1. About

Share this...

Last updated: March 11, 2020

I received an Associate Degree in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson. I currently live in Europe.

I’ve always been a skeptic of the hypothesis mankind is causing catastrophic global warming. Humans adding a few ppm of a trace gas into the atmosphere is not enough to  “drive” the climate. There other many, constantly changing natural factors at work. I’m not convinced of any one particular position, and so my non-alarmist view could change at any time. Only the tip of the iceberg is known about climate change. There’s so much that remains unknown.

Many extreme weather events back over the past centuries, and even the IPCC says there’s no data to support there’s been an increase. That’s one reason of many why I think what’s happening today is nothing unusual, hurricanes back then were just as bad or worse than they are today. The data show it.

In fact, if the media hadn’t hyped up the climate, most people wouldn’t have noticed much “climate change” at all. It’s mostly a media-politically manufactured hysteria.

I do think man’s activities are having a modest impact on the climate and environment, but more through land use and poor waste management practices. So far, however, the data show that the forces of nature (solar and oceanic cycles) totally overwhelm anything man does. Man probably has contributed a few tenths of a degree C warming over the past century, but that likely is more connected to the urban heat island effect.

Today’s environmental challenge, in my view is waste management.

Irresponsible use of capital resources

As Danish economist Prof. Bjorn Lomborg says, the focus of public policy and resources really needs to be on solving real problems that exist today like water pollution, poverty, mal-nutrition, urban squalor, education, tyranny and so on, and not become obsessed with computer-generated catastrophe scenarios that might or might not occur 100 years from now. Climate warming disaster predictions have been made for 30 years, a none have come true.

Worse, too many governments are using AGW as an excuse for their own policy debacles – claiming the problems are due to AGW, and not their own often ineptitude. Many other sectors, e.g. media, banking, insurance, academia, “environmental industry” also have been grossly abusing and hyping the science with the aim of spreading panic and profiting from it.

I’m not funded by anyone except by my own modest means. Donations are welcome.

Share this...

153 responses to “1. About”

  1. R J

    Popular Science is just reporting, but really. Conservative media makes people distrust scientists, and in turn, doubt the existence of climate change. Includes a link showing a research report funded by who, you guessed it we did with grants from the National Science Foundation.


    1. yonason

      @ R J 19. August 2013 at 8:25 PM

      “Conservative media makes people distrust scientists…”

      I’m a scientist, and I trust most Conservative media. What I distrust are activists pretending to be scientists who make outlandish claims that aren’t supported by the data. I also don’t trust leftist media which mostly ignore the truth and report mostly falsehoods. I submit that it is these charlatans who are the reason most rational people are rightly beginning to question activism masquerading as science.

      But let’s look more closely at your argument. It’s not really about the science, is it? Your real argument is that we shouldn’t trust conservative media. Why? Because you don’t want to have to defend the alarmist claims, because you can’t. You want those alarmist claims to remain unchallenged. But if challenging those claims reveals their falsehood, then what’s wrong with conservative media sounding the alarm? What’s wrong with people distrusting an untrustworthy enterprise? Just showing that people distrust something, is not proof they shouldn’t, which is the tacit assumption you want us to accept.

      In other words, your argument is obviously an attempt at subliminally arousing distrust of conservative media. Why? Because they are doing their job too effectively? But why shoot the messenger if you can show the message is false? The reason is that the message is true and you cannot disprove it. So, the only way to prevent people from getting the message that climate alarmism is fake, is to discredit the messenger – a variation on the ad hominem logical fallacy, btw.

      And so, since your argument hinges on a clearly false premise, I don’t see any reason to trust you, either.

  2. C Howard Diaz (Chuck)

    I am not a scientist, in fact I don have a degree in anything, but I did graduate high school in 1955 which is probably equal to a BS in something today. I have been fairly successful in life and have studied environmental issues since 1991.

    I have even talked to Richard Lidzen by phone about twenty years ago, and a few other highly respected in science. I’ a devout Constitutionalist and a pretty good businessman.

    I’ always had one complaint about the true scientists of the world not being willing to make short statements that would explain the truth about AGW, then GW and now Climate Change. I understand it’s difficult to make an honest a evaluation without talking for an hour or writing papers that only another scientist can understand.

    Using a theme of Steven Schneider, we must make short general statements that will allow people the ability to understand the truth even if we have to push the truth to an extreme. Scientists, who will usually never say anything is certain must start being certain when they know the other side is basically lieing.

    I am a talk show host in Tucson, AZ and I need short clips from creditable sources or at least some information that I can turn in to a PSA.

    Check my first PSA out at http://www.suanews.com/uncategorized/new-radio-psa-global-warming.html

    You might give me an opinion on the rest of the site, especially the info under the “Environment” tab.

    I really appreciate your site and what you are doing. I use it as a source for a lot of what I talk about.

  3. Casper

    Very bad news for AGW fans
    No hurricanes were reported over Atlantic last month!


  4. Oliver K. Manuel

    Thanks, Pierre, for having the courage to question consensus science, aka standard models of reality.

    Those who lived under the old USSR or those who have read George Orwell’s book, “1984”, are better able to grasp the danger of consensus science and standard models of reality:


    My graduate research mentor was a Japanese nuclear geo-chemist at the Imperial University of Tokyo during the Second World War. The conclusions from his career and my own offer insight into Climategate:


  5. Paul

    “I’ve always been a skeptic of the AGW hypothesis, and view myself as a mere spectator in the climate change debate and arena.” Pierre L. Gosselin
    That is understandable, life connections and conditions do have an effect on our baseline of thought. The culture we both grew up is still is in denial about the effect it has on world consumption. The centre of gravity on a different level to us both as a highly evolved and intelligent individuals. From your present altitude any deviation or evolution of values is not an easy transition. It generally causes chaos and is the most difficult option during our prime years, one of reasons people go through midlife crisis when they delay it. But that discussion is a digression.
    The stance on skepticism to the AGW hypothesis is a healthy one and growing through levels of thought is not easy. We all should be skeptical about all data, it is the weight of effort we give to it that needs balance or equilibrium.
    On this one point alone I challenge your focus and lens used in AGW hypothesis skepticism.

    Prove to yourself the culture you grew up in does not weigh everything around transnational corporations and their primary premise of exponential profit. In turn affects every part of the cultural meritocracy and has shaped your skepticism.

    Consider one other important fact surrounding this consumption culture. That within it there is an abhorrence of government spending on social capital e.g. Obama’s healthcare plans. This is not the only trust issue on social investment, currently just a topical one. I am certain you will agree, as it is very transparent.

    Just why is capital spent by government of US taxpayer money is disproportionately weighted to military spending. One clear reality is there is no serious questioning of this expenditure. Military capital spending is coming out of the same place as capital spent on e.g. AGW strategies.

    As I said my premise is transnational corporations have shaped the centre of gravity in the US. While crafting and projecting focus of discontent onto social capital investment. Conditioning people not to be skeptical about capital spending on the military block.

    The interior question for you is; Why am I spending a disproportionate amount of my skepticism on AGW hypothesis and not questioning the military spending by the US government on social capital?

    My question for my interior reading your focus is obvious; Are transnational corporations of benefit to your life condition or are you hopeful they will be?

    These are my first questions in hard critical thinking on any subject. As it is better to establish where the altitude is and focus on information with a clearly elevated worldview.

    We are here to evolve our understanding of our world and this includes our value system. Wishing you well with yours.

    My scan of your worldview is SDi orange, with an altitude of values in first tier.
    Can only recommend a personal scan on spending and here is a rudimentary starting point;

    1. DirkH

      a) The American Empire is more or less finished due to overconsumption
      b) Military spending is not the root cause. Expressed in percent of GDP/capita it is at its lowest level since end of WW 2.

      Why the overconsumption, the deficits? Simple: Triffin’s paradox. You can’t be the word reserve currency without exporting said currency; i.e. running a trade deficit, thereby hollowing out your own industries.

  6. C Howard Diaz

    I’ve read what you’ve written three times and still don’t get what you are trying to say.

    I will however ask you, what does being skeptical about the Man Made Global Warming theory have to do with what we free Americans decide to do with our money to maintain a military we decide we want?

    I would also ask, why do you bring transnational corporation, miltary and social spending questions to a site dedicated to distributing information for a better understanding of the science involved with true climate change?

    What’s your point?

    If you believe my response is off the mark, don’t post it.

  7. Jeremy Shiers

    Hi Pierre

    Having got my copy of The Neglected Sun I now know you translated it.

    I guess this means you have machine readable copies of the text.

    How would you feel about producing a unique list of all the papers referenced and unique list of the scientists. Should be easy enough to do especially on linux.

    It seems these lists would go a long way to answer those who prattle on about the worlds top scientists in IPCC (eg Polly Tonynbee and Ed Davey)



  8. Casper

    Hi Pierre,

    there is a nice summary of EEG costs for German customers written by Rudolf Kipp on science-skeptical.de. There will be a good article on increasing costs of the German Renewable Energy Act for a single German family. Finally, you’ve been living in Germany for years. I think you should get in touch with Mr Kipp.

    Article is here:


  9. C Howard Diaz

    I have just posted two documentary videos that explain the advantages of increased CO2 in our atmosphere. The one that everyone should watch is the one I posted as ” The War on CO2,” using the sequel of the original “The a Greening of Planet Earth.”
    They can both be seen at http://www.suanews.com.
    Check it out and maybe we can figure out how we could subtitle it in German and other languages so you and others could post it.
    Please let me know what you think.
    C Howard Diaz

  10. Richard Evans

    From Australia I have followed your blog for some time now, recognising it as an excellent guide to the European views on ‘climate change’. Today I was prompted to seek out a version of Die Kalte Sonne and was delighted to find an eBook version in English (The Neglected Sun) available in the Kobo library of titles. I look forward to reading, marking and inwardly digesting its contents.

  11. Pope Frank

    Hot or cold,please stop the heedless and indecent destruction of OUR one and only home,Planet Earth.

  12. Emmanuel

    Pierre, you have to read this “peer reviewed” publication by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, explaining how the “climate counter-movement” is funded by dark money.

    “The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight — often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians — but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes.”

    Again, this is not an op-ed in a left-leaning downtown weekly, it is not from The Onion, this is a peer-reviewed article in the December issue of Climate Change, a Springer publication.


  13. John Zentner

    Instead of talking about dark money, the media should be looking into the vast sums of money going to research into climate change studies. It is a common theme called “follow the money.” Those folks receiving the money have a strong incentive to keep the money flowing. Their objectivity and focus can obviously be skewed by their source of income. If they don’t report on the issues and slant that the government wants to hear, their funding will likely dry up. It is not that they are a bunch of hypocrites; they are just human. I am an engineer with a Masters degree and 42 years of experience. I have been trained to be objective. I have been skeptical of the impact of humans on climate from the beginning. It appears from all that I have read is that the sun is probably the biggest influence
    on temperature swings.

    Keep up the good work.

  14. PhilW

    Brilliant website – thanks for all your hard work. Please keep it up; without it we in UK would never hear of all these interesting and enlightening “items” from Germany.

  15. DirkH

    Pierre; as you and your wife are parents in Germany, you might be interested in this petition against the introduction of genderized education in Baden-Württembergs schools and kindergardens. Link to petition website is in the article.
    People outside Baden-Württemberg but within Germany can sign it.

  16. Graeme No.3

    where is the donate button or similar on your site?
    My ageing eyes see nought.

    Can you reply via my e-mail? (unless you wish to draw everyone’s attention to it).

  17. James Marusek

    Today I released the 7th edition of A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events. It is available at http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.htm

  18. Ove E. Lilljequist

    Hello Pierre – Why do I get the reply that your website is now closed down, when friends of mine send me links to you that work perfectly?

    Keep up the good work!

    Ove E. Lilljequist

  19. Tony Thomas

    Hi Pierre,
    Some novel stuff this week specifically about Australian climate fyi

    re mismatch between recent modelled forecasts for temp vs actuals


    re Joelle Gergis et al resurrect the hockey stick, bury the global medieval warming.

    Cheers Tony

  20. Viveka Bergstrom

    Hi Pierre, I just discovered your webpages today. I am glad to see this little spot of oxygene in a world full of believers of tons of things like climate and other. I am like you, curious and sceptical. My both parents were scientists so I foollow in their sceptical state of mind. By the way, one if them was an aerodynamic engineer so I also like meterology like you.

    By the way, is there information how the climate believers get their fundings? I have a bird that sings to me that the word “warming” or “global” or “melting icecaps” makes it easier to get funding for research from lots of organisations like EU or UN. It makes the wheels go around and keeps up myths.

    Keep going on!


  21. Dr Tim Ball-Climatologist

    Dear Pierre
    I want to let you know of my new book for your perusal.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’
    I have been silenced for 40 years by the MSM.
    Thank you.
    Historical Climatologist

    PS My website is

  22. Baart

    “In fact, if the media stopped hyping it up, most people wouldn’t even notice “climate change”.

    You can`t miss this unusual extra hot summer in Poland, Japan, Norway, Sweden.

    What you can tell about that ?

    1. Kurt in Switzerland


      2014 summer here has been particularly cold and wet.


      July avg. temp. about 0.9 deg. C < 1981-2010 norm. August hasn't been much better.

  23. Hans vw

    Pierre- I follow your blog for a while now and I must say I’m impressed by the by the amount and the quality of your posts. It will be thanks to the Internet and dedicated people like you that some day the truth will be revealed and this collective psychosis comes to and end. Until that day, keep up the good work.

  24. Rick W

    I have been compiling my own links to data sources then stumbled across this site. You have all the key sources neatly listed so I now only need one link.

    I will be a regular visitor to this site to watch the evolution of the climate change debate. There is one certainty – time will tell.

  25. Oliver K. Manuel

    Thank you, Pierre, for using your talents to benefit mankind. All of us on the third ball of dirt orbiting the Sun share a common interest in understanding the source of energy that sustains our lives:

    “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

  26. Aime'

    Mr Gosselin,

    A correspondent in Facebook requested me to consider your page https://notrickszone.com/2013/10/11/gross-scientific-negligence-ipcc-ignored-huge-body-of-peer-reviewed-literature-showing-suns-clear-impact/. Since you appear to be sincere, and potentially open to criticism and revising your ideas, I offer you my responses quoted from my response to him in Facebook, as follows.

    1. Consider “The Earth’s sole supplier of energy, the sun, and all its dynamism, in fact gets only a couple of pages in a 2200-page report, about 0.1%. That alone is a monumental scandal. It’s incompetence and negligence on the grandest of scales.” Actually solar effects were considered in detail in earlier IPCC reports in past decades so the question should be if anything new has been discovered about solar effects. More importantly, does the writer really expect us to believe that scientists are ignoring the sun in studying global warming? It’s incredible to me how non-scientists think they have a “gotcha!” insight into what scientists are doing. Much of it is we scientists’ fault for not communicating better and more often.

    2. The author of your “NoTricksZone” post, Pierre L. Gosselin, seems sincere, if not technically expert. He is careful to distinguish just research allegedly ignored by the IPCC that was published after their previous reports to this one… However he doesn’t seem to understand what is relevant e.g., “comprehensive climate model studies require a middle atmosphere as well as a coupled ocean to investigate and understand natural climate variability” —all climate scientists know this and there have been such coupled models for years now.
    3. E.g., “results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures”; this is actually an important technical issue, but the reference is not “Peer-Reviewed Literature” as the writer Gosselin claimed IPCC was ignoring. Probably Gosselin is not qualified to know that Geophysical Research Abstracts is not peer reviewed; then he should refrain from attributing “incompetence and negligence on the grandest of scales” to people who are technically qualified.



  27. Harold Faulkner

    The information below came from either books or downloaded from the Internet
    Please pass this information around to friends. Take Care, Harold

    People in the USA, are being told by the U.S. government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the earth has experienced in past years when there were far fewer people? Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900AD and 1350AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph at the bottom of this article shows the temperatures of the earth before Christ to 2040.

    In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.

    In approximately 983AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.

    When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.

    After the year 1200AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:


    The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982.

    “The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”

    The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e., “The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”
    Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at:


    Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

    At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

    CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

    CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

    If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!

    The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people cannot allow this to happen.

    A temperature graph normally goes here that shows the Earth’s Temperature from -2400 to guesses in +2400.

    If the Earth’s temperature graph is not shown above, you can see this temperature graph at the link:

  28. Annie

    Hello Pierre.

    I’ve been meaning to visit your site for some time; I am a frequent visitor to Jo Nova and Anthony Watts and have learnt much from them. I have one basic question; how do you pronounce your surname? Is it French or German; I would prefer to get it correctly.


    1. DirkH

      Gosselin has French roots, not German.

      1. DirkH

        ..and, pronounciation in Germany of Hugenot names (who escaped from France to Prussia back in the day) varies: “Brunotte” for instance is spoken in a German way with an audible “e” at the end; “de Maizière” is still spoken in the French way in Germany, as it would sound too silly when applying German phonetic rules.

  29. Annie

    I rather thought it had French origins but have no clue as to media pronunciation as I have never heard of Kate G!

    I look forward to reading more on your site.

    All best wishes from another former RC.

  30. news

    The bounty on each rat is directly linked to how difficult they are to kill, which in turn is connected to the Security Status of the
    system they are located in. However, the thing to remember here
    is that you need to first take a backup before employing any extreme measures.
    In favor of the game was the length and depth of the
    storyline, the deep notes system that recorded
    the information gleaned during play and the dark dystopian setting
    that had folks traipsing around a garish Tokyo, brooding New York and various secret societies
    and institutes trying to find out what UNATCO is really up to.

  31. Bob Riinehart

    You, Pierre L. Gosselin, have an Associate Degree (2 year) in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering. You are not a climatologist. You do not even have an advanced degree in anything. Why are you even meddling in an area you know little about? (I doubt if you’ll print this. Goody-goody for you if you do.)

  32. Bob Riinehart

    You, Pierre L. Gosselin, have an Associate Degree (2 year) in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering. You are not a climatologist. You do not even have an advanced degree in anything. Why are you meddling in an area you know little about? (I doubt if you’ll print this. Goody-goody for you if you do.)

    1. Colorado Wellington

      Pierre, I could be wrong but I seem to remember Bob Riinehart protesting the climate meddling of railroad engineer and soft porn novel writer Rajendra Pachauri, as the head of UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I think Bob was incensed that Pachauri was hired to direct an area he knew so little about.

      I can’t find the link right now but I’m sure Bob saved it. He’ll be back soon to post it and set you straight.

  33. Allan MacRae
  34. http://weddingonmull.com/wp-content/css/Marlboro-1000.html
  35. Frans Kwaad

    Dear Pierre,

    Just to let you know that the correct URL of my site on “Sea level change in the Middle Ages and the Little Ice Age” is:
    And it is in English.

    Best regards,

    Frans Kwaad

  36. lasertest

    This post will help the internet users for setting up new website or even a blog
    from start to end.

  37. Buddy

    If the case goes to court, the parties surrender control to
    a judge, and the cost will be much higher. You will be glad to know that you have
    recourse; this is the United States, where everyone has rights.
    In such a case, it is more reasonable to demand the person responsible for the accident
    to pay off the bills.

  38. http://4989.co/wp-content/img/Cigarettes-22.html

    I’d like to find out more? I’d want to find out more details About Pierre Gosselin .
    http://4989.co/wp-content/img/Cigarettes-22.html http://4989.co/wp-content/img/Cigarettes-22.html

  39. kiluhewa.weebly.com

    It’s impressive that you are getting thoughts from this
    piece of writing as well as from our dialogue made at this place.

  40. Dan Pangburn

    After your response to my twitter comment on politics I finally got motivated to find out more about you. Not too surprising, I discovered we are both Mechanical Engineers and our efforts in climate change are not funded. My excuse is curiosity which is not unlike your “fun, learning”. I am currently retired in Phoenix.

    Thanks for posting my comments on your blog.

    I am currently working on an update/superseding blog to http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com exploiting Eschenbach’s essay on precipitable water.at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/25/precipitable-water . My perception is that increased water vapor is adding warming which is compensating for the cooling expected from declining sunspot numbers and net declining ocean surface temperatures. I’m getting an R2 of 0.98 1895-2015. The bad news is the migration to fossil fuels high in hydrogen (such as methane) in place of carbon (coal) which will make matters worse. The worse would be increased flooding. It’s still a bit early, could be including a lot of random scatter. I plan to go public anyway and then update it as more info appears.

    My HTML skills are nonexistent but I have some EXCEL files that might interest you. If you are interested, my email is pangburndan at gmail.com

    Keep up the good work,

    Dan Pangburn

  41. Zelma

    Some really great info, Sword lily I noticed this.

  42. Anonymous

    Hello, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues.

    When I look at your blog site in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping.

    I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, terrific blog!

  43. cast nets

    Wow, awesome blog format! How long have you ever been running
    a blog for? you make running a blog look easy.
    The total glance of your website is magnificent, let alone the content material!

  44. emergency dentist

    This information is worth everyone’s attention. Where can I find out more?

  45. tom0mason

    I don’t know where else on your blog to put this but you and others may like to know …

    For the avid readers out there I’ve stumbled upon a strange site (and sight) with some really good links…
    100 Legal Sites to Download FREE eBooks and Literature from

    and for all you science and computer types there’s

  46. Ferdinand Engelbeen


    I have finished my response to the article by Dr. Hermann Harde about the influence of humans on the CO2 increase.
    It is now sent to him as an open letter as I like to discuss it openly. If you are interested, please give me some email address where to send it, you have mine…

    1. Kenneth Richard


      I see that you ultimately decided to ignore my questions again about the total lack of correlation for the 16 ppmv/K conceptualization for the Holocene that you believe in as fundamental to your positions, probably because you would prefer to not have to bother with contradictory evidence.

      The CO2 record for the Holocene shows that although temperatures declined by multiple degrees C after about 8,000 years before present, including through modern times, the CO2 concentration rose rather than fell, as shown here:


      You also made the claim that the 6 ppm drop in CO2 during the 1600s was caused by a drop in temperature, but then, contradicting yourself, you claimed that the rise in CO2 over the last 8,000 years was not caused by temperature changes, but by humans (with some human causation during the Holocene, but then nearly 100% since the year 1882, when CO2 levels were 290 ppm). So it is apparently your claim that CO2 only changes via temperature variations when temperatures cool, but when temperatures warm, humans did it. This is not remotely consistent.

      I have challenged you on this multiple times, and each time you fail to specifically respond.

      1. Ferdinand Engelbeen


        I have repeatedly sent the references that several scientists think that the increase of CO2 and CH4 in the late Holocene is caused by humans, because of the transition of hunting-gathering towards agriculture and cattle herding for the increasing population density.

        These figures are not included in the industrial era, where fossil fuel use kicked off around 1850 with the use of coal i.s.o. wood for steam engines and blast furnaces. So the part of the human caused emissions as result of land use changes (clear cutting / burning of forests, CH4 emissions from rice culture, cattle herding,…) are additional to what I used as base for the industrial emissions.

        You are bickering about +/- 10 ppmv over a period where temperature wasn’t measured and we have to rely on proxies, while in recent years the exact measured CO2 increase is 90 ppmv and temperature, including tampering, increased less than 1 K, good for about 10 ppmv extra in the atmosphere, that is all.

        If you have a reliable source which can explain the CO2 increase from natural causes without any violation of any observation and at the same time explain where human emissions at twice the increase in the atmosphere get, I am all ear.
        Hermann Harde’s work doesn’t apply, as it violates a few physical laws…

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Ferdinand Engelbeen: “Kenneth, You are simply hopeless.”

          Yes, it is quite apparent that you don’t like it when someone challenges you by pointing out how flagrantly contradictory your beliefs are. A real skeptic would welcome challenges to his positions, or when someone points out the contradictions/inconsistencies in a particular conceptualization he espouses You, on the other hand, prefer to dismiss challenges and insist your are certainly right.

          You claim that the geological record supports the 16 ppmv/K conceptualization, and that this includes the narrow-resolution 6 ppm drop in CO2 during the 1600s, which you say was caused by a temperature change. But then you turn around and say the temperature record is unreliable, that I’m only “bickering” about a “+/- 10 ppmv” difference…when I point out how the rest of the Holocene doesn’t support your position. So when it suits your purposes, a narrow-resolution 6 ppm change and the non-instrumental temperature record is reliable and accurate. When it doesn’t suit your purposes, a 20 to 50 ppm change during the Holocene and a wrong sign change in temperature of multiple degrees are immaterial and worthy of dismissal.

          Again, we’re talking about a 50 ppm change (increase) between 8,000 ka and 1910, when temperature declined by 3 K (or more). The 16 ppmv/K conceptualization you claim is accurate would have it rising by 3 K. That’s a discrepancy of 6 K that you are here trying to dismiss as immaterial.

          This is what you wrote:

          Ferdinand Engelbeen:

          I said that the CO2 drop was caused by the temperature drop.”

          This quote is what I’m talking about. You claim the 6 ppm drop in CO2 during the 1600s was caused by a temperature change. But then you claim that the 50 ppm change between 8 ka and 1910 was not caused by temperature. So short-term/small-resolution CO2 changes are caused by temperature changes when it suits your purposes, and they are not caused by temperature when it doesn’t suit your purposes.

          You wrongly assume that I fully agree that the Hermann Harde version of the “truth” is accurate. I don’t. As I have written multiple times, I am agnostic on this subject. I fully accept that it could be possible that most of the increase in CO2 concentration is due to anthropogenic activity. However, I am not convinced, as there are giant holes in the position you are stumping for, including the gross inconsistency with the geological record, as well as the conceptualization that there is a “natural steady state” for CO2 of 290 ppm, which is also inconsistent with the geological record.

          Your certainty is unbecoming of a true skeptic. How about a little more humility and expressing a little less certitude that you’ve got this all figured out?

          1. Ferdinand Engelbeen


            You simply don’t understand what I wrote, that is why I didn’t respond anymore, as that is a waste of time.

            1. The 16 ppmv/K is rock solid, established over 200 years ago by Henry and confirmed by over 3 million seawater samples.
            2. The 16 ppmv/K is for the composition of the oceans and atmosphere over the past few million years, not for geological periods with extreme differences in CO2/minerals/pH of the oceans.
            3. The 16 ppmv/K is the setpoint, that is what the natural equilibrium strives to reach, not what it is at any moment of the day or the millennium.
            4. It takes a lot of time to reach that equilibrium: 5000 years from an ice age to an interglacial, with a change of 0.02 ppmv/year.
            5. That means that in shorter periods of time CO2 can’t follow short term changes in temperature or short term changes in CO2 release (whatever the source) and therefore the change in the atmosphere is different from the “target” 16 ppmv/K
            6. Any source (volcanoes, humans) that adds more than 0.02 ppmv/year to the atmosphere will increase the CO2 levels, as the response of nature is not fast enough to remove the extra CO2 in the same year as added.
            7. That is the case for the period 8000 – 165 years ago, where humans probably added small amounts of CO2 from agriculture and cattle herding.
            8. The response to temperature changes still is faster than to CO2 injection changes, that is why you still see a dip of ~8 ppmv in the LIA, within slightly increasing CO2 levels.
            9. That is the case for the industrial revolution since about 165 years ago, when humans started to use increasing quantities of fossil fuels, which emissions can’t be removed by nature in the same year as injected.

            I have no problem at all for real scientific challenges with what I write (as is the case with Bart). The problem I have with your objections is that you don’t understand the basic principles of a simple process like the solubility of CO2 in seawater, which is never instantaneous but needs lots of time to equilibrate, while the disturbances are faster than what nature can cope with.

            Before you start quibbling about point 8.:

            The 16 ppmv/K is for the ocean surface. That is in fast equilibrium with the atmosphere (seasonal CO2 follows ocean surface T in a few months).
            A change in temperature at the surface needs ~1000 years to get a change in the deep oceans and ~5000 years to fully equilibrate. That is why CO2 over ice ages changes so slow.

            Over centuries, like between the MWP and LIA (and back), the CO2 change in the atmosphere is the response to a mix of ocean surface and deep ocean temperatures.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “The 16 ppmv/K is rock solid, established over 200 years ago by Henry and confirmed by over 3 million seawater samples.”

            And yet despite restating this again and again and again, 16 ppmv/K conceptualization/model does not work for the last 10,000 years. You’ve insisted that it does work, as exemplified by the 6 ppm decline during the 1600s that corresponded to an -0.8 K drop in temperature. You even said that the -6 ppm CO2 change was caused by this -0.8 K drop in temperature (even though you deny this cause-effect works in the other direction. And then, further contradicting yourself, you dismiss the fact that temperatures declined by 2 to 3 K for 8,000 years while CO2 concentrations rose by 50 ppm, which is the exact opposite of what the 16 ppmv/K conceptualization/model says should happen (temperatures should have risen by 3 K). In other words, when the observations don’t fit the model, ignore the observations and restate that the model is correct anyway. That’s what you’ve done.

            “The 16 ppmv/K is for the composition of the oceans and atmosphere over the past few million years, not for geological periods with extreme differences in CO2/minerals/pH of the oceans.”

            If you now claim that 16 ppmv/K applies to millions-of-years periods, then why did you insist that the 16 ppmv/K conceptualization does work for the Holocene, and in fact also works for centennial-scale periods, such as the 6 ppm drop in CO2 during the 1600s that you claim was caused by the temperature decline during that short period of time? If it doesn’t work for the Holocene at all, then why have you continually insisted that it does, contradicting yourself?

            “The 16 ppmv/K is the setpoint, that is what the natural equilibrium strives to reach, not what it is at any moment of the day or the millennium.”

            This has become amusing now. So you’re saying that because the 16 ppmv/K conceptualization failed miserably at representing the last 10,000 years, therefore you’re now reduced to saying that, well, it should have worked, that CO2 “strives to reach” the expectation of models, and therefore this is enough to verify the concept as “truth” anyway. How is this any different than restating one’s religious beliefs? It isn’t.

            “It takes a lot of time to reach that equilibrium: 5000 years from an ice age to an interglacial, with a change of 0.02 ppmv/year.”

            And yet, contradicting yourself again, you have said that the 6 ppm drop in CO2 was directly caused by the decadal/centennial-scale drop in temperatures (-0.8 K) during the 1600s (Maunder). When one post facto explanation fails, try another, right?

            “That means that in shorter periods of time CO2 can’t follow short term changes in temperature or short term changes in CO2 release”

            So if it “can’t” follow short term changes in temperature, why did you say the 6 ppm drop in CO2 during the 1600s was caused by the short term drop in temperature (-0.8 K)? Do you really not realize how self-contradictory your attempts to explain the past are?

            “Any source (volcanoes, humans) that adds more than 0.02 ppmv/year to the atmosphere will increase the CO2 levels, as the response of nature is not fast enough to remove the extra CO2 in the same year as added.”

            Termites emit twice as much CO2 as humans do per year. And there are more termites now than there were in the 1970s due to the large global-scale increase in biomass/greening since the 1980s. How can we be certain that termites haven’t out-emitted us more than we’ve out-emitted them? We can’t be certain. This is guesswork. I’m OK with uncertainty. You aren’t, obviously.

            “That is the case for the period 8000 – 165 years ago, where humans probably added small amounts of CO2 from agriculture and cattle herding.”

            Again with the claim that the Holocene increase in CO2 since 8,000 ka was caused by humans, and yet you turn around and say that the 6 ppm drop in CO2 was caused by temperature. So, according to you, temperature causes CO2 changes only when the temperatures are cooling. When temperatures are warming, humans cause the increase in CO2, and the temperatures do not. Is there any consistency here?

            “The response to temperature changes still is faster than to CO2 injection changes, that is why you still see a dip of ~8 ppmv in the LIA, within slightly increasing CO2 levels.”

            This is, once again, nothing more than a rather weak attempt to provide an after-the-fact explanation for why the 16 ppmv/K conceptualization fails miserably for the Holocene. The temperature change since 1998 has been less than 0.1 K. The CO2 change since 1998 has been almost 40 ppm. There was no temperature change between 1850 and 1930 (according to NASA). There was a 30 ppm increase in CO2 during that time. So as long as you cherry pick your results, you can “explain away” anything to fit your presuppositions. Again, that’s exactly what you’ve done.

            “That is the case for the industrial revolution since about 165 years ago, when humans started to use increasing quantities of fossil fuels, which emissions can’t be removed by nature in the same year as injected.”

            But yet this explanation doesn’t fit with the observation that CO2 concentrations rose while human emissions stayed flat…


  47. Peter Ravenscroft

    G’day Pierre,

    Very impressed with your work, thanks on behalf of one and all.
    I have likewise been at this lot for over a decade, mostly from the angle of maps and geomagnetics, which I am fairly sure is the main driver of the regional changes we are seeing.

    My background so you know the biases is geology oceanography and social anthropology, mainly comparative religion, so I know a new one when I see it, even though personally a devout atheist. I have done 40 different ways of earning a buck as part of the anthrop field work, but mainly geology and am a lifelong radical green, once an FOE director in South Africa. Denise and I have our own rainforest we have been restoring for 30 years (Google ravenswoodwildlifesanctuary for the incriminating evidence, if interested, Denise is the photographer , anti war, anti the new global aparthate (my preferred spelling) and am now having a go at reviving the old 17th century English leveller and digger movement. So, a scatterbrain. But I have done a 3,000 page report, all self-funded, on the causes of climate change. The Heat is from Hell”Gratis, public domain, and I think it can be emailed. Or, its 70-page summary can be, if you or anyone wants it. So far, zero takers. It grades from a one word report geomagnetics” to others, for all readers from bright kids to not-so-bright-now climatology profs. “So far zero takers. Geomag is very obscure, academia does not do it well or use it. The only way in is via the military, which tries idiotically to blanket it in secrecy – or via mining exploration. I did the latter, and still do. Am totally opposed to wasting valuable fossil fuels by burning them, and pro geothermal, as we have the technology to go as deep as we like and very cheaply by combining nineteenth century cable tool drilling, reverse circulation chip return, and multiple drill power heads, diamond, plasma, whatever. The heat is tidal, huge molten metal ocean getting warmed daily, and so will go forever and is everywhere under foot, we are just a bit, this century. As you have noticed.

    From this climate game I have found – stumbled on – that we can predict el Ninos and la Ninas with exact precision, as far out as we like, since the earth-moon-sun barycentre’s heat-generating track, sideways and vertical is neatly marked by solar and lunar eclipses. Ditto for Indian Monsoon failures. When the barycentre goes below India, just before the SW monsoon, it fails.
    Also that hot rocks put out hot water that spreads on the sea surface, where the NOAA (polar-orbiting military in reality ssta satellites see it to perfection. That gives us about half of all serious earthquakes, weeks to months to a year in advance. But, try telling seismologists that rocks get hot before they squeal? They go peer-review stone deaf. Half the time the rocks heat but the quake does not happen, plus where the sea is hot all the time, it is not that easy to spot the anomalies. Fishtrack.com now is a help, as where they think they can kill lots of large fish, they use the NOAA data but at a far better resolution.
    So, for me, all the confusion has been of great value. Story of all science, I guess. Have you noticed, GISS uses zero stations from the Greenland icecap itself, two from the Antarctic one, zero from Tibet, and I think just five from the Amazon Basin. So, how can we guess how fast the icecaps will melt and the sea rise?

    Get back you or your readers if so minded. Email: p.s.ravenscroft@gmail.com Phone: 617 3289 4470 (Australia)

    Regards anyway.

    Peter Ravenscroft 24 March 2017
    Ravenswood, Closeburn, Queensland, Oz.

  48. Kevin Hearle

    Hi have you seen this it blows IPCC CO2 induced GW away

    New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model Ned Nikolov* and Karl Zeller Full paper available here

  49. Jim Smith

    Have you ever researched or come across any analysis that proves climate change is not affected by the earth’s core when considering 1) it is estimated (because no one knows for sure) to be 10000 degrees F (the same temperature as the sun’s surface) 2) it is “on” continuously transferring heat spherically to the earth’s surface unaffected by the earth’s orbit, diurnal changes, atmosphere or cloud cover 3) the bottom of the majority of the oceans (which cover 71% of the earth) are closest to the earth’s core, are the main source of atmospheric temperature changes and have never been viewed let alone explored or analyzed for heat transfer 4) the only directly observable view we have of the earth’s core is from the deepest hole drilled which is about 0.2% the distance to the earth’s center and 5) seismic measurements (the main window we have to the earth’s interior) are unable to penetrate the earth’s core, are affected by the temperature and density of subterranean materials and are therefore subject to diverse interpretations?

    Note the deepest hole drilled into the earth’s crust is the Kola borehole (7.6 miles). Let’s assume this borehole accurately defines the entire surface of earth’s properties down to 7.6 miles and by inference also tells us everything we need to know about the rest of the earth’s properties that lie below it. On an analogous, 2 dimensional scale that would be the equivalent of totally exploring a landmass the size of India and claiming we now know everything there is to know about the rest of the earth’s surface. Note that if the India sized landmass we totally explored was somewhere inside Russia, we would not know the earth had any oceans.

    The bottom line is whatever is going on in the earth’s core may or may not be the cause of any perceived climate change – but considering the lack of observability into how the core operates, in my mind there is reasonable doubt with the hypothesis that “the change” is due solely to a trace gas (CO2) that is 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere and partially consumed to sustain plant life.

  50. aleks

    About the global warming conception. It seems to me, that in order to debunk this conception, it’s necessary to check the correctness of the idea about ability of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” to increase the atmosphere temperature.
    Let me recall shortly the main principles of the greenhouse effect theory. The Sun radiation with the maximum intensity about wavelength 500 nm (visible light) reaches the Earth’s surface and reflects converting to radiation with less energy (infrared). The molecules of N2 and O2 transmit IR-radiation, while CO2 and H2O-vapor absorb it. Such absorption prevents scattering of heat from the Earth’s surface, and, hence, leads to an increase of temperature.
    The main objections to this model are the following. Absorption of IR-radiation changes vibrational energy of a molecule, while the temperature of the gas is directly related to kinetic energy, i.e. to mass and velocity of a molecule (E = mv2/2). According to the Boltzmann equation E = kT, there is no difference between CO2 and N2 by their ability to absorb heat: this ability depends on heat capacity only. In the spectrum of solar radiation are all possible wavelengths including the large IR-region. So, the molecules of “greenhouse gases” can absorb incident radiation energy before it is reflected from earth surface. Moreover, the molecules of CO2 and H2O formed in the process of burning hydrocarbon fuel have absorbed heat (IR-radiation) before they meet sun rays.
    It’s also important that this model still has no direct experimental evidence. The experiment on “absorption of heat from a body at 15o by appropriate quantities CO2 and H2O” was proposed in 1896 by S.Arrhenius who is recognized as the founder of the greenhouse effect theory. Over the past 120 years, such experiment has not been conducted. Instead, climatologists operated on the values of radiative forcing which are determined for each substance not by separating it from all the co-factors, but on the basis of calculations that don’t have a reliable theoretical basis.
    May be, the theory of greenhouse effect deserves more detailed consideration.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy