believe you to be wrong.
The factor that you are missing is Water, not in the clouds, but in the Oceans.
No cloud means more High Energy Radiation entering and warming the water.
This is not reflected in the Air temperature while it is happening as it is going too deep. There will be a time lag.
There is a chart I would like you to look at and perhaps verify the data as I have been unable to do so due to NASA changing how it is stored.
The Chart is here
https://www.climate4you.com/
Under the section entitled climate + cloud it is Chart number 5. Tropical Cloud Cover versus Global Surface Air Temperature.

Here is a link directly to the Chart location

There is also an old body of work at Gust of hot air on Australian temperatures and cloud cover.
Unfortunately the links to the Charts has been lost, but I think it is possible to find them on the wayback mavhine.

http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/

13. “The greenhouse effect (GHE) is a well established theory which most people consider a solid fact ..”

Since when did it become a “theory?” So far as I have read it is still an unproven, if colossally belabored, hypothesis. Does anybody here speak thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and spectral line absorption-emission?

Are “most people” the 97%? That old ruse has been debunked twelve times from breakfast.

14. The greenhouse effect does not exist in the atmosphere because the atmosphere is an open system unlike the closed system of a real greenhouse which truly does trap heat because the glass is a poor conductor of heat, thus restricting heat from escaping. The CO2 in a real greenhouse has little effect on air temperature. Humidity does. And in the atmosphere, it is water in the atmosphere hat accounts for 95% of the atmospheric heat. In the atmosphere, convection is always at play.

It should also be noted that earth’s atmospheric heat is as it is because of earth’s atmospheric pressure. It would be significantly different were earth’s atmospheric pressure similar to that on Mars or to that on Venus.

16. Also read Stephen Wilde, 2015: “Can convection neutralize the effect of greenhouse gases?”
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/for-discussion-can-convection-neutralize-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/

17. If Out-Going radiation was NOT equal to the incoming radiation, then the Earth would be in a thermal run-away state and not Stable over billions of years.

18. […] Austrian Analyst: Things With Greenhouse Effect (GHE) Aren’t Adding Up…”Something … […]

19. METAR decode for clouds (UK met office)

FEW=’few’ (1-2 oktas), SCT=’Scattered’ (3-4 oktas), BKN=’Broken’ (5-7 oktas), OVC=’Overcast’, NSC=’No significant cloud’ (none below 5000ft and no TCU or CB). There are only two cloud types reported; TCU=towering cumulus and CB=cumulonimbus. VV///=’state of sky obscured’ (cloud base not discernable): Figures in lieu of ‘///’ give vertical visibility in hundreds of feet. Up to three, but occasionally more, cloud groups may be reported.
Cloud heights are given in feet above airfield height.
Cloud amounts are measured in oktas – one okta = one eighth of cloud cover.

20. I am amazed that you write: “On the other side there are some voices who “deny” the GHE with flatearther-like arguments, which seemingly only adds to the credibility of the theory”.
That would mean ISO and the whole aeronautical and space industry – they don’t mention the GHE in their documents at all. And yes, that includes NASA as well – the real NASA. I’ve summed up the position in an answer on Quora – which can be found at this link: https://qr.ae/pNrDvQ
“Scientists for climate change have many proofs. Do Anti climate change scientists have any proofs of their own?”

1. I can’t believe I didn’t see the quotes around those assertions which are obviously not yours.

What I said about them stands, but you seem to already know that.

21. “Scientists for climate change have many proofs.” – John Murphy

There is no “proof” of anything in science. There is only evidence for, or against something. As to human caused catastrophic “climate change,” there is no evidence for it, only hysterical drum beating. The very fact that the warmists have to alter data, and /or interpret it in odd and exaggerated ways, is evidence that they have an agenda alien to science.

“Do Anti climate change scientists have any proofs of their own?” – John Murphy

Again, no “proofs,” but plenty of data that is far more consistent with reality than anything warmists can produce. Pierre’s blog has for years ben presenting an abundance of that evidence.

1. The two quotes you use:
“Scientists for climate change have many proofs.” – John Murphy
“Do Anti climate change scientists have any proofs of their own?” – John Murphy

are not quotes by me – they are the titles of questions set by Quora users.

I am well aware that there are no proofs in science, only disproofs are possible.

But please read the link – especially the first. Again there is nothing there invented by me; all I have done is provide a comparison for two widely believed views. Make a choice – one is supported by Gore, Hansen, Mann and others – the other was held by Feynmann and Maxwell.

22. […] See previous article here. […]

23. […] See previous article here. […]

24. […] See previous article here. […]