Subject: RE: Neil Howell's birthday - Climate change summaries|
From: "Bill Howell. Hussar. Alberta. Canada" <>
Date: Sun, 5 May 2019 20:11:05 -0600
Russ & Liz - Once again, thank-you very much for coming to my father's birthday! It was awesome to see you both again, and my father rarely sees people he know well from the past.
Russ - You asked about "climate change summaries", to get a handle on the current state of the science. My easiest & best response (I'm not kidding!) : Don't waste your time going through any of the climate stuff, just ignore it!
Mr. Bill Howell
P.O. Box 299, Hussar, Alberta, T0J1S0
member - International Neural Network Society (INNS), IEEE Computational Intelligence Society (IEEE-CIS),
IJCNN2019 Budapest, Authors' Guide, Sponsors & Exhibits Chair, https://www.ijcnn.org/organizing-committee
WCCI2020 Glasgow, Publicity Chair mass emails, http://wcci2020.org/
Retired: Science Research Manager (SE-REM-01) at Natural Resources Canada, CanmetMINING, Ottawa
(1) "turbic thinking" - for a summary, see my website (abstract here) :
31Mar2015 Howell Lies, Damned Lies, and Scientists - Summary & context This document is a rush job to clarify a context for my dark and foreboding "Principle of Generality", that relates to the catastrophic failure of [rational, logical, scientific] thinking of essentially all government and academic scientists in high-profile areas of high public interest. This is characterised by [dishonest, dysfunctional, delinquent, hypocritical, back-stabbing, cowardly] * [thinking, behaviours] that one think should be clear to all, but perhaps not to religious disciples of science fashions that have progressed through the cult stage to become full-fledged religions. Furthermore, this situation seems to be the rule rather than the exception, and persists for [years, decades, centuries, millenia].
I don't believe this concept, nor do I believe that mainstream scientific consensus lives up to its claimed process and standards in many high-profile areas of interest to the public. I do like science and scientists, so this is a somewhat unsuccessful attempt to explain and reconcile my thinking on the matter. (posted 01Apr2015)
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Thanks, Russ. I have been saying since ~2005-2006 that, several decades from now, we will find climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 will likely be less than 0.1 Celsius, and possibly less than 0.01 Celsius. In any case, it is clear to me that "mainstream" scientists have exaggerated the effect of CO2 by a FACTOR of ?20?, and diminished the effect of [astronomy, Earth] climate drivers and "reservoirs" by a factor of ?20-50?. (I forget the ratios now, but they are > an order of magnitude)
The climate models are a total joke, and most "Energy Balance" approaches seem screwed to me as well, as they seem to be adept at ignoring much energy. A great example is the famous "insignificant total solar irradiance" variations. They shut their eyes to components of the irradiance (very important from transfer, and very important to what's already been taken out by GHGs, clouds, etc etc). But the most ghostly omission are electromagnetic omissions - something that plagues science since the mid-1800s. For example, the first explanation of the sunspot cycle (11 year Schwabe half-cycle) was planetary motions. Every 10 years or so since the mid-1800s, people rediscover that, only to be crushed by "proofs" that planets cannot have that "sea-tide" effect. Neat, but their physics omits much physics ("friends" of mine, notably Paul Charbonneau (he wouldn't remember me) of the Uof Montreal, and Cornielius de Jager (I happen to be reading his papers today!, in order to respond to an email of his), have done so at least once each. By the way, de Jager's "poloidal, torroidal" model of solar activity was the core concept for Steve Yaskell's book "Grand Phases on the Sun". Yaskell borrowed history graphs from Dad and I (the rise and fall of civilisations over 7,500 years), and acknowledges us as the "two fools who rushed in".
Both McKitrick (who spoke in Calgary once or twice of more at https://friendsofscience.org/ dinners) and Judith Curry have been brave outspoken critics of climate science and policy for years. While I respect his work and bravery, I don't pay ANY attention to McKitrick's economic analysis. Why should I? If the science is garbage, there is no reason to waste my time on [economics, policy].
I have [heard, read] Curry's stuff over the last decade or two, but I don't pay much attention to her either, even though she is an influential scientist. The reason is because I haven't seen any "heavy duty" concepts from her, mostly repetitions of what I have seen many times before by others. I could be dead wrong about this now, but my focus is [neural networks, fundamental theoretical physics], so I haven't checked for several years, and I don't check thousands of scientists regularly to see if they've done something. If so, it will be broadcast by contacts and news sources.
When are you around this summer? Dad has a recurrence of prostate cancer (prostate removed 24 years ago), and it's malignant. We meet with the doctors 25Jun2017 about next steps, but he's too weak for aggressive treatments, so it's a question of time.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/ross-mckitrick-all-those-warming-climate-predictions-suddenly-have-a-big-new-problem/wcm/e9412e2e-9004-4ffa-bf74-cfa82283851c Sent from my iPhone -------- Forwarded Message --------
Aliaksandrovich Matsiaska - I really apologise for the delay of this email. Things are uncomfortably busy right now and will be MUCH worse next week. But as fate would have it, the delay is fortuitous because of a couple of events : a Ukrainian festival last Sunday that I visited for an hour to discuss history with an old couple, and a meeting last Thursday night of the "Friends of Science". More about those later, as I occasionally mix together themes of history and climate.
My definition of the "standard climate CO2 dogma" : "Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 is the primary driver of climate since ~1850"
While the phrasing and claims have morphed and mutated over the years, this is really the crux of what essentially all government and academic scientists have claimed as the undeniable truth at some point in time or another. This is what I hold them accountable for, as should society at large. It is possible that in the end, this theme will prove to be correct. I think the chances of that are extremely small. But even if that proves to be correct, it will in no way exonerate almost the entire population of scientists for pushing work replete with fraud and incompetence from data through public policy, actions, and repressions.
My perspective is that this isn't a problem with climate science alone. Based on my experiences with [fundamental theoretical physics, Earth sciences (geology emphasis), astronomy, economics, psychology, etc etc], this is the norm rather than the exception.
I was going to include a series of links to "hobby-work" that I have done on history and climate-related issues, but I've run out of time, and if I try to do that this email will never get out.
Thanks for your correction : Eugene Bagashov was the presenter of "Turning The Magnetic Key <' at the [OTF2017] conference - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUotufVwvlQ. He referred to ?Belarusan? scientist Pavel Mantashyan (1951-2016), whose theories on the origins of vorticity in magnetic fields. This seems strange to me, as I was thinking of the Lorentz force, which is not perhaps normally thought of in terms of vorticity, but does relate to it. However, that issue is a key fundamental outcome of the theory of physics that I have been looking at (all of my work stopped last summer for lack of time) arising from an approach by Bill Lucas to correct for what he feels is the [incomplete, incoherent, incorrect] basis and later formulations of Maxwell's theories of electrodynamics, and the problematic lack of a problematic axiomatic approach (as per Newton) of much of modern science.
Thanks also for the maps and history (eg Novogrudok)! I am so ignorant about that area.
As for the Ukrainians - the elderly couple that I met re-iterated the consensus view (strongly supported by my many farmer-rancher friends here) that failure of agriculture and Holomodore of the early-mid 1930's resulted from the collectivisation of farms, rather than the official story of a severe drought. But are BOTH ideas correct? - that is my interest. Also, it seems to me that Jeurgen Schmidhuber wrote that one can trace back the origins of Deep Learning to Ukrainian ?Ivenenkov? in the early 1960s.
Volunteer firefighter, 2016-2018 President Hussar Lion's Club
P.O. Box 299, Hussar, Alberta, T0J1S0
member - International Neural Network Society (INNS), IEEE Computational Intelligence Society (IEEE-CIS)
IJCNN2017 Anchorage Publications Chair, mass emails, www.ijcnn.org
WCCI2018 Rio de Janiero : Publicity committee, http://www.ecomp.poli.br/~wcci2018/committees/
Retired: Science Research Manager (SE-REM-01) at Natural Resources Canada, CanmetMINING, Ottawa
Climate references - a [random, scattered, sparse] sampling
Typically, politically-correct thinking (the overwhelming majority of mainstream scientists, environmental groups, news media, politicians) divides Climate commentators into "those who are right" (disciples) and "those who are wrong" (skeptics or deniers). The latter group is an assortment of a vastly richer set of concepts - far deeper and broader - than the "CO2 dogma", and skeptics are necessarily not in agreement with one another, nor with the standard dogma.
I personally have saved close to 1,000 papers related to the subject (paper and electronic). I never tried to save all that I read, and I stopped regular saving of articles in ~2012. I have purchased, as a rough guess, 30 to 50 books paid out of my own pocket. There is no way to compose a coherent representative list of this. It is far easier to cover the "CO2 dogma", given the huge number of standard reports (eg the UNIPCC collections) and review articles, and its very narrow conceptual basis and focus. Below is a small selection of books and articles - with more emphasis on general work rather than providing a long list of single-focus papers.
I don't think it's useful to provide a huge list of "skeptic" scientific articles. If you can't find any, you aren't looking very hard - but then again, these are swamped and hidden by the massive mainstream publications on the "CO2 dogma". The list below of course is missing many, many key "skeptic" players and publications, but it may provide a bit of a taste.
Ian Plimer Mar09 "Heaven and Earth, Global warming the missing science" Taylor Trade Publishing, 503pp
While a bit dated by now, Plimer's book is one of the best I've read, both for its discussions regarding the geological history of climate, and the scientific [successes, failures, frauds] of scientists and their theories. He is courageous to the point of being foolhardy in making conjectures about some intriguing new ideas at the time - these aren't just more politically correct science hucksterism, but crazy ideas that even if they fail are thought-provoking.
Plimer was [widely, hugely] criticised by scientists. I certainly didn't read all of this, but a typically pathetic critique (some good points, mostly bad science, bad thinking, ad hominen) :
Tim Lambert 23Apr09 "The science is missing from Ian Plimer's 'Heaven and Earth'" http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php
Another critique :
Ian Enting 13May09 "Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ — Checking the Claims" Version 2.0, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems, The University of Melbourne, http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
Spencer Weart "The Discovery of Global Warming" http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html also published by Harvard University Press, Sep 2003
Lovely context, albeit not untainted by the science [fashion -> cult -> religion] trend of the "CO2 dogma. I thinks it's VERY important to read through references "pre-CO2 dogma", as we'll likely get back there, just before essentially all scientists come to a huge, over-whelming consensus that we will all die of global cooling... (flip-flops from warming to cooling have occurred 4 times over the last ~120 years, and each time essentially all scientists reached over-whelming consensus on the truth of their religion AFTER the climate had started trending the other way. That is the current situation, and one can argue that didn't happen in the 1920's/1930's, but I maintain that's only because the crash and recession (that turned into a great Depression with a lot of help from Franklin Delano Roosevelt in my opinion), plus the winds of war, focused people's attention on other things.
UN-IPCC : The whole series of "CO23 dogma" over the years is of course and important reference for both disciples and skeptics. It is exceedingly important to be aware of the underlying frauds and nonsense in the [data, models, analysis, conclusions, communications, actions].
Heartland Institute : kind of like a counterpoint to the UN-IPCC's "politicized science"
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2013 "Climate Change Reconsidered II : Physical Science" http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf
Henrik Svensmark 2008 "Cosmic rays and Earth's Cloud Cover" Danish Space Research Institute, Copenhagen www.dsri.dk/~hsv/
Svensmark & Calder: "The Chilling Stars - A New Theory of Climate Change", (book - I have it but lost the last half of this reference)
Henrik Svensmark 120422 "Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth" Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. ftp://ftp2.space.dtu.dk/pub/Svensmark/MNRAS_Svensmark2012.pdf
>> Svensmark, right or wrong, is a [rare, creative, persistent] thinker. Someone commented to me that, if taken as correct, he may have one of the most complete theories for climate, and think there is a point there. One can state (right or wrong) that the primary driver is the Sun, mediated by astronomy and Earth Sciences, and they may have a point there. Jan Veizer had pointed out another process especially regarding the last glaciation cycle, but I'm darned if I remember what that was after all these years. CERN spent a rumored billion dollars to blow Svensmarks research-on-the-cheap out of the water. I was happily stunned that - while their "somewhat confirming" results were hidden in supplementary material, and they pasted over the core issue with dubious diversions - they didn't do what we all expected and simply produce fraudulent [data, analysis, modelling, conclusions] to totally discredit Svensmark. There was something like a 4-6 month period of "bated breath" waiting for that.
A few critiques/ replies :
Paul E. Damon, Uof Arizona; Peter Laut, TechUof Denmark (2004) "Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data" Eos,Vol. 85, No. 39, 28 September 2004, p.370-374 (critique of Friis-Christensen & Svensmark
Mike Lockwood, Claus Frohlich "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature" Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880
Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E. 2007 "Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich - The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing" Danish National Space Center, Scientific Report 3/2007 http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf
Habibullo Abdusamatov 2007 "Russian scientist says CO2 not to blame for global warming" RIA Novosti, 15 January 2007, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html
(I don't have many of his publications listed and don't want to chase them down.)
Apart from much earlier work by ?Theodore Landscheit? and Ivanka Charvatova (below), Abdussamatov was the first I am aware of, during the current era of the "CO2 dogma", to raise warnings about the possibility of an approaching Grand Solar Minimum. A year or two later, Cornelius Kees Chris de jager and Silvia Duhau used a technique for phase changes in complex ("chaotic") systems to conclude the same thing. While I have communicated several times with de Jager and Duhau, and I like their work (admittedly not being knowledgable about many of the toolsets for complexity), I am not so hot about their [poloidal, toroidal] concept for the solar dynamo(s). It's an important concept to bring up, but not nearly as creative or powerful as some other concepts in my mind.
Shaviv & Veizer 2004 - CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate http://www.gsajournals.org/pdf/online_forum/i1052-5173-14-3-e4.pdf
The idea was a bit of conjecture, and the attacks against the authors were way over the top, typical of religious believers.
Scherer, Veizer, Shaviv et.al. 2006 "Interstellar-Terrestrial relations: variable cosmic environments, the dynamic heliosphere, and their imprints on terrestrial archives and climate" Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2006 ~163pp. Space Science Reviews 127/1-4, 327-465.
This was really fun, not that I take it as a certainty, but then again it does address a critical issue with many "multiple conflicting hypothesis".
R. Timothy Patterson, Andreas Prokoph, Arun Kumara, Alice S. Chang, Helen M. Roe 2005 "Late Holocene variability in pelagic fish scales and dinoflagellate cysts along the west coast of Vancouver Island, NE Pacific Ocean" Elsevier, Marine Micropaleontology 55 (2005) 183 – 204
Patterson did many studies of varve (seabed mud, sort of) data, pus other scientific areas - very good work that tied in beautifully (in a scary way) with aboriginal fishing villages on the BC coast.
Douglas V. Hoyt, Kenneth H. Schatten "The role of the sun in climate change" Oxford University Press, Oxford UK, 1997, 279pp – superb background book
Willie W-H Soon, S.H. Yaskell 2003 "The Maunder Minimum and the variable sun-earth connection" World Scientific Publ, Signapore, 278pp
Embarassingly, I can't remember what solar points this book promotes, among several similar books that I have, but I found it to be a wonderful context for dealing with many other solar-related papers. I disagree with them all, of course (disciples and deniers, solar stuff), yet still retain most within my context of "multiple conflicting hypothesis" because I like some of their points and still find the parts I don't like important to me. Solar physics (the standard model), is facing some very stiff competition, but you won't here that from [academic, government] scientists. Here the amateurs absolutely lead.
Willie W-H Soon, S.H. Yaskell 2003 "The Maunder Minimum and the variable sun-earth connection" World Scientific Publ, Signapore, 278pp
A narrative story rather than a scientific book, but with much to learn. Soon has long been a key voice of reason, and is vastly more scientifically reliable than his detractors. Colleague Sallie Baliunas was chased out of her job as professor or something at the Harvard-Sminsonian Inst for Astrophysics.
Here I am biased - Soon has many great articles, and I really enjoyed the historical aspects of the book cited. Stephen Yaskell wrote another book centered around [de Jager, Duhau] concepts for solar activity (they are mentionned above under Abdussamatov), and in the acknowledgements recognized my father and I as the "two fools that rushed in" for our crazy theory of history. He did use earlier version of our historical graphs in his book. The last version was in ~2007-08, but it is too big and messy for a book. I stopped wirking on the concept, because there seems to be something seriously wrong with modern astronomy (mostly planetary motions) when applied pre-300 BC. That led me into fundamental theoretical physics, and fun concepts of the "Electric Universe" community. However, I just can't seem to get back to my own projects, being consumed by other work and responsibilities.
William M Gray 09Mar09 "Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity" 2nd Annual Heartland Institute sponsored conference on Climate Change. New York City, March 8-10, 2009 http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2009.pdf
R.A. Berner, Z. Kothavala 2001 "GEOCARB III A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time" American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, February, 2001, P. 182–204 http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
To me, articles like these, and the geological proxies (keepig in mind that these are always questionable) are key to understanding climate. Geologu is, in my opinion, are the MAIN basis for understanding climate, especially given the really [crappy, consistent] results and failures of mainstream models.
Ferenc M. Miskolczi, "Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres", Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Journal, Vol. 111, No. 1, January - March 2007 http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
I hope I've got the right [author, publication], but this is supposed to be a fascinating analysis of GHGs and the relative effects on [Venus, Earth, Mars]. If I remember correctly, Miskolczi was strongly attacked for his non-conventional ideas, and lost his job.
Nicola Scafetta 26Feb09 "Climate Change and Its Causes: A Discussion about Some Key Issues" presentation at the Environmental Protection Agency, http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688/$file/scafetta-epa-2009.pdf
Scafetta's time series analysis are vastly better that most scientists. I'm not saying I agree, and I certainly don't think he's the best (In my opinion, the amateur Paul Vaughan of Vancouver has no peer for the short term (last ~150 years). He couldn't make ends meet and dropped out - a decade later some scientists are starting to come up with feeble results along the lines of what he was doing.
O.G. Sorokhtin, G.V. Chilingar, L.F. Khilyuk 2007 "Global warming and global cooling : Evolution of Climate on Earth" Elsevier Developments in Earth & Environmental sciences 5, 2nd edition 2008, ISBN 978-0-444-52815-5G.V. Chilingar, L.F. Khilyuk, O.G. Sorokhtin Jan08 "Cooling of atmosphere due to CO2 emission" Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilisation, and Environmental Effects, v30 i1 Jan08, p1-9 Authors 1,2 - Rudolph W. Gunnerman Energy & Environment Laboratory, Uof S. California, 3 - Inst of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
I like the book because of the fascinating concepts related to deep-earth density migrations and their effects - very different. Is it correct? I have no idea, but keep it (and many other ideas) in the back of my mind as there aren't many deep-eart->climate papers that I have looked at. Some other parts of their work I am not so comfortable with.
NS Sidorenkov Oct05 "Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities" Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, Vol. 24, No. 5, October 2005, p425-439 http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/09/28/0001230882/425-439.pdf
N. Sidorenkov, I.R.G. Wilson 2009 "Decadal fluctuations in the Earths rotation and in the climate characteristics" http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/Sidorenkov.pdf
This I included by mistake, may be related to chandler wobbles or Geomagnetic field variances and flips? Anyways, now that I've made the mistake (I confused Sidorenkov with Sorokhtin) I'll just leave it in...
Leonid B. Klyashtorin 2001 "Climate Change and Long-Term Fluctuations of Commercial Catches - The Possibility of Forecasting" FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 410, Rome, 2001 Federal Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography Moscow
L.B. Klyashtorin, A.A. Lyubushin 2007 "Cyclic climate changes and fish productivity" Moscow VNIRO Publishing, pp226 http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf
What a great-and-revealing ride Klyashtorin's work is! I had long been collecting [biological population, forest fire] etc cycles, most roughly equating to [<1, 2, 7, 11, 22, 52, 60-90, etc, etc] cycles, being affected by, and fully aware of the mental disease of "cyclomania", but it's fun.
Ian Wilson Jul08 "Which came first: The chicken or the egg? (Length of Day & PDO, NAO)" lecture to the Lavoisier Group http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
This isn't the best of Ian Wilson and it's a simple presentation if I remember correctly. I think he's an amateur, yet very creative thinking. (He did other work that stodd out, but I can't remember what!)
Lawrence Solomon - Canada's National Post series on "Climate Deniers"
I have one of Solomon's books with a number of deniers' concepts and stories, but I didn't list the book or articles. It's an important overview to get a taste of some leading skeptics (and wannabes) a decade or so ago.
Bob Carter's (late of James Cook U) high-spirited talk : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
One of many, many similar talks providing a decent background to a skeptic's thinking. I don't agree with everything he says, but at least he has useful (and brave) points. Recently deceased, Bob Carter to a lot of flak (many if not most of these guys get death threats, if not career threats and harrassment - but I don't remember Bob Carter saying much about that. Unlike several scientists that I list here, I never met nor communicated with Carter).
Bjorn Lomborg "The Skeptical Environmentalist - Measuring the Real State of the World" Cambridge University Press 1998, United Kingdom
Very interesting book for the time. Lomborg, subject to widespread threats and abuse, reversed most of his views in the book, falling back to an economic statement that "the cost isn't worth it for not getting results anyways). I know a few scientists personally who bowed out and abandoned their scientific views under abuse.
Solomon M. Hsiang, Kyle C. Meng, Mark A. Cane 25Aug2011 "Civil conflicts are associated with the global climate" Nature vol 476 p438-441
This is off-topic a bit, but somewhat aligns with my own [initial, incomplete] work on the last 7,500 years of history : the rise and fall of civilisations (I also have a WWII re-interpretation project on hold for 2 years, only one hour of crappy video made out of 6 hours). The authors were widely criticised for inappropriate statistical methods.
Paul Charbonneau 2002 "The rise and fall of the first sunspot model" JHA xxxiii Science History Publications Ltd. - Provided by the NASA Astrophysics data system
This article is a great desciption of a recurring theme in solar physics - faddish claims based on correlation that sunspots are the result of interactions with planetary motions. This theory emerged almost immediately after the 11 year sunspot cycle was described, as it is so obvious. However, physical mechanism, such as gravitationally-induced tides have repeated been proven to be inadequate for the effects. <>I strongly disagree with these disproves - they are important as part of "multiple conflicting hypothesis", but they are not in my opinion adequate arguments.
Canada had 2.5 "solar physicists" back in the early 2000's, and I tagged along with one of them (Ken Tapping) and met the other 1.5 (Paul Charbonneau and (0.5 weight) David Thompson - who must be retired now) at a solar physics workshop in Montreal. I also eachanged many emails with them, and they are all great guys (I have tremendous respect for them). If I remember correctly, all of them were medium-to-strong disciples in the "CO2 dogma", it's just that they thought the sun was under-appreciated. On the history side, Ken Tapping was too afraid of attacks to publish an article on influenza pandemics in a physics journal, so he buried comments in an obscure (to climate, physics) journal. That letter was the start of a fascinating long-term history-science theme for me.
Ivanka Charvátová 1988 "The solar motion and the variability of solar activity" Adv. Space Res., 8, (7) 147-150, 1988. (many articles after that time)
My father and I based our [naive, one-dimensional, lunatic] theory of history over the last 7,500 years (the rise and fall of civilisations) on Charvatova's concepts for solar activity (planetary motion based). One rarely hears her name, and although I haven't really checked for 7 years or so, she's the best sun modeller that I know of for the last couple thousand years of solar activity. Our theory doesn't work, but the project was a huge amount of fun and learning. Many classics profgs have told me that they no longer believe in theories for history - it's just too complex, and the information too incomplete.
Ivar Giaever 12Jul2015 "Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015.
Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate. He notes that once he looked closely at climate science, he was "horrified by what he found on google about global warming" circa 2008. I'm absolutely NOT a fan of citing top scientists and Nobel laureats, it is vastly preferable to cite key scientists and amateurs that have done great work on the area of interest. But in the science fashion -> cult -> religion area, some people (media in particular) just have to refer to "top people", rather than to do their homework and make their own judgement and [referring to, asking] the right people. This is related to my disgust with [Bill Gates, Mor-?something" (quantum mechanics, I can't remember), etc] making comments about the new "AI" (instead of CI), and thereby tarnishing their past excellence.
Friends of Science website - www.friendsofscience.org
This website (like many others), provides a long list of references and links to other "skeptic" websites. They are important historically, as one of the first groups clamouring about the colossal problems with the "CO2 dogma", and I have been a member since the early 2000s. Almost all members and regular contributors are amateurs, keeping in mind that I feel that Albert Jacobs and Ken Gregory are far better thinkers than essentially all [government, academic] scientists, even if I don't agree with everything they say. Norm Kalmalovitch (retired geophysicist) is the FOS "science advisor" (or something like that), and he and I have had great [discussions, arguments, exchanges] over the years. He's a bit categorical for me, but then I follow the old adage (apparently by a geologist mid-1900's ?) that :
"All theories are wrong, but some are useful"to which I add :
"... and the great universal theories of science, as they pass from [fashion->cult->religion], in spite of the flurry of creativity and progress that they engender, eventually become our greatest impediment to progress. That is becasue their "science religion disciples" fail to recognize their limitations and failures, cannot tolerate other ideas, actively suppress and destroy dissidents, and must die before we can go forward. And that is a question of geneerations (~1,700 to 1,800 years for the post Greek science period). ..."This group has been constantly attacked with threats etc for almost two decades. Knowing the people from the inside, I can definitively say that most arguments against them are pure lies. That's not to say that mistakes haven't been made, but it is very clear to me that they are angles compared to their detractors. An important issue is that they are a small groups that started mostly with retired people (yes -most were probably professional engineers and geo-scientists in the oil industry), they have absolutely miniscule budgets compared to the environmental groups, not to mention many single university professors, institutions are enormous compared to them, as are of course the government scientists and institutes. At present, many of the key people have already died, or are very close to that, and there are only a handful of young people coming in. My guess is that most people of that type have simply given up on seeing honest science, quite frankly, and the collapse of the oil industry in Alberta (it's most important by far) has huge numbers of people in very tight economic conditions. It's amazing what they have done (mostly communications and some analysis) over the last year, but perhaps the writing is on the wall. Perhaps over time the "C>O2 dogma" will prove itseklf correct or climate science will self-correct, but my own opinion is that there is no shortage of other scams by scientists, and many new ones must be waiting in the wings.
Anthony Watts blog https://wattsupwiththat.com/
This is a sgnificant "skeptic" blog (many sites are built in a way that ruins the view in my Linux FireFox browser, and this is one of them. Must be proprietary Microsoft stuff again - or maybe my old, old systems). They get a lot of rants and emotional stuff (who doesn't?), but there has been a long tradition of great discussions, concepts and uncovering of the rot in mainstream science. I haven't checked this for several years, so I don't know how active it is now. A key scientist-contributor is ?Leif Svaalgard of Stanford? (I hope I have his name & affiliation correct, helio-seismology) but although I respect his science work, I'm not a big fan of his views outside of that for other solar processes and their interactions with the Earth.
Bob ?Tylsdail's? website - only I can't remember his name or URL and I don't have time to look for it I often confuse his name with ?Tyndall? - English scientist in mid-1800's whose experiments extablish a basis for GHG effects, and at that time demonstrated that the most important GHG by far is water vapor (not to mention all the other huge roles of water, including [precipitation, ocean circulation, my "rubber ducky concept of sloshing oceans" (eg Chandler wobbles etc). Some great [creativity, analysis, insights]. If I remember correctly some concepts are a bit strange to me, but he has credibility for me. I think he is an amateur, but I'm not sure.
Tim Ball, Tom Harris 2008 "Global Warming Series" Canadian Free Press http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1272
A self-proclaimed "climatologist" (actually, that term wasn't used during his time as a professor at the University of ?Winnipeg?), Tim is very important as one of the [early, vocal, attacked-to-heart-attack] skeptics. I don't see him as one of the heavy-duty scientific theory developers (in that he is like essentially all scientists), but he certainly has his eyes open and can think (this is NOT like essentially all scientists wen confronting scientific dogmas).
Critics of Tim Ball were extremely dishonest and vicious in their attacks on him. He was sued at least twice for responses and critics - almost certainly true, but be careful when fighting the huge environmental groups with their loads of moneys and lawyers. I know other people in other scientfic and non-scientific areas who have received the "sue-to-shut-up treatment", and I contributed small money to a the defense of two or three of them (actually more for freedom of speech in recent years - we have lost much of our rights to free speech in this Country as the Human Rights Commission is kind of like the UN - seemingly dominated by people who suppress rights.
Many other blogs etc...