List of Climate Disinformer Rogues (click on each name below to go to detailed comments about their rogue activities)
As an aside, there is also a handy list of climate misinformers at skepticalscience.com
(specifically https://skepticalscience.com/misinformers.php) and you'll often see those sources being cited by AGW dismissives and disinformers, which is one of many "tells" to look out for.
There's also a useful list of climate change disinformers (individuals and organisations) here:
https://www.desmog.com/global-warming-denier-database-uk/#datatabs-1
Now, the following is a contents list of rogues in my own rogues' gallery.
A) Eric Keyser (Member of the CO2 Coalition, retired Geologist, former fossil fuel sector employee for 50 years)
Added 04/03/2025
B) David B. Russell (Energy and Power Generation Consultant, San Diego, California, United States)
Added 28/03/2025
C) Luis G López Lemus (Science-based Strategic Consultant on Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries Affairs, Baja California Sur, Mexico)
Added 05/05/2025
D) David Jordan (CEO @ enteruptors | Decision Transformation - Smarter Decisions, Better Results, Lindfield, New South Wales, Australia)
Added 01/07/2025
E) Michael Earle (Geoscientist, explorer, author, C-Suite executive with international strategy, United Kingdom)
Added 10/07/2025
F) Leslie Recksiedler (HVDC Engineering Expertise, Winnipeg, Canada)
Added 21/07/2025
G) Jan Jacobs (Freelance journalist - energy and climate specialist - start-up coach, Netherlands)
Added 05/10/2025
H) Mark Branham (Principal Consultant at QUANTUM SOLUTIONS, Nineveh, Indiana, United States)
Added 26/11/25
Explanation for the reasoning behind creating this rogues' gallery
In the absence of robust actions by social media platforms to rout out, delete or counter the growing tide of anti-AGW disinformation, I sometimes challenge and rebut the disinformation, especially when there are persistent and frequent posts by the same person.
To save my time and the readers' time, I'm starting a Rogues' Gallery of prolific and persistent climate disinformers, including detailed rebuttals and analyses of their disinformation techniques.
Click on a name in the list above to see more detailed analyses of their disinformation practices.
This way, when the repeat offenders create new posts, I can simply point readers to this page rather than having to create a detailed response of my own each time.
Let's start by defining important terms. The diagram below is adapted from Treen (2020).
In the absence of robust actions by social media platforms to rout out, delete or counter the growing tide of anti-AGW disinformation, I sometimes challenge and rebut the disinformation, especially when there are persistent and frequent posts by the same person.
To save my time and the readers' time, I'm starting a Rogues' Gallery of prolific and persistent climate disinformers, including detailed rebuttals and analyses of their disinformation techniques.
Click on a name in the list above to see more detailed analyses of their disinformation practices.
This way, when the repeat offenders create new posts, I can simply point readers to this page rather than having to create a detailed response of my own each time.
Let's start by defining important terms. The diagram below is adapted from Treen (2020).
From Treen (2020):
"A common theme is that misinformation pertains to information that is false, inaccurate or misleading; note that to be misleading, the information itself need not be false, but may be presented out of context... "[ie misinformation can be inadvertently so]
and:
"A closely related term is “disinformation.” Definitions of this term mostly describe it as deliberately false information which is deliberately created and spread to mislead (Dictionary.com, 2019; Oxford Dictionaries, 2019), deceive (Cambridge Dictionary, 2019), or influence public opinion or obscure the truth (Merriam Webster, 2019; University ofMichigan Library, 2019). For disinformation, the information itself may not be false, but may be accurate information deliberately presented in such a way as to be misleading." [ie disinformation is always deliberately so]
Source: Treen (2020) "Online misinformation about climate change". Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342307224_Online_misinformation_about_climate_change
"A common theme is that misinformation pertains to information that is false, inaccurate or misleading; note that to be misleading, the information itself need not be false, but may be presented out of context... "[ie misinformation can be inadvertently so]
and:
"A closely related term is “disinformation.” Definitions of this term mostly describe it as deliberately false information which is deliberately created and spread to mislead (Dictionary.com, 2019; Oxford Dictionaries, 2019), deceive (Cambridge Dictionary, 2019), or influence public opinion or obscure the truth (Merriam Webster, 2019; University ofMichigan Library, 2019). For disinformation, the information itself may not be false, but may be accurate information deliberately presented in such a way as to be misleading." [ie disinformation is always deliberately so]
Source: Treen (2020) "Online misinformation about climate change". Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342307224_Online_misinformation_about_climate_change
A) Eric Keyser
1.1 In early March 2025, I posted on LinkedIn about Eric Keyser's flawed analysis approach. Here's a link to my post:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/david-calver-8974ab_eric-keyser-with-reference-to-httpslnkdin-activity-7306211396868874241-UnMx?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAASqTMBF8LZwGbXnDyltwGdPsLAWhrESDE
As of the end of March 2025, my post had over 9,000 reads. So, I know the discussions about his methods of misinformation/disinformation are of interest to a lot of people.
Eric's posts about climate change are blatantly misleading, and he frequently ignores the many responders who indicate deficiencies in his logic and scientific-sounding arguments. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is deliberately a super-spreader of misinformation intended to be a seed for AGW dismissives and deniers to feed on. That would make him a disinformer. Not really surprising, as he's a member of the CO2 Coalition.
https://www.desmog.com/co2-coalition/
Challenging disinformation activities is important, on occasion, because disinformation in public channels delays actions to tackle AGW (such as Global Net Zero). Disinformation makes it far more likely that the global temperature anomaly will get worse than it would otherwise be, that the damages from AGW will be worse than they would otherwise be, and that the chances of crossing tipping point thresholds will be increased.
The weight of scientific evidence for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is so overwhelming that the IPCC says, in AR6 WG1 (2021):
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."
Despite that, or perhaps because of it, Eric Keyser (Retired Geophysicist who worked for 50 years, mainly in the fossil fuel industry, from Calgary, Alberta, Canada) has been a prolific poster on LinkedIn since January 2025. Most days there is at least one, sometimes more than one, post of his making some spurious claims that temperature data from a single monitoring site in some way disproves AGW and shows the scientific consensus about AGW to be wrong.
Rather than pen a response to each individual post he makes, it seems that it will save me (and perhaps others) a lot of time if I post a general response to his views here, which can be referenced when responding to his future posts of a similar nature.
To get a brief overview of how Eric attempts to justify his pseudoscience approach and for his public explanation of why he does this, see his April 2025 introduction to his substack on the subject:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-161266569
Reading the first page of his substack, it becomes clear that Eric's key early influences on climate change included Chris de Freitas, about whom a 2017 obituary states:
https://petergriffin.co.nz/2017/07/12/climate-sceptic-end-chris-de-freitas-dies/
"At the end then, [Chris de Freitas] was at odds with the vast majority of climate scientists, disputing the significance of human contributions to climate change, the validity of the climate models, the role of positive feedback processes, just about everything climate scientists have built their understanding of the future impacts of climate change upon. Chris will never know one way or other how things played out. But like Bob Carter, another prominent Australia-based climate sceptic who appeared regularly in the New Zealand media and died [in 2016] aged 73, history will judge them either as fearless contrarians who saw the truth others couldn’t or deluded deniers who let [ideology] overpower the evidence."
Eric accuses the IPCC of having a "narrative". However, it seems, from the evidence of his own posts and substack articles, that Eric is the one presenting a narrative. He uses pseudoscience arguments.
From oxfordreference.com:
"Pseudoscience - Theories, ideas, or explanations that are represented as scientific but that are not derived from science or the scientific method. Pseudoscience often springs from claims or folk wisdom or selective reading without independent data collection or validation."
1.2 His main approach from January to March 2025 seems to have been to cite temperature data from individual land-based monitoring sites and "JaQing", making oblique or direct claims about what the data from that one site implies about AGW, human drivers and natural variability at a global level. However, in March 2025 he started to drip-feed descriptions of his overall pseudoscience approach to data selection and analysis. See my comments about this further below.
He also often phrases his comments in a way that conflates weather and climate, at local, regional and global levels. When he does that, his comments seem very confused, and certainly they are not supported by the data he presents.
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Asking_Questions#:~:text=%22Just%20Asking%20Questions%22%20(JAQ,by%20framing%20them%20as%20questions.
""Just Asking Questions" (JAQing); ... is a pseudoskeptical tactic often used by conspiracy theorists to present false or distorted claims by framing them as questions. If criticized, the proponent of such a claim may then defend themselves by asserting they were merely asking questions which may upset the mainstream consensus.[2][3][4] The name of the tactic is therefore derived from the typical response of "I'm not saying it was necessarily a conspiracy; I'm just asking questions."
Before March 2025, he didn't indicate what his criteria are for selecting each individual monitoring site he uses as the core for each new post. It's very likely that he has been cherry-picking a particular site each time in order to make a point or inference about AGW or about the temperature "Hockey Stick" of global average temperatures.
An example of a legitimate and credible Hockey Stick is the following, from IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021).
This diagram from the IPCC shows, on the left, the sharp uptick in global average temperatures since industrialisation (the "Hockey Stick"). It also shows, on the right, the human driver 'signal' strongly emerging from the natural variability 'noise'.
It has been well demonstrated that, from the early days of the movement to address AGW and decarbonise the global economy, AGW deniers and dismissives have often attacked both the IPCC and the Hockey Stick. They seem to think that if they can discredit the Hockey Stick, or the climate scientists who present it, then the whole of AGW theory and evidence will somehow crack and fall aside, leaving their beloved fossil fuel industry to continue polluting the world. They don't seem to be concerned about the impacts their actions (and those of the fossil fuel industry they are defending) are having on the legacy we are collectively leaving to following generations.
1.3 Eric says things like "Challenging the Michael Mann Hypothesis".
That's clearly an attempt to make the argument personal. Eric seems to ignore the fact that it is not 'Mann's hypothesis', and that the work Mann did has been independently recreated and verified by many other climate scientists. Also, it sits alongside many other lines of evidence supporting the IPCC's conclusions about AGW.
Eric talks about:
"The Dalton Minimum (1790–1830) ... fewer sunspots and lower solar irradiance,... the Maunder Minimum. Understanding these natural cycles is crucial for interpreting long-term climate trends"
That's an example of misinformation. He makes a true statement, but the context in which he makes such comments is clearly meant to imply that, for example, solar variations are driving recent global warming, rather than human activities being the primary driver.
Eric claims:
"Historical data shows that climate variations before 1850 closely resemble those after 1850. This contradicts Michael Mann’s claim"
However, the data he refers to in such a statement is single monitoring site data. He does not present any statistically significant data or analysis about average global temperatures. He seems to be deliberately conflating the local with the global, which is a major flaw in his argument. This has been pointed out to him by many responders. He has not addressed the deficiency they have highlighted.
1.4 Eric claims:
"... the IPCC's Northern Hemisphere model does a poor job at representing Prague’s climate trends."
That is another example of Eric conflating the local and the global, without presenting any analysis that could legitimately make the connection between the two.
It also illustrates another deficiency in Eric's argument. Climate models (of which there are many, not just one) belong to scientists. The IPCC does not operate any climate models. It merely reports and concludes on the climate models operated by many independent climate scientists around the world. This is an example of Eric attempting to demonise and discredit the IPCC.
1.5 Another example. Eric says:
"Medicine Hat, Alberta... Located in the middle of the prairies and away from major urban centers, Medicine Hat is less influenced by the urban heat island effect."
In a slightly different tack, hinting at UHI as an alternative to AGW, Eric asks, in an example of JaQing (see earlier):
"Why do so many rural and remote stations show little to no warming—or even cooling—while global models suggest warming almost everywhere?"
1.6 In another post he says (about his cherry-picked raw temperature data for some US sites): "the trends range from –4.2°C to +5.5°C per century. About 65% of stations show warming. But here’s the big question: how much of this is actual climate change, and how much is the Urban Heat Island effect?"
'It's not us, it's the Urban Heat Island effect that is causing the measured temperature anomaly" is a frequently seen anti-AGW trope. It is debunked here, at skepticalscience.com:
Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?
https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
from which:
"The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) is a phenomenon whereby the concentration of structures and waste heat from human activity (most notably air conditioners and internal combustion engines) results in a slightly warmer envelope of air over urbanised areas when compared to surrounding rural areas. It has been suggested that UHI has significantly influenced temperature records over the 20th century with rapid growth of urban environments. Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends."
Additionally, his claim that "global models suggest warming almost everywhere" is a strawman. Climate scientists tell us there are wide regional variations, but what is clear is that the global average temperature has been rising, driven largely by human activities, since industrialisation. Focussing on regional or local differences and variations is one of Keyser's distraction techniques - trying to distract the readers from the scientific facts about AGW and their implications.
1.7 About his approach to cherry picking temperature stations, Eric himself says:
"I fully agree that a single station cannot be used to make global projections."
That statement is somewhat bizarre, given that Eric frequently attempts to claim, or infer, something about global warming from individual temperature monitoring sites. He does this repeatedly and frequently, ignoring the criticisms from respondents.
He goes on:
"However, I can highlight differences between the IPCC’s global projections and data from key long-term stations. Since 2013, I have compiled a database of nearly 50,000 stations and am now focusing on analyzing those with records predating 1850. My goal is to conduct straightforward statistical analyses and share my findings—you are welcome to examine the data."
1.8 He introduces the term "key long-term stations" without explaining what he means by that. It is likely that he is using that term as a means to exclude data from many other monitoring sites. This is an important point, from the perspective of statistical analysis. If his criteria for excluding other monitoring sites is not transparent and justifiable, it will be possible for him to generate any desired result from his statistical analysis. This illustrates why scientific peer review is important - to challenge and debunk false statistical methods and the claims that might come from them.
An example of what Eric claims from looking at a single site:
"My standard data reduction process includes plotting raw data, generating histograms of monthly average temperatures, and computing yearly minimum (winter), maximum (summer), average, and median temperatures. These methods help capture long-term trends and natural variability"
The main flaws in his stated standard process are that:
1.8.1) he is obviously assuming (or implying) that the data movements he is tracking are 'natural variability' - he does not set out to track human drivers of changes. This is perhaps inevitable in his approach, because a single site cannot say anything about AGW, which is a global phenomenon, because of the very nature of the global mixing of greenhouse gases, whatever the location of their emission from human activities
1.8.2) natural variability in individual sites cannot say anything about natural variability at a global level - he is essentially confusing weather and climate, and confusing local and global - something he does repeatedly and frequently.
1.8.3) each time he graphs temperature data from an individual station, he seems to stop at 2013. There has been significant global warming since 2013. It seems unlikely to be a coincidence that 2013 is at the tail end of the well-known temporary "global warming hiatus" as per:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
See the GIF below, which shows why stopping a temp chart in 2013 is misleading, and that the strongly rising trend in global warming recommenced from 2013 to 2024, after the so-called "hiatus" from 1998 to 2012.
It has been well demonstrated that, from the early days of the movement to address AGW and decarbonise the global economy, AGW deniers and dismissives have often attacked both the IPCC and the Hockey Stick. They seem to think that if they can discredit the Hockey Stick, or the climate scientists who present it, then the whole of AGW theory and evidence will somehow crack and fall aside, leaving their beloved fossil fuel industry to continue polluting the world. They don't seem to be concerned about the impacts their actions (and those of the fossil fuel industry they are defending) are having on the legacy we are collectively leaving to following generations.
1.3 Eric says things like "Challenging the Michael Mann Hypothesis".
That's clearly an attempt to make the argument personal. Eric seems to ignore the fact that it is not 'Mann's hypothesis', and that the work Mann did has been independently recreated and verified by many other climate scientists. Also, it sits alongside many other lines of evidence supporting the IPCC's conclusions about AGW.
Eric talks about:
"The Dalton Minimum (1790–1830) ... fewer sunspots and lower solar irradiance,... the Maunder Minimum. Understanding these natural cycles is crucial for interpreting long-term climate trends"
That's an example of misinformation. He makes a true statement, but the context in which he makes such comments is clearly meant to imply that, for example, solar variations are driving recent global warming, rather than human activities being the primary driver.
Eric claims:
"Historical data shows that climate variations before 1850 closely resemble those after 1850. This contradicts Michael Mann’s claim"
However, the data he refers to in such a statement is single monitoring site data. He does not present any statistically significant data or analysis about average global temperatures. He seems to be deliberately conflating the local with the global, which is a major flaw in his argument. This has been pointed out to him by many responders. He has not addressed the deficiency they have highlighted.
1.4 Eric claims:
"... the IPCC's Northern Hemisphere model does a poor job at representing Prague’s climate trends."
That is another example of Eric conflating the local and the global, without presenting any analysis that could legitimately make the connection between the two.
It also illustrates another deficiency in Eric's argument. Climate models (of which there are many, not just one) belong to scientists. The IPCC does not operate any climate models. It merely reports and concludes on the climate models operated by many independent climate scientists around the world. This is an example of Eric attempting to demonise and discredit the IPCC.
1.5 Another example. Eric says:
"Medicine Hat, Alberta... Located in the middle of the prairies and away from major urban centers, Medicine Hat is less influenced by the urban heat island effect."
In a slightly different tack, hinting at UHI as an alternative to AGW, Eric asks, in an example of JaQing (see earlier):
"Why do so many rural and remote stations show little to no warming—or even cooling—while global models suggest warming almost everywhere?"
1.6 In another post he says (about his cherry-picked raw temperature data for some US sites): "the trends range from –4.2°C to +5.5°C per century. About 65% of stations show warming. But here’s the big question: how much of this is actual climate change, and how much is the Urban Heat Island effect?"
'It's not us, it's the Urban Heat Island effect that is causing the measured temperature anomaly" is a frequently seen anti-AGW trope. It is debunked here, at skepticalscience.com:
Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?
https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
from which:
"The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) is a phenomenon whereby the concentration of structures and waste heat from human activity (most notably air conditioners and internal combustion engines) results in a slightly warmer envelope of air over urbanised areas when compared to surrounding rural areas. It has been suggested that UHI has significantly influenced temperature records over the 20th century with rapid growth of urban environments. Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends."
Additionally, his claim that "global models suggest warming almost everywhere" is a strawman. Climate scientists tell us there are wide regional variations, but what is clear is that the global average temperature has been rising, driven largely by human activities, since industrialisation. Focussing on regional or local differences and variations is one of Keyser's distraction techniques - trying to distract the readers from the scientific facts about AGW and their implications.
1.7 About his approach to cherry picking temperature stations, Eric himself says:
"I fully agree that a single station cannot be used to make global projections."
That statement is somewhat bizarre, given that Eric frequently attempts to claim, or infer, something about global warming from individual temperature monitoring sites. He does this repeatedly and frequently, ignoring the criticisms from respondents.
He goes on:
"However, I can highlight differences between the IPCC’s global projections and data from key long-term stations. Since 2013, I have compiled a database of nearly 50,000 stations and am now focusing on analyzing those with records predating 1850. My goal is to conduct straightforward statistical analyses and share my findings—you are welcome to examine the data."
1.8 He introduces the term "key long-term stations" without explaining what he means by that. It is likely that he is using that term as a means to exclude data from many other monitoring sites. This is an important point, from the perspective of statistical analysis. If his criteria for excluding other monitoring sites is not transparent and justifiable, it will be possible for him to generate any desired result from his statistical analysis. This illustrates why scientific peer review is important - to challenge and debunk false statistical methods and the claims that might come from them.
An example of what Eric claims from looking at a single site:
"My standard data reduction process includes plotting raw data, generating histograms of monthly average temperatures, and computing yearly minimum (winter), maximum (summer), average, and median temperatures. These methods help capture long-term trends and natural variability"
The main flaws in his stated standard process are that:
1.8.1) he is obviously assuming (or implying) that the data movements he is tracking are 'natural variability' - he does not set out to track human drivers of changes. This is perhaps inevitable in his approach, because a single site cannot say anything about AGW, which is a global phenomenon, because of the very nature of the global mixing of greenhouse gases, whatever the location of their emission from human activities
1.8.2) natural variability in individual sites cannot say anything about natural variability at a global level - he is essentially confusing weather and climate, and confusing local and global - something he does repeatedly and frequently.
1.8.3) each time he graphs temperature data from an individual station, he seems to stop at 2013. There has been significant global warming since 2013. It seems unlikely to be a coincidence that 2013 is at the tail end of the well-known temporary "global warming hiatus" as per:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
See the GIF below, which shows why stopping a temp chart in 2013 is misleading, and that the strongly rising trend in global warming recommenced from 2013 to 2024, after the so-called "hiatus" from 1998 to 2012.
1.9 That second point is clearly illustrated by Eric's comments in the very same post:
"At Prague-Klementinum, a clear trend emerges: winters are warming at 1.21°C per century, while summers are warming at only 0.148°C per century. This pattern suggests the climate is becoming less extreme, shifting toward a more temperate state—where, eventually, the ice caps may disappear."
Here, he is clearly making an unsubstantiated leap from data at a local temperature monitoring station and claiming it says something about global climate trends ("climate is becoming less extreme"). Such an inference is false. He tries to bluff his way from the local to the global, using a recourse to 'data' and 'analysis' - his argument is a form of 'pseudoscience'.
Occasionally, he picks a temp station where the rate of average temperature rise is high. And using a station where warming is faster than one climate temperature data set used by climate scientists, eg (for a single cherry-picked station) : "Overall Warming Rate: +0.886°C per century (R² = 52%), compared to the HadCRUT5 model’s +0.65°C per century (R² = 71%)"
This does not get him off the hook. The core rebuttal of his line of reasoning is that it's not possible to infer anything about AGW, a global phenomenon, from any individual temp measurement station. Perhaps Eric picks a fast warming station sometimes, hoping that a responder will say "aha - that fast warming station shows that AGW is real and climate scientists are right!", so that he can then say "so, you agree that my approach of looking at individual stations is an acceptable one and says something about AGW!"
1.10 Another example from one of Eric's other posts:
"The WIEN_HOHE_WARTE station in Vienna, Austria, has been recording temperature data since 1774, offering crucial insights into pre-industrial climate trends and long-term climate variability. As Martin F. Hock observed, "This nicely reflects the Dalton Minimum of sunspots... " ... Additionally, historical records indicate year-to-year temperature fluctuations of up to 2°C (marked by blue dots), emphasizing the significant role of natural climate variability in temperature changes."
Note the use of the phrase "climate variability" and reference to "Dalton Minimum of sunspots".
He also uses the expression "temperature changes" in an ambiguous way in this text. He might be deliberately using such phrasing to conflate temperature fluctuations due to natural variability and the global average temperature anomaly (the change since industrialisation).
1.11 In some of his posts, Eric infers lack of correlation between global atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global average temperatures. That inference is debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
It will be interesting to see how many of the anti-AGW tropes listed at skepticalscience.com Eric will be trotting out over the coming months:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage
People might want to tick them off against that list as and when they appear in Eric's posts.
He is also gish-galloping - posting his disinformation so frequently (sometimes more than once per day) which makes it more difficult for readers to keep up with all his unsubstantiated claims, in order to fact check and rebut them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
1.12 He also ignores rebuttals and criticisms pointing out the flaws in his argument.
The gish galloper hopes to wear down the opposition, and that not all of the gish galloper's posts / arguments / claims or inferences will be rebutted. The gish galloper can then claim "Aha - see - nobody has rebutted this particular point I posted!" even if that is only one point and hundreds (even thousands) of their other points have been rebutted.
1.13 In another post, Eric says:
"This is the best comment I have seen to date:
"I am fully convinced that climate change is real. I am also fully convinced that it has always existed and has always been actively changing. However, I am convinced that the idea of human-caused change as presented by Al Gore is, in fact, a hoax—designed to generate fear and, in turn, generate profits." (David Harvey - Los Alamos National Laboratory)"
I think that post says a lot about Eric's views about AGW.
1.14 In March 2025, Eric posted more information about his pseudoscience approach to analysing temperature data.
I asked him:
"Please provide the sampling approach in more detail, the list of sites used in your analysis, and the ones excluded (with reasons), the data, and the statistical and other analyses and calculations, and your findings/ conclusions, for fact checking purposes. Better still, submit a paper, with all these elements in it, to a scientific journal, for peer review and publication. That's the way science works."
His response was:
"It's on the way!"
However, so far, he has posted incomplete details in multiple LinkedIn posts, not a single, complete paper.
I reproduce here some of the relevant exchanges between us.
Eric's first description of his analysis approach:
"Steps to Create a Global Temperature Curve Using Selected Stations
Identify and Gather Data – Select weather stations with more than 90 years of recorded temperature data.
Generate Yearly Statistics – Run a script to compute yearly minimum, maximum, average, and median temperatures.
Smooth the Average Curve – Apply a smoothing algorithm and anchor the curve to HadCRUT5 at the year 1980.
Data Verification – Review the processed data; assistance is needed for this step. Participants are encouraged to use Google Sheets for sharing and collaboration.
Fit Trend Lines – Compute a straight-line fit for each station and determine the slope and R² goodness-of-fit.
Validate Data – Plot residuals and trend curves for selected stations. Which stations do you find most interesting?
Filter Data – Cross-plot R² vs. slope and use it as a filtering criterion to reject unreliable data.
Create Preliminary Curves – Select a subset of stations and generate an average temperature curve.
Evaluate Results – Assess whether the mathematical approach is sound and whether the results make sense.
Run Full Analysis – Execute the script on all selected stations and visualize the complete dataset.
Final Integration – Combine the generated curve with the HadCRUT5 dataset and publish the final result for broader review.
Feedback Requested:
Does this workflow make sense? Are there any steps that need clarification or improvement? Data and software will be available upon request."
My responses to Eric:
Your proposed approach includes:
1.14.1) " Select weather stations with more than 90 years of recorded temperature data."
As explained at:
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/
"Scientists have been building estimates of Earth’s average global temperature for more than a century, using temperature records from weather stations. But before 1880, there just wasn’t enough data to make accurate calculations, resulting in uncertainties in these older records."
Your approach of focussing more on temp stations with a longer track record will inevitably result in bigger errors / uncertainties in your results. Do you calculate uncertainties in your analysis?
1.14.2) "Apply a smoothing algorithm"
What algorithm, specifically? Why select that one? What error/uncertainty ranges will apply?
1.14.3) "Which stations do you find most interesting?"
That falls foul of the deficiency that inferences about AGW at global level cannot be made from looking at individual stations.
1.14.4) "Fit Trend Lines – Compute a straight-line fit for each station... Filter Data – Cross-plot R² vs. slope and use it as a filtering criterion to reject unreliable data."
You are suggesting using linear regression and best-fit.
Take note of Jarvis (2024) "Estimated human-induced warming from a linear temperature and atmospheric CO2 relationship":
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-024-01580-5
from which the attached shows the impacts of human influence on warming ("HIW").
Care is needed in using linear regression, as most scientists think the warming response to human drivers is non-linear, when all significant feedbacks are included. However, you might find this interesting, from Jarvis:
"Linearity between increases in atmospheric CO2 and temperature offers a framework ... producing human-induced warming estimates that are at least 30% more certain than alternative methods. Here, for 2023, we estimate humans have caused a global increase of 1.49 ± 0.11 °C relative to a pre-1700 baseline."
1.14.5) "Select a subset of stations ... Combine the generated curve with the HadCRUT5 dataset... visualize the complete dataset... publish the final result for broader review"
Why only HadCRUT5?
Why not include the many other sources of global average temp data?
Why not include hypothesis testing for one or more hypotheses of your choice?
Are you intending to try to establish what proportion of global warming is caused by natural variability and what proportion is human-driven? That is what the IPCC has already reported on in the attached (from AR6 WG1), in which the conclusion is that almost all warming since industrialisation is from human drivers. You could compare your results with this. But are you using data that will enable such a comparison to be made, and statistically justified?
"Linearity between increases in atmospheric CO2 and temperature offers a framework ... producing human-induced warming estimates that are at least 30% more certain than alternative methods. Here, for 2023, we estimate humans have caused a global increase of 1.49 ± 0.11 °C relative to a pre-1700 baseline."
1.14.5) "Select a subset of stations ... Combine the generated curve with the HadCRUT5 dataset... visualize the complete dataset... publish the final result for broader review"
Why only HadCRUT5?
Why not include the many other sources of global average temp data?
Why not include hypothesis testing for one or more hypotheses of your choice?
Are you intending to try to establish what proportion of global warming is caused by natural variability and what proportion is human-driven? That is what the IPCC has already reported on in the attached (from AR6 WG1), in which the conclusion is that almost all warming since industrialisation is from human drivers. You could compare your results with this. But are you using data that will enable such a comparison to be made, and statistically justified?
With reference to his second description in a separate LinkedIn post:
https://lnkd.in/gNBbCh4B
Your data analysis approach ("Steps to Create a Global Temperature Curve Using Selected Stations") addressed:
1.14.6) "Identify and Gather Data – Select weather stations with over 100 years of recorded temperature data. The initial dataset includes 325 stations worldwide, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere."
You've already said that you trust older temperature measurements more than younger ones. That will introduce larger uncertainty ranges into your analyses, and will skew the data compared with the full data set from all stations. And you admit that the initial data set is mostly located in the Northern Hemisphere. That provides geographic bias in any analysis you commence.
1.14.7) "Focus on Pre-1980 Data – For recent data, we will use the University of Alabama (Huntsville) Northern Hemisphere (Land) dataset."
You've already said that you trust older temperature measurements more than younger ones. That will introduce larger uncertainty ranges into your analysis, and will skew the data compared with the full data set from all stations. Why exclude data after 1980? There has been rapid global warming since 1980. See the "Global Warming Hiatus" (included above).
1.14.8) "Review and Contribute – If you have a preferred station, let me know. All I need are time-series data with daily or monthly temperature values in degrees Celsius, and I can add it to the list."
Many responders have pointed out that picking a single station to focus on does not say anything about human-driven global warming ("AGW"). You have not responded to that rebuttal of your approach. More details here:
https://lnkd.in/g_wfawep
1.14.9) adding reviewers' suggested stations to the list you analyse and chart is not going to produce a valid sampling method for purposes of creating valid statistical analysis. What you will get is a bias towards a polled opinion by those reviewers who make such suggestions for addition. A clear case of selection bias, if ever there was one.
My conclusion:
Your approach is an example of "pseudoscience" and looks designed to be misleading. Not only that, but you seem to be encouraging others to engage in, and to also carry out, your brand of pseudoscience.
As a footnote on this, Eric said recently in a comment about his analysis:
" [re-] significant warming trend since the 1980s. For our purposes, uncorrected temperatures are sufficient." [by uncorrected, you mean raw temperature data, without corrections for known errors or biases]
My response was:
Really?
What purposes do you have for the analysis you are doing, if you are not going to correct for known errors and biases?
Eric posted the following a day later:
"Regression Analysis on 319 Meteorological Stations:
As an initial step, I conducted a simple linear regression analysis on all 319 station datasets, as shown in the chart below ["R squared versus temperature gradient [ie temperature change versus pre-industrial]"]. Most stations exhibit a positive slope, while 14 stations show a negative trend.
Notable Findings:
Frostburg stands out among the negative trends (previously posted).
Jakarta, despite having a slope of less than +2°C per century, had the highest R² (goodness of fit) among all stations.
Parry Sound, Ontario, Canada, recorded the steepest warming trend of all stations.
From my analysis, all stations appear to provide valid data.
Now, the question is: What happens when we aggregate them all?"
1.15 In another post, Eric says, about "RAHA/RUZYNE, Czech Republic – Historical Temperature Trends (1771–2012)":"pre-WWII temperatures appear warmer before 1850 than those recorded after 1850. Furthermore, historical warming and cooling trends have at times occurred more rapidly than the warming trend observed since 1980."
That's clearly misinformation, in the context of AGW. He uses local data to imply something about a global phenomenon (human-driven global warming).
The main problems with that particular post:
1.15.1) In this instance, he picked a location where temperatures 'appeared warmer before 1850 than from 1850 to 2012, which is different from the global average temp trends where global average temps after 1850 (to 2024) were much warmer than before 1850.
1.15.2) The data he has posted about stops in 2012, but there has been much more warming globally from 2012 to 2024 (another 12 years)
1.15.3) Eric's claim about rapid warming and cooling is spurious, and he does not set out his analysis method for it. It's clearly misinformation, inferring an attempt at a rebuttal of one of the main impacts of current human-driven global warming, which is the rate of increase, as per the Cottonwood diagram (comparing current rate of rise with those of previous mass extinction events). He is obviously referring to much smaller timescales (a few years) than would be valid for making any meaningful inference about rates of global warming. Note that the rate of rise of global temperatures in the Cottonwood chart are measured in thousands of years, not several years. In global climate science, timespans of 30 years are considered the bare minimum for making any kind of statistical inferences.
With reference to his second description in a separate LinkedIn post:
https://lnkd.in/gNBbCh4B
Your data analysis approach ("Steps to Create a Global Temperature Curve Using Selected Stations") addressed:
1.14.6) "Identify and Gather Data – Select weather stations with over 100 years of recorded temperature data. The initial dataset includes 325 stations worldwide, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere."
You've already said that you trust older temperature measurements more than younger ones. That will introduce larger uncertainty ranges into your analyses, and will skew the data compared with the full data set from all stations. And you admit that the initial data set is mostly located in the Northern Hemisphere. That provides geographic bias in any analysis you commence.
1.14.7) "Focus on Pre-1980 Data – For recent data, we will use the University of Alabama (Huntsville) Northern Hemisphere (Land) dataset."
You've already said that you trust older temperature measurements more than younger ones. That will introduce larger uncertainty ranges into your analysis, and will skew the data compared with the full data set from all stations. Why exclude data after 1980? There has been rapid global warming since 1980. See the "Global Warming Hiatus" (included above).
1.14.8) "Review and Contribute – If you have a preferred station, let me know. All I need are time-series data with daily or monthly temperature values in degrees Celsius, and I can add it to the list."
Many responders have pointed out that picking a single station to focus on does not say anything about human-driven global warming ("AGW"). You have not responded to that rebuttal of your approach. More details here:
https://lnkd.in/g_wfawep
1.14.9) adding reviewers' suggested stations to the list you analyse and chart is not going to produce a valid sampling method for purposes of creating valid statistical analysis. What you will get is a bias towards a polled opinion by those reviewers who make such suggestions for addition. A clear case of selection bias, if ever there was one.
My conclusion:
Your approach is an example of "pseudoscience" and looks designed to be misleading. Not only that, but you seem to be encouraging others to engage in, and to also carry out, your brand of pseudoscience.
As a footnote on this, Eric said recently in a comment about his analysis:
" [re-] significant warming trend since the 1980s. For our purposes, uncorrected temperatures are sufficient." [by uncorrected, you mean raw temperature data, without corrections for known errors or biases]
My response was:
Really?
What purposes do you have for the analysis you are doing, if you are not going to correct for known errors and biases?
Eric posted the following a day later:
"Regression Analysis on 319 Meteorological Stations:
As an initial step, I conducted a simple linear regression analysis on all 319 station datasets, as shown in the chart below ["R squared versus temperature gradient [ie temperature change versus pre-industrial]"]. Most stations exhibit a positive slope, while 14 stations show a negative trend.
Notable Findings:
Frostburg stands out among the negative trends (previously posted).
Jakarta, despite having a slope of less than +2°C per century, had the highest R² (goodness of fit) among all stations.
Parry Sound, Ontario, Canada, recorded the steepest warming trend of all stations.
From my analysis, all stations appear to provide valid data.
Now, the question is: What happens when we aggregate them all?"
1.15 In another post, Eric says, about "RAHA/RUZYNE, Czech Republic – Historical Temperature Trends (1771–2012)":"pre-WWII temperatures appear warmer before 1850 than those recorded after 1850. Furthermore, historical warming and cooling trends have at times occurred more rapidly than the warming trend observed since 1980."
That's clearly misinformation, in the context of AGW. He uses local data to imply something about a global phenomenon (human-driven global warming).
The main problems with that particular post:
1.15.1) In this instance, he picked a location where temperatures 'appeared warmer before 1850 than from 1850 to 2012, which is different from the global average temp trends where global average temps after 1850 (to 2024) were much warmer than before 1850.
1.15.2) The data he has posted about stops in 2012, but there has been much more warming globally from 2012 to 2024 (another 12 years)
1.15.3) Eric's claim about rapid warming and cooling is spurious, and he does not set out his analysis method for it. It's clearly misinformation, inferring an attempt at a rebuttal of one of the main impacts of current human-driven global warming, which is the rate of increase, as per the Cottonwood diagram (comparing current rate of rise with those of previous mass extinction events). He is obviously referring to much smaller timescales (a few years) than would be valid for making any meaningful inference about rates of global warming. Note that the rate of rise of global temperatures in the Cottonwood chart are measured in thousands of years, not several years. In global climate science, timespans of 30 years are considered the bare minimum for making any kind of statistical inferences.
1.16 The main problems with Eric's analysis approach:
1.16.1) No mention of the basis of selection of the 319 temp stations - selection bias and geographical bias are almost certain to exist in his data set, as he has not previously included in his stated approach any random sampling from the tens of thousands of known temp measurement stations. Instead, he selects stations with data "that looks interesting"
1.16.2) No mention of the dates covered and the number of data points for each station, although Eric has previously said he trusts older data more than more recent data, so he's probably using data from before the recent significant increases in rate of rise of the global temperature anomaly. Therefore, any results will not be showing a complete picture of the modern era, where most human-driven warming has occurred.
1.16.3) He uses raw, unadjusted, data, which introduces known inaccuracies well-researched and evidenced by climate scientists.
1.16.4) His claim that "all stations appear to provide valid data" is not substantiated by anything in his post. It's also irrelevant if the selection criteria for the 319 stations introduces bias
1.16.5) He gives no indication of uncertainty/error ranges in his analysis and results
1.16.6) The answer to his question "What happens when we aggregate them all?" is that there is an invalid result, whatever it shows. Perhaps the only thing it can possibly show is what you can produce with a statistically invalid approach.
1.16.7) His post is just a more elaborate than average example of "JaQing"
1.17 His posts are clearly an example of pseudoscience disinformation.
In April 2025 posts Eric made a comment about "the IPCC’s so-called “point of no return” of 1.5°C". That is clearly a strawman argument, which can easily be rebutted by reference to their own published reports. See:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
and there is an interactive version here:
https://apps.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/fig1/index.html
which anyone can use to see the impacts of various dates for achievement of global net zero on the amount of overshoot before returning back below a temp anomaly of 1.5
The IPCC does recognise the risk of triggering climate tipping points. And the bigger and longer the overshoot beyond 1.5, the bigger the chances of triggering climate tipping points, which would considerably delay the return to below 1.5 and would make it more difficult and expensive to do so. However, the IPCC has been criticised (and rightly so, in my view) for underplaying the risks of triggering, and impacts from, climate tipping points.
1.18 In another post, Eric says:
"Our model, based on five long-term stations, shows an average warming of 0.838°C per century—a far cry from the dramatic 3°C rise since 1980 often cited today. (That’s double the IPCC’s so-called “point of no return” of 1.5°C. Just saying... Even a simple model based on just four hand-picked stations tells a very different story from the mainstream narrative. The question is—why?"
The answer is very simple - Eric's analysis deliberately ignores statistical and other reasons why his analysis of one, four or five temperature recording locations shows a different result from the many credible analyses of the global average temperature anomaly, which is largely caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming.
In deliberately omitting those well known, well researched and credible reasons, Eric is spreading misinformation and using "JaQing".
1.19 In another post, Eric says he "always conduct[s] error analysis".
The only evidence of that in the way he presents his work appears to be the occasional "+-" when he cites numbers for temperatures in his text. It would be much better if he would include error or uncertainty ranges in the charts he creates and shares, showing the ranges of errors and uncertainties in values of the temperature measurements and trend lines he plots.
1.20 Many people have pointed out to Eric these and many other deficiencies in his posts, but he has steadfastly declined to take them on board or correct them. He rarely even responds to such feedback. Instead, he doubles down on his invalid approaches to data analysis and continues to make anti-AGW claims, often repeating well-worn and frequently debunked anti-AGW tropes.
I challenged Eric on this. He asked "Shall we add Prague to the model and see how it affects the results?"
I pointed out that adding Prague would not make his results valid for any kind of conclusion about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I suggested that, rather than drip-feeding this sort of misinformation post by post, he should do his most comprehensive analysis, put it into a paper, drawing whatever conclusions he thinks are justifiable and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for publication. That's how the scientific process works. Not by the sort of pseudoscientific approach he is deploying time and time again.
1.21 In another post, he seemed to be taking a contradictory approach to another recent post of his.
He said:
"Shall we add Prague to the model and see how it affects the results?"
What he said before was:
"I'm afraid time is running out..."
At this rate, with him posting data with an additional temp station added at his current rate of about one per day, it will take many years for him to even start to have something that could possibly (perhaps) have some statistical significance. And that would be if he added randomly selected stations, rather than cherry-picked ones. His cherry picking will ensure, in fact, that he never has a statistically justifiable or valid result, whatever his conclusions from it are.
So, is shortage of time an issue for him, or not? He seems to be unable to make up his mind on that. One reasonable conclusion to reach is that he is stringing out his work and the sharing of it, to a very great degree. That would be consistent with him following a "Jaqing" approach with pseudoscience overtones rather than a genuinely scientific one.
1.22 After a break of a few months, in November 2025 Keyser recommenced his spraying of anti-AGW pseudoscience claptrap into LinkedIn. He posted:
"I’ve included [alongside Adelaide's raw temp data] the HadCRUT5 Northern Hemisphere series — the familiar orange “IPCC curve.” The contrast is striking."
Keyser then launches into a few unsubstantiated claims and statements:
1.22.1) "Adelaide’s record simply doesn’t mirror the smooth upward trajectory seen in hemispheric models."
1.22.2) "This invites a broader reflection. Perhaps CO₂ is not the sole or simple driver of observed temperature trends."
1.22.3) "And while it plays an important role in Earth’s energy balance, its beneficial effects — such as enhanced plant growth and improved agricultural yields — are also worth remembering as we interpret the complexity of long-term climate data."
1.22.4) "My raw-data latitude-band plot shows a clear contrast—strong warming and cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, but almost nothing comparable in the Southern Hemisphere. It raises the question: are the adjustments shaping the narrative? "
My response:
No conspiracy theory required here to explain the data trends. Just climate science. Specifically:
Re- 1.22.1) Using Adelaide is a cherry-pick of an individual location. There is no reason why one location would follow the hemispherical trend, because of regional and local variabilities. Your cherry picking invalidates the conclusions you try to draw or imply through your JaQing.
Re 1.22.2) "a broader reflection. Perhaps CO₂ is not the sole or simple driver of observed temperature trends".
Here, you introduce a true statement, in a weak form. Yes, it is actually true that there are more drivers of global warming than CO2. No "perhaps" about it. Climate scientists have known about quite a large number of drivers of warming (and cooling). They have been studied, and their impacts assessed, by climate scientists for many decades. They conclude that greenhouse gases from human activities, and especially CO2 emissions, are the main driver of warming since industrialisation.
Re 1.22.3) By saying "[CO2's] beneficial effects — such as enhanced plant growth and improved agricultural yields" you are invoking the well-worn anti-AGW trope "CO2 is plant food" which is debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
The answer to your question (1.22.4) about why the Northern hemisphere is warming faster than the Southern Hemisphere and has some different variabilities over time can be found in the FAQ from IPCC AR6:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/faqs/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FAQ_Chapter_04.pdf
"The warming is generally stronger over land than over the ocean, and in the Northern Hemisphere compared to the Southern Hemisphere, and with less warming over the central subpolar North Atlantic and the southernmost Pacific. The differences are the result of several factors, including differences in how land and ocean areas absorb and retain heat, the fact that there is more land area in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere, and the influence of ocean circulation...
In summary, climate change will not affect all the parts of the globe evenly. Rather, distinct regional patterns of temperature and precipitation change can be identified, and these changes are projected to amplify as the level of global warming increases."
None of the data, claims or statements in Keyser's posts provide any substantive counterevidence against AGW (ie human driven increase in global average temperature) since industrialisation.
If you look back over Keyser's claims and use of data, you'll notice that his November post about Adelaide is essentially repeating a similar post and set of anti-AGW claims and JaQing from a few months previously (eg about Prague - see sections 1.4, 1.9 and 1.19 above).
This is a strong indicator of a Gish Gallop activity - the perpetrator cycles back to repeat previously made claims, ignoring any rebuttals that have been made to counter those earlier claims. The Gish Galloper hopes that people won't notice that cycling, so that the claims they make appear to be going unchallenged. That impression of lack of rebuttal is what the Gish Galloper relies on, to influence audiences to at least consider the possibility that the 'new, unchallenged' claim might be true. It's like the magician's slight of hand, directing attention away from where the previous, identical or substantively similar claim was rebutted.
Summing up
I could go on, citing and debunking the many claims or obvious inferences in many more of Eric's other posts.
Instead, I'll just summarise.
Eric appears to be promoting a narrative around:
- Being dismissive of the scientific evidence supporting AGW, and climate scientists
- Attacking the IPCC
- Using a pseudoscience approach
- Focussing on data from individual temperature monitoring sites and making unsubstantiated claims or inferences about AGW from them
- using "JaQing"
- Failing to respond to many respondents who point out the obvious flaws in his claims and inferences
- Using well-worn anti-AGW tropes, sprinkling them liberally through his posts
- Encouraging respondents who express anti-AGW opinions
It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Eric is an anti-AGW disinformation propagandist. Not surprising for someone from the CO2 Coalition.
1.16 The main problems with Eric's analysis approach:
1.16.1) No mention of the basis of selection of the 319 temp stations - selection bias and geographical bias are almost certain to exist in his data set, as he has not previously included in his stated approach any random sampling from the tens of thousands of known temp measurement stations. Instead, he selects stations with data "that looks interesting"
1.16.2) No mention of the dates covered and the number of data points for each station, although Eric has previously said he trusts older data more than more recent data, so he's probably using data from before the recent significant increases in rate of rise of the global temperature anomaly. Therefore, any results will not be showing a complete picture of the modern era, where most human-driven warming has occurred.
1.16.3) He uses raw, unadjusted, data, which introduces known inaccuracies well-researched and evidenced by climate scientists.
1.16.4) His claim that "all stations appear to provide valid data" is not substantiated by anything in his post. It's also irrelevant if the selection criteria for the 319 stations introduces bias
1.16.5) He gives no indication of uncertainty/error ranges in his analysis and results
1.16.6) The answer to his question "What happens when we aggregate them all?" is that there is an invalid result, whatever it shows. Perhaps the only thing it can possibly show is what you can produce with a statistically invalid approach.
1.16.7) His post is just a more elaborate than average example of "JaQing"
1.17 His posts are clearly an example of pseudoscience disinformation.
In April 2025 posts Eric made a comment about "the IPCC’s so-called “point of no return” of 1.5°C". That is clearly a strawman argument, which can easily be rebutted by reference to their own published reports. See:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
and there is an interactive version here:
https://apps.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/fig1/index.html
which anyone can use to see the impacts of various dates for achievement of global net zero on the amount of overshoot before returning back below a temp anomaly of 1.5
The IPCC does recognise the risk of triggering climate tipping points. And the bigger and longer the overshoot beyond 1.5, the bigger the chances of triggering climate tipping points, which would considerably delay the return to below 1.5 and would make it more difficult and expensive to do so. However, the IPCC has been criticised (and rightly so, in my view) for underplaying the risks of triggering, and impacts from, climate tipping points.
1.18 In another post, Eric says:
"Our model, based on five long-term stations, shows an average warming of 0.838°C per century—a far cry from the dramatic 3°C rise since 1980 often cited today. (That’s double the IPCC’s so-called “point of no return” of 1.5°C. Just saying... Even a simple model based on just four hand-picked stations tells a very different story from the mainstream narrative. The question is—why?"
The answer is very simple - Eric's analysis deliberately ignores statistical and other reasons why his analysis of one, four or five temperature recording locations shows a different result from the many credible analyses of the global average temperature anomaly, which is largely caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming.
In deliberately omitting those well known, well researched and credible reasons, Eric is spreading misinformation and using "JaQing".
1.19 In another post, Eric says he "always conduct[s] error analysis".
The only evidence of that in the way he presents his work appears to be the occasional "+-" when he cites numbers for temperatures in his text. It would be much better if he would include error or uncertainty ranges in the charts he creates and shares, showing the ranges of errors and uncertainties in values of the temperature measurements and trend lines he plots.
1.20 Many people have pointed out to Eric these and many other deficiencies in his posts, but he has steadfastly declined to take them on board or correct them. He rarely even responds to such feedback. Instead, he doubles down on his invalid approaches to data analysis and continues to make anti-AGW claims, often repeating well-worn and frequently debunked anti-AGW tropes.
I challenged Eric on this. He asked "Shall we add Prague to the model and see how it affects the results?"
I pointed out that adding Prague would not make his results valid for any kind of conclusion about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I suggested that, rather than drip-feeding this sort of misinformation post by post, he should do his most comprehensive analysis, put it into a paper, drawing whatever conclusions he thinks are justifiable and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for publication. That's how the scientific process works. Not by the sort of pseudoscientific approach he is deploying time and time again.
1.21 In another post, he seemed to be taking a contradictory approach to another recent post of his.
He said:
"Shall we add Prague to the model and see how it affects the results?"
What he said before was:
"I'm afraid time is running out..."
At this rate, with him posting data with an additional temp station added at his current rate of about one per day, it will take many years for him to even start to have something that could possibly (perhaps) have some statistical significance. And that would be if he added randomly selected stations, rather than cherry-picked ones. His cherry picking will ensure, in fact, that he never has a statistically justifiable or valid result, whatever his conclusions from it are.
So, is shortage of time an issue for him, or not? He seems to be unable to make up his mind on that. One reasonable conclusion to reach is that he is stringing out his work and the sharing of it, to a very great degree. That would be consistent with him following a "Jaqing" approach with pseudoscience overtones rather than a genuinely scientific one.
1.22 After a break of a few months, in November 2025 Keyser recommenced his spraying of anti-AGW pseudoscience claptrap into LinkedIn. He posted:
"I’ve included [alongside Adelaide's raw temp data] the HadCRUT5 Northern Hemisphere series — the familiar orange “IPCC curve.” The contrast is striking."
Keyser then launches into a few unsubstantiated claims and statements:
1.22.1) "Adelaide’s record simply doesn’t mirror the smooth upward trajectory seen in hemispheric models."
1.22.2) "This invites a broader reflection. Perhaps CO₂ is not the sole or simple driver of observed temperature trends."
1.22.3) "And while it plays an important role in Earth’s energy balance, its beneficial effects — such as enhanced plant growth and improved agricultural yields — are also worth remembering as we interpret the complexity of long-term climate data."
1.22.4) "My raw-data latitude-band plot shows a clear contrast—strong warming and cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, but almost nothing comparable in the Southern Hemisphere. It raises the question: are the adjustments shaping the narrative? "
My response:
No conspiracy theory required here to explain the data trends. Just climate science. Specifically:
Re- 1.22.1) Using Adelaide is a cherry-pick of an individual location. There is no reason why one location would follow the hemispherical trend, because of regional and local variabilities. Your cherry picking invalidates the conclusions you try to draw or imply through your JaQing.
Re 1.22.2) "a broader reflection. Perhaps CO₂ is not the sole or simple driver of observed temperature trends".
Here, you introduce a true statement, in a weak form. Yes, it is actually true that there are more drivers of global warming than CO2. No "perhaps" about it. Climate scientists have known about quite a large number of drivers of warming (and cooling). They have been studied, and their impacts assessed, by climate scientists for many decades. They conclude that greenhouse gases from human activities, and especially CO2 emissions, are the main driver of warming since industrialisation.
Re 1.22.3) By saying "[CO2's] beneficial effects — such as enhanced plant growth and improved agricultural yields" you are invoking the well-worn anti-AGW trope "CO2 is plant food" which is debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
The answer to your question (1.22.4) about why the Northern hemisphere is warming faster than the Southern Hemisphere and has some different variabilities over time can be found in the FAQ from IPCC AR6:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/faqs/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FAQ_Chapter_04.pdf
"The warming is generally stronger over land than over the ocean, and in the Northern Hemisphere compared to the Southern Hemisphere, and with less warming over the central subpolar North Atlantic and the southernmost Pacific. The differences are the result of several factors, including differences in how land and ocean areas absorb and retain heat, the fact that there is more land area in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere, and the influence of ocean circulation...
In summary, climate change will not affect all the parts of the globe evenly. Rather, distinct regional patterns of temperature and precipitation change can be identified, and these changes are projected to amplify as the level of global warming increases."
None of the data, claims or statements in Keyser's posts provide any substantive counterevidence against AGW (ie human driven increase in global average temperature) since industrialisation.
If you look back over Keyser's claims and use of data, you'll notice that his November post about Adelaide is essentially repeating a similar post and set of anti-AGW claims and JaQing from a few months previously (eg about Prague - see sections 1.4, 1.9 and 1.19 above).
This is a strong indicator of a Gish Gallop activity - the perpetrator cycles back to repeat previously made claims, ignoring any rebuttals that have been made to counter those earlier claims. The Gish Galloper hopes that people won't notice that cycling, so that the claims they make appear to be going unchallenged. That impression of lack of rebuttal is what the Gish Galloper relies on, to influence audiences to at least consider the possibility that the 'new, unchallenged' claim might be true. It's like the magician's slight of hand, directing attention away from where the previous, identical or substantively similar claim was rebutted.
Summing up
I could go on, citing and debunking the many claims or obvious inferences in many more of Eric's other posts.
Instead, I'll just summarise.
Eric appears to be promoting a narrative around:
- Being dismissive of the scientific evidence supporting AGW, and climate scientists
- Attacking the IPCC
- Using a pseudoscience approach
- Focussing on data from individual temperature monitoring sites and making unsubstantiated claims or inferences about AGW from them
- using "JaQing"
- Failing to respond to many respondents who point out the obvious flaws in his claims and inferences
- Using well-worn anti-AGW tropes, sprinkling them liberally through his posts
- Encouraging respondents who express anti-AGW opinions
It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Eric is an anti-AGW disinformation propagandist. Not surprising for someone from the CO2 Coalition.
B) David B. Russell
1) Mr Russell features here because of his persistent practice of "JaQing".
Within the space of a few days in March 2025, David asked several people essentially the same question, independently of the same question he had put to, and answers received from, other people, without making reference to those other exchanges. It was some version of, or slight variation on:
"Do you have something that shows "greenhouse gases" could actually have a measurable thermal effect?"
Several people responded to his question by citing the contents of IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021) which describes extensively the evidence for the greenhouse effect, or enhanced greenhouse effect (from human activities) which is essentially what David is asking about.
The diagram below, from page 174 of that report, illustrates the historical progress of the scientific work on this, going back many decades (now actually centuries). In the report, there are also copious references to the relevant scientific work.
David B Russell's general response to all that scientific evidence is to say "correlation does not prove causation".
However, in science, mechanism plus correlation is persuasive, and the evidence for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), from many lines of scientific study and measurement, is overwhelming. There is more evidence for AGW than for just about any subject in science, including things such as the existence of gravity. And the links between human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, and warming are as strong as any scientific theory can be. There are, of course, uncertainties in the amounts of warming, and in their effects in destabilising the global climate. But those uncertainties are indicated in confidence levels and ranges shown in all the main charts in IPCC reports. The remaining uncertainties are being narrowed all the time.
More sources of evidence for the greenhouse effect have been provided by Clive Scott:
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010" Feldman et al 2015
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
“Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing”
Kramer et al 2021
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585
“Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071930
A tighter constraint on Earth-system sensitivity from long-term temperature and carbon-cycle observations
Wong et al 2021
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23543-9
“Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915
On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
The issue with Mr Russell's approach is not that he asks the question about the greenhouse effect. It's that he does not accept (or even acknowledge the existence of) the scientific evidence presented in response to his questioning, and then he simply asks the same question to other people, putting it to numerous individuals on LinkedIn in separate threads. The evidence suggests he is "JaQing" - asking the question but not with the genuine intention of finding the answer but merely as a means to encourage readers to doubt the scientific knowledge and evidence of the enhanced greenhouse effect.
I would encourage Russell, if he wants to ask a genuine question and is interested in learning from the answers without wasting the time of a lot of respondents, to publish his question as a LinkedIn post, summarising what he knows so far about the scientific arguments for the enhanced greenhouse effect and his own views on the scientific evidence against it. That way, readers can comment on what he presents and can 'like' answers he receives from others, saving them (and all readers) a lot of time.
That way, individuals would not be spending time giving essentially the same answers that other responders have already given.
Otherwise, all he is doing is wasting targeted people's time (and that of other readers) by his JaQing.
As an aside, Russell's first interaction with me (that I recall) - in March 2025 - was a comment about my debunking of Eric Keyser's approach to analysis of temperature data. Mr Russell said:
2) "Your pedantic rant appears to be a veiled attempt to suppress dissenting opinions"
My response was:
"That is a misrepresentation and attempts to impute a malign intent to my actions.
Your comment is beyond discourteous and shows you are entering this discussion at the lower layers of the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Please ascend the layers.
You ask:
"Do you have anything that shows how atmospheric CO2 possibly could measurably influence surface temperatures?"
You're talking about the greenhouse effect, which has been known for many decades now.
Where to start with the evidence?...
You could start by looking at the most recent IPCC reports, and the statements about human-driven climate change by every credible scientific institution in the world.
The scientific evidence is so overwhelming that the IPCC says in AR6 WG1 (2021):
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."
That is largely from greenhouse gas emissions from human activities since industrialisation.
3.1) I feel I should report that, since March 2025 (through to at least August 2025) David B Russell has continued to persistently engage in JaQing, with his now very predictable questioning of the greenhouse effect. He does not seem to have been inclined to listen to any counterarguments or look at any counterevidence refuting his suggestion that greenhouse gases have little or no effect on global average temperatures. Clearly a case of "the record is stuck".
His JaQing seems to be typically some phrasing of the question "... in your words... What demonstrates that a radiative greenhouse effect is possible?"
The fact that he uses the phrase "in your own words" quite a lot suggests that what he is probably doing is fishing for answers that are poorly worded, so that he can then pick holes in them.
3.2) In response to yet another example of his JaQing in August 2025, I pointed David B Russell to this Rogues Gallery. His response was:
"David Calver You have not provided anything [ie in the Rogues' Gallery] that shows how your "greenhouse gas" belief could actually be valid. All you have shown is that you and others believe..."
Rather than acknowledge the scientific evidence for the enhanced greenhouse effect (which has been signposted here in this article), or provide any counterevidence, David B Russell invoked the "Skeptics are like Galileo" anti-AGW trope, debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm
from which:
"The comparison is exactly backwards. Modern scientists follow the evidence-based scientific method that Galileo pioneered. Skeptics who oppose scientific findings that threaten their world view are far closer to Galileo's belief-based critics in the Catholic Church."
4) In October 2025, he came out with an absolute false statement.
He claimed:
"CO2 does not affect climate"
That's demonstrably false.
He is dismissing the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect has been well established, from scientific studies going back many decades, even hundreds of years now.
For more details see:
https://skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist.htm
Mr Russell has claimed, without supporting it with any evidence:
5) "Few if any "renewables" could be built without subsidies. They add to the cost without providing the power."
In fact, electricity prices will be lower, almost everywhere in the world, when produced from renewables than when produced from fossil fuels.
For a source on this, see:
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/news/is-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels
6) "You must be one of those stalkers I've heard about. You won't address the question because you can't find anything that shows how a measurable CO2 greenhouse effect could actually be possible. That makes you mad at me."
My response:
Resorting to immoderate language, and projecting emotions onto others is an obvious attempt at distraction and deflection. It's also a sign that you are descending to the lower layers of the Graham's Hierarchy of disagreement.
In contrast to that, my comments about your 'contributions' to LinkedIn discussions explains and references the evidence that you say is lacking. Just because you ignore it or refuse to attempt to refute it, that doesn't mean that the evidence does not exist. Your latest response is just another in a long line showing your main approach is JaQing and a form of attempted "proof by blatant assertion". Your approach will not persuade many people on LinkedIn that your views are anything other than AGW dismissive.
7) In November, 2025, Russell started cycling back to previous claims and comments, without countering or even acknowledging the debunkings of those previous claims.
For example, he cycled back to section 3.2 above, almost verbatim, in repeating his previous claim.
8) Russell claimed, about me "You seem to be obsessed with providing misinformation and disinformation about CO2".
I challenged him in response:"Please point out some specific misinformation and disinformation you claim I have provided, ideally quoting me verbatim."
He ignored that request, but continued to make comments on other matters in the week after I posted my challenge. His behaviour had therefore crossed over into online abuse. So I blocked him.
C) Luis G López Lemus (Science-based Strategic Consultant on Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries Affairs, Baja California Sur, Mexico)
Luis is a frequent poster on LinkedIn, with many of his posts being scientific in character. It took me a while to realise that his approach is essentially a variation on JaQing, because he rarely expresses a view himself. Instead, he often lets his content lead a reader into doubting the existence or impact of AGW.
However, a few days ago he posted the following:
However, a few days ago he posted the following:
"—Not one warm period in history could have been predicted just as not one was caused by carbon dioxide or human culture:
It seems that CO2 made no difference despite being the source of life and oxygen, through photosynthesis…
Climate dynamics, as experienced by humans, seems to be the result of the ceaseless flowing of tectonic plates, volcanoes and ocean currents, among many other factors, some still unknown and/or plainly misunderstood, not fake ideology!"
That text shows Luis clearly presenting climate change as a purely natural phenomenon and claiming AGW as what he calls "fake ideology".
It seems that CO2 made no difference despite being the source of life and oxygen, through photosynthesis…
Climate dynamics, as experienced by humans, seems to be the result of the ceaseless flowing of tectonic plates, volcanoes and ocean currents, among many other factors, some still unknown and/or plainly misunderstood, not fake ideology!"
That text shows Luis clearly presenting climate change as a purely natural phenomenon and claiming AGW as what he calls "fake ideology".
Luis' belief that AGW isn't real is further demonstrated by the following text excerpt from another of his posts:
excerpt starts ---------
—We are living in an ice age that started about 2.58 million years ago, it is called the Quaternary Glaciation / Ice Age: The current Holocene period is an interglacial period within an ice age, and outside of the five major ice ages Earth has been ice free for most of its history!
We are now about 12,000 years into an interglacial period and they usually last about 10,000-15,000 years!
Are ~4 km of ice on top of us the ideal conditions climate alarmists are craving?
excerpt ends ---------
As well as being similar to a frequently seen anti-AGW trope "the warming is not us - it's just that we're coming out of the last ice age", Luis' text seems self-contradictory. On the one hand, if he is saying that without human warming, the Earth will cool more quickly back into the depths of the next ice age, then he is recognising that human activities are warming the planet. On the other hand, if he believes that AGW isn't real and humans are not warming the planet, and therefore that the Earth will soon go into a new ice age anyway, but that humans want to accelerate that drop by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, then he is again implying that reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities would cool the planet compared with the counterfactual. Overall, his text is simply a version of a strawman argument, and nothing more than that. Of course, very few people want the Earth to go into another ice age, because the large-scale rain-fed agriculture that feeds most of the world population of 8 billion would become impossible, resulting in the starvation of enormous numbers of people.
excerpt starts ---------
—We are living in an ice age that started about 2.58 million years ago, it is called the Quaternary Glaciation / Ice Age: The current Holocene period is an interglacial period within an ice age, and outside of the five major ice ages Earth has been ice free for most of its history!
We are now about 12,000 years into an interglacial period and they usually last about 10,000-15,000 years!
Are ~4 km of ice on top of us the ideal conditions climate alarmists are craving?
excerpt ends ---------
As well as being similar to a frequently seen anti-AGW trope "the warming is not us - it's just that we're coming out of the last ice age", Luis' text seems self-contradictory. On the one hand, if he is saying that without human warming, the Earth will cool more quickly back into the depths of the next ice age, then he is recognising that human activities are warming the planet. On the other hand, if he believes that AGW isn't real and humans are not warming the planet, and therefore that the Earth will soon go into a new ice age anyway, but that humans want to accelerate that drop by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, then he is again implying that reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities would cool the planet compared with the counterfactual. Overall, his text is simply a version of a strawman argument, and nothing more than that. Of course, very few people want the Earth to go into another ice age, because the large-scale rain-fed agriculture that feeds most of the world population of 8 billion would become impossible, resulting in the starvation of enormous numbers of people.
One interesting feature of Luis' approach is that not all of his posts are misinformation. Some of them are straightforward, correct information about climate. The misinformation posts appear to be slipped in among the information posts. A case of masquerading as genuine scientific interest? Another example of a Pseudoscience approach?
D) David Jordan (CEO @ enteruptors | Decision Transformation - Smarter Decisions, Better Results, Lindfield, New South Wales, Australia)
Mr Jordan has posted a simplified diagram purporting to show how the greenhouse effect does not exist. His approach to the science, and scientists, appears to be summarised by a comment he made that “Scientists want people to be confused, so they can get away with some brazen claims that remain unproven.”
It’s difficult to be clear whether Mr Jordan’s objection to AGW stems from a basic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, or whether he is deliberately using false rebuttals of the greenhouse effect as a means to attack AGW and the scientists whose work proves it “unequivocally”, as the IPCC concludes.
Mr Jordan seems to have a very inaccurate and jaundiced view of the science of climate change, as demonstrated by the following excerpts from the recent exchanges between us.
Responses from me to Mr Jordan, addressing the gish gallop of misinformation and false statements he made in less than a day:
Excerpts start --------------------------------------------------
David Jordan, You suggest:
"It is not complicated science - Try holding water in a colander under a tap and watch all the water go through the holes.
This is real science."
No, it is not. It is pseudoscience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Your simple analogy with the colander is misdirected. If you altered it the following way, it would be a better (though not perfect) analogy for the greenhouse effect.
Run the tap at a rate of flow where the water flowing out of the colander (through the holes) just matches the rate of flow into the colander from the tap. Equilibrium - analogous to the equilibrium in the Earth's energy balance before industrialisation. Then restrict the sizes of the colander's holes by a small amount (pick your own small percentage) for example coating it with a thin layer of resin or varnish. Repeat the experiment with the same rate of flow from the tap. I can guarantee that the colander will no longer be in equilibrium. It will overflow soon enough to make the point. That is science. And climate science has many lines of evidence researched properly.
Your comment shows a very clear misunderstanding of the imbalance in the Earth's incoming and outgoing heat.
Even if, as you claim in another comment, the world was warmer 6,000 years ago (which it wasn't)
https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
your claim that "If it was warmer 6,000 years ago without coal power stations, then warming is a natural cycle - not man made" is demonstrably false. It is an example of the single cause fallacy. A fuller debunking can be found here:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
and:
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm
I address below a number of further myths, misdirections and misinformation statements in your comments:
1) "Climate science is backed by absurd articles"
Vague opinion without substance
2) "... that waffle around jargon"
Climate science is - er - science. One person's scientific language is another person's "jargon". But there are plenty of plain-language sources explaining the science in easy terms. Carbon Brief is a very good one to start with.
3) "... articles that ... try and shut down debate"
AGW has been debated in public probably more than any other subject in history, and discussions in scientific circles are just as prevalent. AGW probably has more research papers than any other subject, I think.
4) "villainization of CO2 is based on fear mongering and propaganda"
You use emotive language, and provide no evidence.
5) "Despite CO2 increasing 0.01% ..."
False. Since 1750, CO2 has increased by about 50%.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121
6) "the Antarctica ice shelf grew 200 billion tonnes"
Debunked here:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent
From which:
"Overall, the long-term trend in Antarctic sea ice is nearly flat. (in contrast, the glaciers and ice sheets over land in Antarctica are losing mass"
Antarctic ice, if you include its glaciers, confirms AGW. It does not disprove AGW.
Also:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/?intent=121
7) "Greenlands ice is growing"
No timeframe given.
Demonstrably false, in the timeframes meaningful for discussions about AGW.
See:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/?intent=121
8) "Water vapour is largely responsible for [global warming]..."
Water is an amplifier of warming driven mostly by human activities since industrialisation.
https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
9) "There are so many signals proving CO2 does not cause warming"
You don't even seem to be able to signpost one of them, let alone "so many"
If these were your best arguments, I'd say you struck out at the first attempt.
Instead of addressing the debunking of your points, in your responses you try a form of "proof by blatant assertion" and turn your contribution here into a "gish gallop".
Specifically addressing the new points you make:
10) "CO2 levels followed rising temps after each ice age"
Misinformation. True but misleading. It does not disprove AGW. You use a form of the "single cause fallacy".
See:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
11) "Temps fall to the next ice age despite high CO2 levels"
False. The next ice age is delayed 10s of thousands of years, perhaps indefinitely, by human drivers (including CO2):
https://www.carbonbrief.org/human-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age-by-50000-years-study-says/
12) "Despite sky rocketing CO2 levels, temps have been flat for 20 yrs"
False.
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
Another series of swings and misses.
You've also struck out on your second attempt to provide evidence.
The rest of your comment is unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
Instead of addressing the debunking of your points, you try a form of "proof by blatant assertion" and turn your contribution into a longer "gish gallop".
Addressing the new claims you make:
13) "temperature causes CO2, not the other way round"
False. It works both ways round. See:
https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
14) "if CO2 causes warming - Why do temperatures fall to each ice age despite high CO2"
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
15) "CO2 plays a micro role in climate"
False.
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
You suggest:
"Just try and explain what you are saying in simple language. Do not use jargon. Just keep it simple."
There are plenty of credible sources that explain all the relevant science in plain language.
You have now made at least 15 points that I have rebutted with actual science.
You continue to gish gallop rather than addressing the rebuttals.
To save readers lots of time, why don't you just point to the appearance of the next point you are going to make in this list:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage
It would be quite refreshing, on the other hand, if you would make a new point not in that list.
Mr Jordan responded to all of this with:
“David Calver Please take time to read a book, before making these silly statements.
This is the problem with climate zealots - like a dog with a bone. Try and bully and wear people done with nonsensical facts. It is quite sad to watch.”
Despite Mr Jordan’s claims that climate change dismissives like himself are “gaslighted” and that “debate is shut down”, he himself has demonstrated a clear case of trying to gaslight me.
I responded:
“David Jordan You claim "silly statements.... this is the problem with climate zealots - like a dog with a bone. ... nonsensical facts."
Firstly, you have not presented substantiated facts, and I've demonstrated (citing evidence) that a lot of what you have said is false and misleading, and shows a basic misunderstanding of the science.
Secondly, your latest comments show you are operating at the lowest levels of the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Please ascend the layers.”
Excerpts end ------------------------------------
Unfortunately it's quite a common experience that when an AGW dismissive is challenged with scientific evidence that rebuts their claims, they descend into making personal insults and spouting conspiracy theories. Often, this results in the very thing they claim others are doing - it shuts down genuine debate.
As a footnote, just after I published this entry in the Rogues' Gallery, Mr Jordan did the very thing I highlighted at the very top of this page - he cited several opinion pieces by people such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon, both well known climate change misinformers.
He also posted the following comments:
copy of David Jordan comments 07/07/2025 -----------------------------
Those who sit in an echo chamber preaching to each other fail to challenge propaganda that is fed to them.
Despite your sincere belief you are right and your view and belief that only fools question climate change hysteria.
You are using the AGW because you are now embarrassed to talk about climate change because it being ridiculed by the majority of people.
You are in a rapidly shrinking minority that believes in this hysterical crisis.
For 60 years doomsday scientists have been repeatedly wrong and yet you are adamant their assumptions are right.
I would suggest you and your colleagues expand your reading to alternative opinions and look at other possible causes.
The sun, moon and Jupiter have far more impact on climate than coal power stations.
Volcanos have far more impact on climate than coal power stations.
That you believe a molecule 0.00000033mm big that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere causes hurricanes - well I can get you a good deal on the Sydney Harbour bridge.
Climate science is so ludicrous in its claims - why are educated people like you not questioning it instead of lapping up the propaganda.
David Jordan comment ends -----------------------------
My response is:
David Jordan - your substantive points addressed:
16) "Despite your sincere belief ..."
This is not about belief, it's about scientific evidence.
In using phrasing of belief, you are invoking the "skeptics are like Galileo" anti-AGW trope, debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm
17) "The sun, moon and Jupiter have far more impact on climate than coal power stations"
False.
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
18) "Volcanos have far more impact on climate than coal power stations."
False. Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
19) "That you believe a molecule 0.00000033mm big that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere causes ..."
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
Four more swings and misses from you. This time you've wrapped a number of general comments around them that infer something about me and use emotive language, clearly in an attempt to evoke an emotional response which might derail any sensible conversation about the scientific realities.
E) Michael Earle
In exchanges, Earle set out his core proposition about AGW and biodiversity loss as follows:
"The cause of climate ‘change’ is my principal interest. The metronomic increase in CO2 is unlikely to be the main driver of the small, irregular and sometimes downward change in average temperature in some (not all) parts of the world. And the human emissions of CO2 are a tiny fraction of the natural amount in the cycle. Regarding species diversity and the environment - that can be addressed without resorting to (subsidized) wind and solar ‘farms’, since they also degrade the environment."
I addressed his bizarre collection of comments above as follows:
a) "The metronomic increase in CO2"
If by that you mean a regular increase and decrease, that has been true to some extent in the past, in the cycles of ice ages. However, human activities since industrialisation have interrupted that cycle and deferred the next ice age, perhaps indefinitely:
https://www.euronews.com/green/2025/02/28/human-caused-emissions-have-delayed-earths-next-ice-age-study-says-but-by-how-long
He was repeating his claim number 9 in his Gish Gallop (further below)
b) "... increase in CO2 is unlikely to be the main driver of the small, irregular and sometimes downward change in average temperature in some (not all) parts of the world"
That claim makes little sense. "average temperature in some (not all) parts of the world.. " makes no sense. Perhaps you are confusing local temperatures and the global average temperature anomaly?
At the global level, CO2, and other human activities, have been the main drivers of global warming since industrialisation, as shown by IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021). See also the debunking of his point 6 further below.
c) "the human emissions of CO2 are a tiny fraction of the natural amount in the cycle."
That's an example of misinformation - a true fact but misleading because it's the accumulation, year on year, that causes extra heating (enhanced greenhouse effect). See more detailed debunking here:
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
This was a point he made in addition to his 21-point Gish Gallop (further below)
d) "Regarding species diversity and the environment - that can be addressed without resorting to ... "
Yes, biodiversity protection could be achieved without decarbonisation. However, since a very large part of the reason for biodiversity loss is because of climate changes caused by AGW, tackling AGW will help tackle biodiversity loss.
e) "(subsidized) wind and solar ‘farms’, since they also degrade the environment."
Fossil fuel energies degrade the environment much more than renewable energies. See:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
In another comment, Earle stated:
"I think that CO2 will be identified as a minor forcing in respect of temperature. Also, blaming coal, petroleum, concrete, steel and transport - will be modified to account for changes in the biomass and unseen release of CO2 from submarine igneous and volcanic activity."
His opinions on these matters are covered by my debunking of his Gish Gallop (see below).
Earle made an anti-AGW Gish Gallop in July 2025 on LinkedIn.
He made a post headlined “AGW DEBUNKED (falseness exposed)”, citing “a selection of 50 recent references”. Against each of his following claims, I show the debunking or rebuttal, mostly from skepticalscience.com.
As a point on his sloppy scholarship (or his deliberate obtuseness and wish to make it hard to check his work), Earle did not cross-reference the 50 sources he cited to the many claims he made, so it is very difficult and time-consuming for anyone to check back through from a specific claim to specific references to check whether or not they actually support that particular claim and whether they are credible pieces of work. It’s difficult to avoid concluding that he did that deliberately because he knows that the rebuttals are out there. He’s relying on people having too little patience to identify the audit trail from claim to reference in order to provide the best rebuttals. The rebuttals below are therefore just a starting point for anyone who actually wants to do all that legwork.
1. “Climate models are flawed”
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
SkepticalScience’s number 6 in the ranking by popularity at: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage
2. “Models cannot distinguish between man-made and natural changes in temperature”
https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm
(their number 60)
3. “A global average temperature is an impossibility”
https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm
(their number 7)
4. “The 99% consensus about climate change is debunked”
No it’s not. The consensus is sound. See:
https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm
(their number 4)
and Lynas (2021):
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
5. “There are conflicts of Interest and funding in research”
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-in-it-for-the-money.htm
(their number 32)
6. “CO2 is not the primary driver of temperature increase”
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
(their number 30)
7. “CO2 effect is logarithmic and almost saturated”
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
(their number 75)
8. “Temperature change precedes CO2 change or they otherwise do not correlate”
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
(their number 12)
9. “Orbital, solar and planetary dynamics and cycles are the main driver”
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm
(their number 120)
https://skepticalscience.com/its-a-climate-shift-step-function-caused-by-natural-cycles.htm
(their number 178)
10. “Albedo-dust-clouds are forcings related to Point 9”
https://skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm
(their number 111)
11. “Biomass change is a forcing”
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
(their number 43)
12. “Geomagnetic field is a forcing”
Misinformation. The inference that geomagnetism is an alternative cause of global warming since industrialisation is bunked by this article from NASA in 2021:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/
13. “Sea level changes correlate with planetary orbits”
Debunked by this 2020 article:
New Research Affirms Modern Sea-Level Rise Linked to Human Activities, Not to Changes in Earth’s Orbit
https://scitechdaily.com/new-research-affirms-modern-sea-level-rise-linked-to-human-activities-not-to-changes-in-earths-orbit/
14. “Climate was warmer at periods earlier in the Holocene”
https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
(their number 146)
15. “Approx. half of recent temperature increase is due to UHI”
https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
(their number 26)
16. “Methane and CO2 levels are not coupled”
Not worth a rebuttal, because it’s just not relevant. It’s a strawman argument.
17. “AMOC is not in decline”
See this from NOAA in 2024:
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is weakening in the deep sea of the North Atlantic Ocean, study finds
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/atlantic-meridional-overturning-circulation-weakening-in-the-deep-sea-of-north-atlantic/
Although the AMOC is unlikely to completely collapse this century, it is weakening, which is consistent with AGW being real and in danger of crossing critical thresholds for various environmental tipping points.
18. “Jet Stream was wobbly before recent climate change”
Misinformation. The obvious inferences are debunked in 2024 in this article titled “Shifting Winds: How a wavier polar jet stream causes extreme weather events”:
https://arctic-council.org/news/shifting-winds-how-a-wavier-polar-jet-stream-causes-extreme-weather-events/
from which:
“… climate change is disrupting the wind system, and the once relatively stable waves of the polar jet stream are now more often plunging deeper and climbing higher, leading to severe consequences for billions of people.”
19. “Extreme weather events are not increasing”
https://skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm
(their number 24)
and:
https://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm
(their number 18)
20. “Great Barrier Reef is not dying and the water temperature is unchanged”
https://skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm
(their number 32)
See also the answers to claim 21 below.
21. “Coral atolls will not disappear”
https://skepticalscience.com/coral-atoll.htm
(their number 169)
https://skepticalscience.com/coral-bleaching.htm
(their number 73)
The Gish Galloper relies on brute force and a scattergun approach, hoping that nobody will have the inclination to counter their numerous claims. If challenged, they typically avoid addressing rebuttals head-on, preferring to extend their galloping by raising new claims, and often falling back on conspiracy theories to "explain" why they are right and respondents who challenge them with scientific evidence are wrong.
In subsequent exchanges, in relation to his previous misinformation: "the human emissions of CO2 are a tiny fraction of the natural amount in the cycle."
He says:
"I am debunking the debunker. Going around in circles is a pointless exercise."
but he has not debunked the debunking of that point.
In fact, as I have pointed out at:
https://planetarycfo.weebly.com/rogues.html
He appears to be the one going back to repeating claims that have already been debunked. He hasn't provided any counterevidence to support his claims in his 21-point Gish Gallop yet. Instead, he is adding new claims and misinformation points to it.
This is a sign of a Gish Galloper - repeating previously made points, and claiming that the person challenging them is 'going round in circles'. The Gish Galloper doesn't address the counterevidence to their points. It's an avoidance technique.
In response to the above, Earle said:
"your points are off-point David, so there's no point in educating you in English comprehension."
That was a personal insult. It showed that he was operating at the lower layers of the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. I asked him to please ascend the layers, and address the rebuttals of his points and claims in the spirit in which they are made - in courteous, professional discussion, challenge and evidence-based debate .
I have challenged Earle as follows:
"To make readers' lives easier, try picking the single most compelling piece of evidence you think you can provide, that 'knocks AGW out of the park'. And then we can have a discussion about that. We could even "steelman" it, if you like."
He has not responded specifically to that challenge.
I've also challenged him as follows:
You say "it’s utter trash."
Prove it. Rebut the rebuttals, and I'll listen ...
You say "you are backing the wrong horse",
Prove it. Rebut the rebuttals, and I'll listen ...
He has not responded to those.
He has made further claims, each of which are rebutted as follows:
22. "...I think that CO2 will be identified as a minor forcing in respect of temperature."
Your 'minor forcing' claim is debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
It's also a repeat of your claim number 6 above. You are beginning to cycle back to repeating your earlier claims, rather than address the rebuttals of them. You are using a form of "proof by blatant assertion", which will not persuade many people.
23. "blaming coal, petroleum, concrete, steel and transport - will be modified to account for changes in the biomass and unseen release of CO2 from submarine igneous and volcanic activity"
Your claim of "unseen release of CO2 from submarine igneous and volcanic activity" as an alternative explanation for global warming is debunked by isotopic analysis. See:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm
24. "Cold weather kills many more people than does hot weather."
That's an example of misinformation. It's true, but it is a misdirection, as it says nothing about the impacts of AGW. In fact, it's a nuanced picture, as Hannah Ritchie explains here:
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/heat-cold-deaths
from which:
"see estimates for the change in death rates from temperature in 2050 under the climate scenario RCP4.5.6 This is a pretty realistic scenario based on where we’re headed right now, but the hope is that we can bend it downwards with accelerated efforts to reduce our emissions. RCP4.5 will have us at around 2°C by 2050.
The countries in blue will see a fall in temperature-related death rates. Death rates from extreme heat will probably still rise, but the fall from fewer cold deaths will be faster. That means total temperature-related deaths will go down. You can see that this is mostly richer countries at higher latitudes — across Europe, Canada and the United States.
Those in red will see an increase. The rise in heat risks will outpace the reduction in cold risks. This is most of Northern and Central Africa, South Asia, Australia and parts of South America."
So, it's not as simple as using heat versus cold related deaths to suggest counterevidence to AGW or its impacts. You need to dig a little deeper to understand the impacts AGW is having in relation to deaths from extreme heat or cold. And this ignores climate migration. The increased risk of heat-related deaths will drive many people (those who can) to migrate from the hotter countries to the cooler ones. Climate migration will bring its own problems, as we already see many countries in the Northern Hemisphere struggling to cope with the numbers of migrants currently trying to move North. Climate migration is a particular consequence of AGW, and one which is not talked about much. Where are all those people going to go, and how well are they going to be received and helped to make a new life?
25. "climate models are not accurate and ‘run hot’ . If they were accurate, they would not show an enormous spread on the forecasts. "
That is debunked here:https://skepticalscience.com/are-models-overestimating-warming.html
I'm glad you raise the subject of uncertainty about future forecasts about AGW.
Firstly, those uncertainties about the future do not disprove AGW and its effects to date, which are based on many lines of credible scientific evidence (ie not just GCMs).
Secondly, you're essentially using an argument of impossible expectations. See:
https://skepticalscience.com/history-FLICC-5-techniques-science-denial.html
from which, impossible expectations is described as:
"Demanding unrealistic standards of certainty before acting on the science."
The first diagram in the section above about Eric Keyser's claims, which is from IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021), shows that, despite the known uncertainties , the human drivers 'signal' emerged strongly from the natural variations 'noise' in the 1980s (over 40 years ago). The uncertainty "plume" is certainly something that can be debated. But it does not mean that AGW isn't real, causing significant damages and in danger of crossing tipping point thresholds.
As a footnote, on 24 July 2025, I could no longer see Earle's comments on LinkedIn. Either he has withdrawn from LinkedIn, or he has blocked me.
F) Leslie Recksiedler (HVDC Engineering Expertise)
Recksiedler says: "I have been seeking information on Climate Change for over 50 years. I always try to look at both sides of the debate as I want to make sure we are actually solving the correct problem. If this is correct, we are not doing very well."
The evidence from his comments on LinkedIn in the first half of 2025 suggests that he is actually seeking false balance. Many of his posts are expressing anti-AGW views or leading readers towards an anti-AGW position.
Here is a quote from him, setting out a conspiracy theory to explain away AGW:
"I lived through this in the 1970s where we spent tens of millions of dollars on planning for the upcoming ice age. We built a cold room up to -40oC/oF and tested equipment extensively, Every scientist, government and company in the world believed this as did we, the temperatures started to climb in the mid 1980s, and yes everyone said it was temporary. Climate is the difference in temperature over 100 years. But we never hear that as the cold temperature from the first 50 years offsets that for the last 50 years. Is there a problem or is this all just politics again to get our $$$"
Actually, in the 1970s, the large majority of scientists were predicting warming rather than cooling.
More here:
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
His claim that "Every scientist, government and company in the world believed this as did we" is a gross misrepresentation of the situation in the 1970s.
About warming in the 1980s, his claim that "everyone said it was temporary" is a similar misrepresentation.
His claim that "the cold temperature from the first 50 years offsets that for the last 50 years" is clearly a puerile, non-scientific (even anti-scientific) piece of BS and completely misses the point about AGW and its likely future impacts, as well as the impacts it has already had.
For someone who is a highly trained engineer in the HVDC sector, I hope he doesn't apply the same sort of approach to high voltage equipment, or I'd be seriously concerned about his ability to understand and apply basic safety requirements for such equipment.
Here are more examples of misinformation/disinformation he has been spreading.
1) "While interesting I just learned this week that the Antarctic ice cap is increasing, and the rate of increase is the highest in recorded history. Is the Artic melting due to CO2 or pollution such as from tires?"
His comment is misinformation. A true statement but one that does not disprove AGW.
For a rebuttal of his inferences, see:
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/antarctica/nasa-satellites-show-antarctica-has-gained-ice-despite-rising-global-temperatures-how-is-that-possible
from which:
"An abrupt change in Antarctica has caused the continent to gain ice. But this increase, documented in NASA satellite data, is a temporary anomaly rather than an indication that global warming has reversed, scientists say... "Almost all of Antarctica's grounded ice losses come from glaciers elsewhere which are speeding up and flowing into the warming ocean," Slater said. "This is still happening — while the recent snowfall has temporarily offset these losses, they haven't stopped so it's not expected this is a long-term change in Antarctica's behaviour."" "
His sudden reference to the Arctic ("Is the Artic melting due to CO2 or pollution such as from tires?"), when he'd been talking about the Antarctic up to that point, is bizarre, and is rebutted here:
https://skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm
from which:
"Human activity is driving retreat of Arctic sea ice"
2) "It is very likely we will have to live with climate change anyway. the goal is 1.5 oC per 100 years but the long term average is only 1.0 oC per 100 years over the last 15,000 years."
There are three problems with his statement.
Firstly, the rate of change of temp has been accelerating, and his use of 100 years as his metric understates that.
Secondly, 1.5 degrees of warming in 100 years might not sound serious to some people, but climate scientists have shown that it is very serious because of its impacts on extreme weather and biodiversity loss.
Thirdly, his claim that "the goal is 1.5 oC per 100 years" is false. He is obviously talking about the Paris Agreement target to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees since pre-industrial times. The ceiling is 1.5 degrees, cumulatively and in total. If it is achieved, the rate of increase will then be zero, not 1.5.
3) "I think wind and solar while expensive needing subsidies are likely good."
Wind and solar are cheap without subsidies. Subsidies are the levers governments use to speed up the decarbonisation transition.
[However, see his later claim number 9 below about the cost of electricity generation technologies]
4) "EVs appear to be an Enviromental and pollution disaster in their present form"
That is a classic misdirection, because it ignores the fact that fossil fuels are much more damaging for the environment (including the impacts of their CO2 emissions) than EVs, on total life cycle analyses.
5) "the IPCC ... I know they are 100% wrong... everything from the IPCC does not stand up to scrutiny. "
He offers no evidence to support that claim.
6) "... global warming from about 950 to 1250 AD and then the ice age after that"
These are both anti-AGW misinformation, debunked, with proper, credible scientific references, here:
https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
7) "COVID where C02 leveled off in 2021, went down in 2022 and leveled off again in 2023. But the temperature went up dramatically, so even the climate change modelers are no looking at other gases as their models do not work anymore"
That is a combination of unsubstantiated claims and invalid inferences. I think what he was referring to is that the rate of increase in emissions of CO2 reduced a little, not that the concentrations in the atmosphere reduced.
Global temperature trends were affected at that time but:
a) not enough to show visibly on most mainstream temperature charts, because of the scales used.
b) the time-lag between emissions and temperature trends is well known. That's why rolling trends over at least 10 years (usually at least 30 years) are used in proper analyses of global temperature trends and their drivers.
It does show, however, that much greater emissions reductions are needed to tackle AGW.
The second part of his claim does not follow from the first, and contains an illogical statement about "other gases". Models are not required to track the actual observed global average temperatures, which is what the first part of his statement was about.
8) "The BIG problem is none of the models work since COVID so scientists no longer believe CO2 is the cause or at least suspect that it is not, but they do not have an alternative but are looking for it. They other problem is climate is over 100 years and we have only seen an increase is the last 50 years, 1/2 a cycle. The third problem is we already reached i n 2024 - 1.5 oC in 100 years the so-called tipping point, so the latest is well maybe there really was no tipping point. It also shows the 27 models do not work. Yes, this is what we do not call science."
His claim that there is no tipping point at 1.5 degrees of warming is an interesting one. But he starts it with an illogical claim that "none of the models work since COVID so scientists no longer believe CO2 is the cause or at least suspect that it is not". That is a logical fallacy. Even if there were no tipping points, that would not provide any evidence that human activities, including greenhouse gas emissions, are not causing global warming.
It is valid to challenge the nature, size and timing of climate tipping points.
However, his claim that "the 27 models do not work" is not correct.
He is using an argument of impossible expectations. It is not reasonable to expect that all climate models will be able to accurately predict climate tipping points. In fact, it is well recognised that most models, while very good at forecasting first-order effects of AGW, are not good at forecasting climate tipping points.
9) "fossil fuels are cheap, renewables are not"
That claim is demonstrably false.
For example, see:
https://www.nationalgrid.com/the-great-grid-upgrade/fact-or-fiction
and:
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/factcheck/solar/index.html
10) "we still do not know the cause of the increased temperatures. It sadly appears CO2 is not the causes but it could be pollution or other, having not studies these we really do not know"
That claim is misinformation and is not supported by scientific evidence.
See:
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
11) "I do not like EVs environmentally and freedom of speech allows me so voice my concerns, I too am concerned about the planet and want to do something about it PHEVs appear to be the short term answer. I firmly believe 100% that EVs are worse that ICE cars so we are just deluding ourselves, Wake up to the reality that EVs are very BAD. These are not 1/2 truths do your research."
My response to that was:
Leslie Recksiedler,
You claim, about your comments on EVs, "These are not 1/2 truths do your research".
Actually, you are the one making outlandish claims about the negatives of EVs compared with ICE vehicles. How about you signpost some research to support your views on this matter.
Here's some which contradicts what you say:
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/factcheck/electric-vehicles/index.html
The overall conclusion from analysing his posts and comments is that he is an anti-AGW disinformer who believes in a conspiracy theory as an alternative explanation for global warming, rather than accepting the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence for human activities being the main driver of global warming since industrialisation.
In September 2025 there was a final exchange between us, in which Recksiedler became asbusive and I blocked him.
The final comments were:
"I would [signpost some research] but you would never believe it anyway, you are too invested in EVs to believe anything. If you really want to know it is not hard to do the research and find the information. I have been studying EVs since 1972 (first one we bought) then 5 in 1985, still have one in our museum and worked with a PHEV battery supplier for about 10 years for reposing PHEV batteries all before the internet and subject to NDA agreements. Fiction cannot counteract facts, but you believe in your fantasy world, so continue to be happy there.
David as I said before I feel sorry for you as you do not even know enough about what you are saying to know the difference between fiction/fantasy and facts. But I have to say I was once in the same place but bumped into my environment manager in the parking lot and after 4 hours he encouraged me to do my own research and investigations. Maybe I was better off living in your dream world?"
My response:
You claim "I would [signpost some research] but you would never believe it anyway, you are too invested in EVs to believe anything". That goes further than discourtesy, as it is a personal insult.
I will not be complicit in such behaviour. I'm therefore blocking you.
As a note, that particular anti-AGW disinformer chose the "do your own research" deflection, even when challenged to signpost evidence to support his views. An AI description of this:
" "Do your own research" (DYOR) is a deflection tactic used to end an argument or dismiss opposing viewpoints by suggesting that an individual should seek their own information rather than accepting expert testimony. This phrase is often associated with the Dunning-Kruger effect, where people, particularly those with little expertise, overestimate their ability to understand complex topics, and it is linked to greater belief in misinformation and lower trust in science. While the phrase can imply a call for caution and information validation, it often functions as an anti-expert sentiment or a manipulative way to reinforce confirmation bias. "
Here is a quote from him, setting out a conspiracy theory to explain away AGW:
"I lived through this in the 1970s where we spent tens of millions of dollars on planning for the upcoming ice age. We built a cold room up to -40oC/oF and tested equipment extensively, Every scientist, government and company in the world believed this as did we, the temperatures started to climb in the mid 1980s, and yes everyone said it was temporary. Climate is the difference in temperature over 100 years. But we never hear that as the cold temperature from the first 50 years offsets that for the last 50 years. Is there a problem or is this all just politics again to get our $$$"
Actually, in the 1970s, the large majority of scientists were predicting warming rather than cooling.
More here:
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
His claim that "Every scientist, government and company in the world believed this as did we" is a gross misrepresentation of the situation in the 1970s.
About warming in the 1980s, his claim that "everyone said it was temporary" is a similar misrepresentation.
His claim that "the cold temperature from the first 50 years offsets that for the last 50 years" is clearly a puerile, non-scientific (even anti-scientific) piece of BS and completely misses the point about AGW and its likely future impacts, as well as the impacts it has already had.
For someone who is a highly trained engineer in the HVDC sector, I hope he doesn't apply the same sort of approach to high voltage equipment, or I'd be seriously concerned about his ability to understand and apply basic safety requirements for such equipment.
Here are more examples of misinformation/disinformation he has been spreading.
1) "While interesting I just learned this week that the Antarctic ice cap is increasing, and the rate of increase is the highest in recorded history. Is the Artic melting due to CO2 or pollution such as from tires?"
His comment is misinformation. A true statement but one that does not disprove AGW.
For a rebuttal of his inferences, see:
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/antarctica/nasa-satellites-show-antarctica-has-gained-ice-despite-rising-global-temperatures-how-is-that-possible
from which:
"An abrupt change in Antarctica has caused the continent to gain ice. But this increase, documented in NASA satellite data, is a temporary anomaly rather than an indication that global warming has reversed, scientists say... "Almost all of Antarctica's grounded ice losses come from glaciers elsewhere which are speeding up and flowing into the warming ocean," Slater said. "This is still happening — while the recent snowfall has temporarily offset these losses, they haven't stopped so it's not expected this is a long-term change in Antarctica's behaviour."" "
His sudden reference to the Arctic ("Is the Artic melting due to CO2 or pollution such as from tires?"), when he'd been talking about the Antarctic up to that point, is bizarre, and is rebutted here:
https://skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm
from which:
"Human activity is driving retreat of Arctic sea ice"
2) "It is very likely we will have to live with climate change anyway. the goal is 1.5 oC per 100 years but the long term average is only 1.0 oC per 100 years over the last 15,000 years."
There are three problems with his statement.
Firstly, the rate of change of temp has been accelerating, and his use of 100 years as his metric understates that.
Secondly, 1.5 degrees of warming in 100 years might not sound serious to some people, but climate scientists have shown that it is very serious because of its impacts on extreme weather and biodiversity loss.
Thirdly, his claim that "the goal is 1.5 oC per 100 years" is false. He is obviously talking about the Paris Agreement target to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees since pre-industrial times. The ceiling is 1.5 degrees, cumulatively and in total. If it is achieved, the rate of increase will then be zero, not 1.5.
3) "I think wind and solar while expensive needing subsidies are likely good."
Wind and solar are cheap without subsidies. Subsidies are the levers governments use to speed up the decarbonisation transition.
[However, see his later claim number 9 below about the cost of electricity generation technologies]
4) "EVs appear to be an Enviromental and pollution disaster in their present form"
That is a classic misdirection, because it ignores the fact that fossil fuels are much more damaging for the environment (including the impacts of their CO2 emissions) than EVs, on total life cycle analyses.
5) "the IPCC ... I know they are 100% wrong... everything from the IPCC does not stand up to scrutiny. "
He offers no evidence to support that claim.
6) "... global warming from about 950 to 1250 AD and then the ice age after that"
These are both anti-AGW misinformation, debunked, with proper, credible scientific references, here:
https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
7) "COVID where C02 leveled off in 2021, went down in 2022 and leveled off again in 2023. But the temperature went up dramatically, so even the climate change modelers are no looking at other gases as their models do not work anymore"
That is a combination of unsubstantiated claims and invalid inferences. I think what he was referring to is that the rate of increase in emissions of CO2 reduced a little, not that the concentrations in the atmosphere reduced.
Global temperature trends were affected at that time but:
a) not enough to show visibly on most mainstream temperature charts, because of the scales used.
b) the time-lag between emissions and temperature trends is well known. That's why rolling trends over at least 10 years (usually at least 30 years) are used in proper analyses of global temperature trends and their drivers.
It does show, however, that much greater emissions reductions are needed to tackle AGW.
The second part of his claim does not follow from the first, and contains an illogical statement about "other gases". Models are not required to track the actual observed global average temperatures, which is what the first part of his statement was about.
8) "The BIG problem is none of the models work since COVID so scientists no longer believe CO2 is the cause or at least suspect that it is not, but they do not have an alternative but are looking for it. They other problem is climate is over 100 years and we have only seen an increase is the last 50 years, 1/2 a cycle. The third problem is we already reached i n 2024 - 1.5 oC in 100 years the so-called tipping point, so the latest is well maybe there really was no tipping point. It also shows the 27 models do not work. Yes, this is what we do not call science."
His claim that there is no tipping point at 1.5 degrees of warming is an interesting one. But he starts it with an illogical claim that "none of the models work since COVID so scientists no longer believe CO2 is the cause or at least suspect that it is not". That is a logical fallacy. Even if there were no tipping points, that would not provide any evidence that human activities, including greenhouse gas emissions, are not causing global warming.
It is valid to challenge the nature, size and timing of climate tipping points.
However, his claim that "the 27 models do not work" is not correct.
He is using an argument of impossible expectations. It is not reasonable to expect that all climate models will be able to accurately predict climate tipping points. In fact, it is well recognised that most models, while very good at forecasting first-order effects of AGW, are not good at forecasting climate tipping points.
9) "fossil fuels are cheap, renewables are not"
That claim is demonstrably false.
For example, see:
https://www.nationalgrid.com/the-great-grid-upgrade/fact-or-fiction
and:
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/factcheck/solar/index.html
10) "we still do not know the cause of the increased temperatures. It sadly appears CO2 is not the causes but it could be pollution or other, having not studies these we really do not know"
That claim is misinformation and is not supported by scientific evidence.
See:
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
11) "I do not like EVs environmentally and freedom of speech allows me so voice my concerns, I too am concerned about the planet and want to do something about it PHEVs appear to be the short term answer. I firmly believe 100% that EVs are worse that ICE cars so we are just deluding ourselves, Wake up to the reality that EVs are very BAD. These are not 1/2 truths do your research."
My response to that was:
Leslie Recksiedler,
You claim, about your comments on EVs, "These are not 1/2 truths do your research".
Actually, you are the one making outlandish claims about the negatives of EVs compared with ICE vehicles. How about you signpost some research to support your views on this matter.
Here's some which contradicts what you say:
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/factcheck/electric-vehicles/index.html
The overall conclusion from analysing his posts and comments is that he is an anti-AGW disinformer who believes in a conspiracy theory as an alternative explanation for global warming, rather than accepting the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence for human activities being the main driver of global warming since industrialisation.
In September 2025 there was a final exchange between us, in which Recksiedler became asbusive and I blocked him.
The final comments were:
"I would [signpost some research] but you would never believe it anyway, you are too invested in EVs to believe anything. If you really want to know it is not hard to do the research and find the information. I have been studying EVs since 1972 (first one we bought) then 5 in 1985, still have one in our museum and worked with a PHEV battery supplier for about 10 years for reposing PHEV batteries all before the internet and subject to NDA agreements. Fiction cannot counteract facts, but you believe in your fantasy world, so continue to be happy there.
David as I said before I feel sorry for you as you do not even know enough about what you are saying to know the difference between fiction/fantasy and facts. But I have to say I was once in the same place but bumped into my environment manager in the parking lot and after 4 hours he encouraged me to do my own research and investigations. Maybe I was better off living in your dream world?"
My response:
You claim "I would [signpost some research] but you would never believe it anyway, you are too invested in EVs to believe anything". That goes further than discourtesy, as it is a personal insult.
I will not be complicit in such behaviour. I'm therefore blocking you.
As a note, that particular anti-AGW disinformer chose the "do your own research" deflection, even when challenged to signpost evidence to support his views. An AI description of this:
" "Do your own research" (DYOR) is a deflection tactic used to end an argument or dismiss opposing viewpoints by suggesting that an individual should seek their own information rather than accepting expert testimony. This phrase is often associated with the Dunning-Kruger effect, where people, particularly those with little expertise, overestimate their ability to understand complex topics, and it is linked to greater belief in misinformation and lower trust in science. While the phrase can imply a call for caution and information validation, it often functions as an anti-expert sentiment or a manipulative way to reinforce confirmation bias. "
G) Jan Jacobs (Freelance journalist - energy and climate specialist - start-up coach, Netherlands)
Jacobs' views can be understood from a recent claim he made that:
"History will judge the dangerous climate crisis hoax by human CO₂ harshly"
As well as being an AGW dismissive, Jacobs is a prolific spreader of misinformation about AGW, often citing well-known misinformers / disinformers such as:
- Richard Lindzen
- McKitrick and Christy
- Soon and the Connollys
- Alex Epstein
- Patrick Moore
- Lars Schernikau
- Jules de Waart (who has written a book along the lines of Koonin's "Unsettled", also citing and supporting Bjorn Lomborg and other similar "skeptic" views)
- Michael Crichton
- Chris Martz
- Michael Schellenberger
- Judith Curry
- Matt Ridley
- Robert Bryce
- Fritz Vahrenholt
- Patrick Michaels
- Roger Pielke Sr
- Bjorn Lomborg
Jacobs has posted many unsubstantiated anti-AGW, anti-energy-decarbonisation comments. His approach, with his very frequent postings, comments and anti-AGW claims, is an example of a Gish Gallop, and demonstrates Brandolini's Law.
Recent examples of his misinformation/disinformation:
1) He cited the 1970s - 80s so-called "New Ice Age" as evidence against AGW.
That is the well-worn "scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s" trope, debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
2) "The "proof" that virtually all global warming since, say, 1950 has been caused by humans is a theory supported only by computer models based on circular reasoning and belief. Although it may be the leading theory, that does not mean that the theory is correct. It is not up to skeptics to develop an alternative theory that is better; The burden of proof lies with you to prove that your theory is correct."
False. Climate models are actually quite good at predicting future climate change, as evidenced by extensive "backcasting" performed to provide confidence in that. They are also only one of many lines of deep, credible evidence for AGW.
Eg see:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/202001_accuracy/
and:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Bringing the language of "belief", Jacobs is invoking the "skeptics are like Galileo" anti-AGW trope, debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm
Jacobs uses a strawman argument by claiming the onus is on advocates of AGW to prove their case. There is a greater amount and depth of credible evidence for AGW than just about any scientific discovery in history, including gravity. The onus is on skeptics to disprove it or to come up with a theory that better explains the evidence. So far, despite many decades of attempts to do so, AGW has not been disproved.
3) "When someone comes up with the "consensus" story again. let him read the text by the late Michael Crichton. Science advances precisely because scientists break the so-called "consensus"."
Michael Crichton was an author, not a scientist. His fictional works have generally been highly criticised as promoting misinformation about AGW. Eg see Wikipedia's entry about his 2004 book "State of Fear":
"This novel received criticism from climate scientists, science journalists and environmental groups for inaccuracies and misleading information. Sixteen of 18 US climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research. Several scientists whose research had been referenced in the novel stated that Crichton had distorted it in the novel. Peter Doran, leading author of the Nature paper, wrote in the New York Times: "our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear".
Myles Allen wrote:
"Michael Crichton's latest blockbuster, State of Fear, is also on the theme of global warming and is, ... likely to mislead the unwary...." Although this is a work of fiction, Crichton's use of footnotes and appendices is clearly intended to give an impression of scientific authority."
Jacobs' citing of Crichton is an example of use of false or fake experts. For more about this technique see:
https://skepticalscience.com/history-flicc-5-techniques-science-denial.html
4) "Spain, France and Germany produce electricity from wind and simply cannot do anything with it. Wind and solar produce when it is not needed and when it is needed they sometimes deliver nothing for a whole week. It is the parasites on reliable fossil and nuclear and/or the employee who comes to work when he feels like it and especially when there is no work" (Jacobs cited a post from Alex Epstein as his source)
I addressed this with a LinkedIn post about UK wind curtailment here:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/david-calver-8974ab_transmission-network-unavailability-the-activity-7383413221732540416-pM2A?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAASqTMBF8LZwGbXnDyltwGdPsLAWhrESDE
I concluded:
a) Curtailment is a temporary problem. It will be substantially resolved, in the UK, by 2029 or thereabouts, as additional transmission infrastucture from North to South will come on stream.
b) It's only 11% of wind energy in the UK. From the article: "... average fleet curtailment level since the beginning of 2023 of around 11.5% of the available energy". According to Google AI, "Germany: Had a peak month of 7.3% in 2025... France: Had an annual average around 5–6% in 2025, higher than the rates from the second half of the 2010s."
In the overall scheme of things, it's a small problem. Don't let people try to convince you otherwise, especially AGW dismissives and the rear-guard who are trying to protect the fossil fuel industry and trying to prevent or further delay the decarbonisation transition.
5) "[Mark] Lynas (who has a bogus fake publication of 99% consensus to his name)..."
He is referring to Lynas (2021):"Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature"
Many AGW dismissives have been attacking the strong scientific consensus on AGW, for several decades. But the consensus continues to get stronger and stronger, based on more and more studies.
For the basic rebuttal of Jacobs' attack on the consensus, see:
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
That rebuttal is updated by works such as the Lynas one Jacobs obliquely refers to.
6) "[re] ... taxing CO2. We used to laugh at "air salesmen" now they sell 0.04% of the air for billions. Water (which will always be present in a closed system on our earth) is the next goal. And then oxygen."
Here, Jacobs was claiming a conspiracy to make money from AGW. The reference is to CO2 being 0.04% of the atmosphere. That is a variant of the "CO2 is just a trace gas" anti-AGW trope debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
He claims the conspiracy will do the same with drinking water, then with the Oxygen we breathe. Clearly, he's deeply absorbed in spreading hysteria about a supposed global conspiracy, while ignoring or dismissing the wide, deep and overwhelming scientific evidence for AGW.
7) Jacobs cites articles at Climategate.nl
The editor-in-chief of that publication/network is Hans Labohm. According to Desmog:
https://www.desmog.com/hans-hj-labohm/
"Labohm describes himself as the “unofficial coordinator” of the network of Dutch climate change skeptics. He [is] also a member of De Groene Rekenkamer (The Green Court of Audit), a little-known Dutch anti-environmental group with conservative ties and links to many of the Dutch climate change skeptics."
Labohm is a well-known AGW dismissive, quoted by Dedsmog as claiming "“There has been global warming—most scientists believe there has been global warming over the last 150 years or so. And the, well, that is of course normal because of the end of the so called the Little Ice Age, which ended around 1850. So there’s nothing unusual about it.”
I've already signposted, in number 1) above, a debunking of the "Little Ice Age" trope.
8) Jacobs said "you are gullible at best" - and then cited an article at populartechnology.net about the scientific consensus on AGW.
My response to Jacobs was as follows:
You cite an article at Populartechnology.net when challenging the scientific consensus on AGW, so your counter falls at the first hurdle, I'm afraid, because you have not cited a credible source.
According to Media Bias Fact Check:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/popular-technology/
"Popular Technology is a news website that focuses primarily on climate science, which is odd as its name is related to technology. The founders and contributors to this website all hold Ph.D’s in a variety of scientific fields, unfortunately, none of them are within the field of climate science. While not directly stated, the primary mission of this website is to debunk the consensus that climate change (global warming) is occurring and is strongly influenced by human activities. Popular Technology only publishes research articles that are contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change. Interestingly, they side with the consensus when it comes to the 9/11 conspiracies about how the Towers fell. Overall, per our policy, any source that rejects the known consensus of science is placed in the pseudoscience category."
To address the substance of the article you cited.
The article uses a "false expert" approach to try to counter John Cook's credentials with those of Patrick Michaels and Roger Pielke Sr
Patrick Michaels' credentials are reviewed here
https://www.desmog.com/patrick-michaels/
Similar review of Roger Pielke Sr here
https://www.desmog.com/roger-pielke-sr/
These sources cite many instances of misinformation about AGW being spread by those two individuals.
John Cook shares his credentials to talk about climate change denial.
From:
https://skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1
"John Cook is a Senior Research Fellow with the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change at the University of Melbourne. He obtained his PhD at the University of Western Australia, studying the cognitive psychology of climate science denial. His research focus is understanding and countering misinformation about climate change."
I don't see anything wrong with that as a perfectly good background for commenting about climate change denial.
However, my response is strengthened by this - the scientific consensus on AGW has stood up to numerous challenges from skeptics and deniers. It is consistent with the mass of overwhelming evidence in IPCC reports.
Your obvious condoning of an ad-hominem attack on John Cook further degrades the credibility of your case. It goes to further demonstrate that you're a worthy new entrant in my Rogues' Gallery.
9) "Electricity prices in the UK are skyrocketing. The sustainable prophets have done that again."
That claim is demonstrably false disinformation.
UK electricity prices are largely driven by the cost of marginal gas in the wholesale markets.
His claim is debunked in more detail here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-why-expensive-gas-not-net-zero-is-keeping-uk-electricity-prices-so-high/
10) "Solar panel waste: time bomb"
A very obvious piece of misinformation/disinformation/distraction from the waste produced by the fossil fuel industry.
Jacobs' trope is debunked here:
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/10/13/nrel-explodes-solar-panel-waste-myths/
from which the attached visualisation makes it clear that fossil fuels create by far the most waste of all energy types, and the physical waste streams from renewables are tiny by comparison.
See also this from Carbon Brief:
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/factcheck/solar/index.html#section-energy-projects-will-generate-a-tsunami-of-solar-panel-waste
from which:
“In comparison to our other current energy generation and waste streams we manage on a daily basis, like municipal and e-waste, solar modules reaching end of life represent a decrease in energy-related wastes and are well within our capability to manage responsibly... Responsible management looks like using reliable modules, doing proactive maintenance and repairs, looking for reuse opportunities and, finally, when no longer useful, recycling to recapture the valuable materials.”
"Additionally, while policy changes are likely to be needed in order to encourage the recycling and processing of solar waste, recent projections have suggested that the materials it contains could be worth $2.7bn by 2030 in the US alone."
"Ultimately, health concerns focused on the impact of toxic waste or heavy metals from solar panels, either during operation or when they are disposed of at the end of their use, are “unfounded”, the Nature Physics comment says."
11) "It takes a lot of imagination to continue to describe wind turbines and solar panels as sustainable. And it will not change the climate."
Demonstrably misleading and/or false statements.
Wind turbines and solar panels are far less harmful to the environment than fossil fuels, when you take into account all externalities taken together, including greenhouse gas emissions.
See the rebuttal above including data about physical waste streams from the various types of energy production.
See also:
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/renewables-waste
from which:
"In the US and Europe, [turbine] blades are categorised as non-hazardous waste, and can be sent to landfill. The risks to human health are extremely low... The only health concern from solar panels is the small amounts of lead in silicon panels and trace amounts of cadmium in CdTe ones. Cadmium is present in CdTe panels in very low concentrations – only around 0.1% by weight – and they are currently collected, with the cadmium used in new modules... [re lead] ... Although it’s present in low concentrations in silicon panels, this is a risk that needs to be appropriately managed. Moving to lead-free components would be a big step forward (people are working on it)."
"Most people are unaware of coal ash toxicity. The potential risks of solar and waste need to be addressed. But it’s interesting that concerns about waste are mostly appearing now – following centuries of fossil fuel production, which generates toxic waste... Coal ash contains elements such as mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, and chromium."
The "will not change the climate" trope is clearly an unsubstantiated AGW dismissive claim.
Jacobs says (paraphrasing him) that solar panels and wind turbines are not sustainable because they produce lots of (dangerous) waste, and that they don't make any difference to climate change.
The logical flaw in his line of argument is that it's a strawman. This is because the waste streams from fossil fuels are much larger and more dangerous. In omitting this context, he is spreading misleading misinformation. If that is deliberate, it is disinformation.
12) "wind and sun always need a backup. So it is always more expensive"
This is a myth perpetuated by people trying to defend the fossil fuel industry.
Modern studies of total system cost show renewables are cheaper than fossil energies.
AI summary:
"Modern studies consistently show that new renewable energy sources like solar and wind are cheaper than building new fossil fuel plants, and often cheaper than existing ones. Factors like falling technology costs and the inclusion of externalities like air pollution costs reinforce that renewables have a lower overall system cost when compared to fossil fuels. While integrating variable renewables requires system costs for flexibility, such as energy storage, studies show these are not enough to make renewables more expensive overall."
See, for example from ICL in 2024:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/background-briefings/how-cost-effective-is-a-renewables-dominated-electricity-system-in-comparison-to-one-based-on-fossil-fuels/
Jacobs is out of date on this one.
13) [a post on LinkedIn] "Why is climate alarmism a pseudoscience? The theory of global warming is no longer falsifiable, which is the opposite of what science means. There are no experiments, it only exists in computer models that claim to be able to predict the future.
Pseudoscience, in other words."
Jacobs is using unfalsifiability to attack AGW. But it's an easy attack to debunk, as follows.
The theory of global warming has never been falsifiable, in the sense that we don't have a second, identical planet to use as a scientific control. However, the scientific evidence for AGW is so deep, wide and overwhelming that the IPCC says, in AR6 WG1 (2021):
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."
Falsifiability isn't the only route to having persuasive scientifically established conclusions. For a fuller explanation, put the following question into DeepSeek:
"Is scientific falsifiability the only route to scientifically valid conclusions?"
----------------- DeepSeek answer (15 November 2025) -------------------
"No, scientific falsifiability is not the only route to scientifically valid conclusions.
Routes to Valid Conclusions That Don't Rely Solely on FalsificationWhile falsification is central to testing hypotheses, several other crucial scientific activities are valid and essential but operate differently.
1. Exploratory and Observational Science
Before you can even formulate a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, you need to know what to look for. This phase of science is about discovery and description.
Science often works by building models or making generalizations based on accumulated evidence. This is inductive reasoning (moving from specific observations to general rules).
In fields like climate science, astrophysics, or epidemiology, scientists often build complex computer models to understand systems that cannot be experimented on directly.
Not all science is about finding a single cause that can be falsified. Much of modern science (e.g., epidemiology, psychology, sociology) deals with probabilities and correlations.
--- DeepSeek answer ends -----------------------------
14) [a post on LinkedIn] "For years, we were told that CO2 – a trace gas that makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere – determines the Earth's climate. But a new study in Science of Climate Change [ie SCC publishing] exposes the error: the data is wrong."
The source Jacobs shared (in a comment below his headline claim) was NoTricksZone.
According to Media Bias Fact Check:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/notrickszone/
"Overall, we rate NoTricksZone a pseudoscience blog based on the publication of climate change disinformation opposing the consensus of science."
The study they cite is:
"Global Warming and the “impossible” Radiation Imbalance" by Ad Huijser
Re - SCC publishing ("Science of Climate Change"), where it is published-
They admit that:
"The objective of this journal was and is, to publish – different to many other journals – also peer re-viewed scientific contributions, which contradict the ... climate hypotheses of the IPCC and thus, to open the view to alternative interpretations of climate change."
Not a neutral, science-based organisation, then.
Hermann Harde, their editor, has a track record of producing poor papers about climate. Eg:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/02/something-harde-to-believe/
Huijser, author of the article that was the original source for the story and claim, is not a climate scientist. His papers appear not to have been peer reviewed in any credible scientific journal.
According to:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arie_Huijser
"After his retirement in 2006, Huijser delved into the possible causes of climate change and was mainly influenced by the views of climate deniers . He wrote several articles on the subject, including one for the American website WattsUpWithThat, a website that has been accused of misleading practices. Huijser summarized his views on climate in 2022 in an essay published on the website of climate denier Hans Labohm. Huijser concludes that (quote) 'The idea that CO2 is the main culprit for all warming since 1850 is unlikely and nothing more than an unproven hypothesis '. This contradicts the theory generally accepted by climate science that human action increases the greenhouse effect."
So, the whole post by Jacobs fails several aspects of the "CRAAP" framework. It's full of holes, and Jacobs probably realised that from the start, because he failed to reveal those sources in his headline post. He must have realised that readers would see his post for what it is, which is crass anti-AGW claptrap pseudoscience based on a paper from someone who isn't even a climate scientist and which has not been properly peer reviewed in a credible scientific journal.
Re the "trace gas ... 0.04%" quip, I've signposted debunking of that trope in number 6) above.
Jacobs is starting to cycle back to earlier claims and repeat them, without addressing or even acknowledging the rebuttals that have been pointed out to him. That's one sign that he is gish galloping.
15) In a LinkedIn post, Jacobs signposted a 90 second video of Alex Newman.
My response:
Newman uses the frequently seen "CO2 is not a pollutant", "CO2 is plant food" and "CO2 is only a trace gas" and "human driven CO2 emissions are only a tiny proportion of atmospheric CO2" anti-AGW tropes, which are debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Also, the only scientist he cites is Happer, who is well known for spreading anti-AGW misinformation. See:
https://skepticalscience.com/misinformers.php
Other anti-AGW claims made by Alex Newman in recent years have been fact-checked and found to be false/incorrect. For example, see:
https://science.feedback.org/review/solar-forcing-is-not-the-main-cause-of-current-global-warming-contrary-to-claim-by-alex-newman-in-the-epoch-times/
Jacobs went on to say:
"Look at it now, because soon this will be punishable. [quoting:] "The Belgian government is working with climate activists who want to introduce censorship around news about climate and energy. At the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, climate minister Jean-Luc Crucke (Les Engagés) signed an agreement with QuotaClimat, an NGO that wants to make critical statements about climate change a criminal offence. "Disinformation is like CO₂," Crucke said. "You don't see it, but it ruins everything."
My response:
Disinformation (the deliberate spreading of false or grossly misleading information about climate change) is a severe problem. It delays actions to address AGW. I think we need to balance the penalties for spreading disinformation with the rights of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities not to cause public harm. AGW causes public harm. That harm is amplified by disinformation that reduces the effectiveness of the actions to solve AGW. Disinformers need to be held to account for that the extra harm caused by their actions.
16) "CO₂ is not pollution".
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm
17) "The idea that 0.04% of the atmosphere can control the entire climate is downright ridiculous"
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
Here, Jacobs is cycling back to points 6 and 14, but without having addressed, or even acknowledged, the rebuttals to his points 6 or 14.
That's a sign that he is gish galloping.
18) "... for totalitarian minds who can convince the population that human CO₂ is the devil, it's fantastic. Every human activity emits CO₂. Then as a civil servant, politician you can regulate, prohibit and control everything those citizens do."
That is hyperbole and false politicisation of carbon. It uses a diversion and distraction. Human-driven global warming is a global problem, which requires solutions on a global basis. But that does not mean that it needs totalitarian rule to solve it. Jacobs' comment is a form of strawman.
19) "... there are no more disasters, there has been no increase in climate-related catastrophes since reliable measurements began".
This is an interesting, and at least debatable, topic.
Eg see:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-increasing-extreme-weather-damage-costs.htm
from which:
"The bottom line is that many types of extreme weather are being intensified by human-caused global warming, and that will continue in the future. And there is evidence that climate change is adding to the costs of extreme weather damage."
20) "[CO2] can't cause dangerous global warming"
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
21) "Of all CO2 emissions, 4% is human contribution"
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
22) "... there are no more disasters, there has been no increase in climate-related catastrophes since reliable measurements began"
Debunked here:
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/drop-climate-related-disaster-deaths-not-evidence-against-climate-emergency-2023-09-19/
from which:
"Weather-related disasters have become more frequent, intense, and costly in recent decades as documented by many different sources and analyses. Climate change is already disrupting billions of lives, with nearly half of the world’s population vulnerable to increasingly dangerous climate impacts.
For example, despite global deaths decreasing since the 1950s, the number of reported disasters has increased fivefold, driven by climate change, more extreme weather, and improved reporting, the WMO, has shown.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR6 report, states with a certainty of over 99% probability that hot extremes have increased in intensity and frequency globally since 1950, as have the duration and intensity of heatwaves.
Losses and damages from climate change are escalating, too.
For example, a 2017 UN report, on economic losses from disasters charted climate-related incidents accounting for $2,245 billion in the period 1998-2017, 77% of the total costs from all disasters. Between 1978 and 1997, they accounted for $895 billion, 68% of the total.
Reported losses from extreme weather events (a subset of climate-related disasters) increased by 151%, adjusted to 2017 U.S. dollars.
[re-] The bar graph circulating online first appeared in a newsletter, by climate change sceptic Bjorn Lomborg in response to the UN’s, 2022 “Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction”. VERDICT: Misleading. Disaster mortality is not a useful metric for quantifying climate change, and climate-related disasters have increased in number, intensity, and economic cost."
Because of a comment Jacobs made online that was clearly insulting to women, I blocked him in November 2025.
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/factcheck/solar/index.html#section-energy-projects-will-generate-a-tsunami-of-solar-panel-waste
from which:
“In comparison to our other current energy generation and waste streams we manage on a daily basis, like municipal and e-waste, solar modules reaching end of life represent a decrease in energy-related wastes and are well within our capability to manage responsibly... Responsible management looks like using reliable modules, doing proactive maintenance and repairs, looking for reuse opportunities and, finally, when no longer useful, recycling to recapture the valuable materials.”
"Additionally, while policy changes are likely to be needed in order to encourage the recycling and processing of solar waste, recent projections have suggested that the materials it contains could be worth $2.7bn by 2030 in the US alone."
"Ultimately, health concerns focused on the impact of toxic waste or heavy metals from solar panels, either during operation or when they are disposed of at the end of their use, are “unfounded”, the Nature Physics comment says."
11) "It takes a lot of imagination to continue to describe wind turbines and solar panels as sustainable. And it will not change the climate."
Demonstrably misleading and/or false statements.
Wind turbines and solar panels are far less harmful to the environment than fossil fuels, when you take into account all externalities taken together, including greenhouse gas emissions.
See the rebuttal above including data about physical waste streams from the various types of energy production.
See also:
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/renewables-waste
from which:
"In the US and Europe, [turbine] blades are categorised as non-hazardous waste, and can be sent to landfill. The risks to human health are extremely low... The only health concern from solar panels is the small amounts of lead in silicon panels and trace amounts of cadmium in CdTe ones. Cadmium is present in CdTe panels in very low concentrations – only around 0.1% by weight – and they are currently collected, with the cadmium used in new modules... [re lead] ... Although it’s present in low concentrations in silicon panels, this is a risk that needs to be appropriately managed. Moving to lead-free components would be a big step forward (people are working on it)."
"Most people are unaware of coal ash toxicity. The potential risks of solar and waste need to be addressed. But it’s interesting that concerns about waste are mostly appearing now – following centuries of fossil fuel production, which generates toxic waste... Coal ash contains elements such as mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, and chromium."
The "will not change the climate" trope is clearly an unsubstantiated AGW dismissive claim.
Jacobs says (paraphrasing him) that solar panels and wind turbines are not sustainable because they produce lots of (dangerous) waste, and that they don't make any difference to climate change.
The logical flaw in his line of argument is that it's a strawman. This is because the waste streams from fossil fuels are much larger and more dangerous. In omitting this context, he is spreading misleading misinformation. If that is deliberate, it is disinformation.
12) "wind and sun always need a backup. So it is always more expensive"
This is a myth perpetuated by people trying to defend the fossil fuel industry.
Modern studies of total system cost show renewables are cheaper than fossil energies.
AI summary:
"Modern studies consistently show that new renewable energy sources like solar and wind are cheaper than building new fossil fuel plants, and often cheaper than existing ones. Factors like falling technology costs and the inclusion of externalities like air pollution costs reinforce that renewables have a lower overall system cost when compared to fossil fuels. While integrating variable renewables requires system costs for flexibility, such as energy storage, studies show these are not enough to make renewables more expensive overall."
See, for example from ICL in 2024:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/background-briefings/how-cost-effective-is-a-renewables-dominated-electricity-system-in-comparison-to-one-based-on-fossil-fuels/
Jacobs is out of date on this one.
13) [a post on LinkedIn] "Why is climate alarmism a pseudoscience? The theory of global warming is no longer falsifiable, which is the opposite of what science means. There are no experiments, it only exists in computer models that claim to be able to predict the future.
Pseudoscience, in other words."
Jacobs is using unfalsifiability to attack AGW. But it's an easy attack to debunk, as follows.
The theory of global warming has never been falsifiable, in the sense that we don't have a second, identical planet to use as a scientific control. However, the scientific evidence for AGW is so deep, wide and overwhelming that the IPCC says, in AR6 WG1 (2021):
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."
Falsifiability isn't the only route to having persuasive scientifically established conclusions. For a fuller explanation, put the following question into DeepSeek:
"Is scientific falsifiability the only route to scientifically valid conclusions?"
----------------- DeepSeek answer (15 November 2025) -------------------
"No, scientific falsifiability is not the only route to scientifically valid conclusions.
Routes to Valid Conclusions That Don't Rely Solely on FalsificationWhile falsification is central to testing hypotheses, several other crucial scientific activities are valid and essential but operate differently.
1. Exploratory and Observational Science
Before you can even formulate a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, you need to know what to look for. This phase of science is about discovery and description.
- Examples:
- A biologist cataloging new species in a rainforest isn't testing a hypothesis; they are gathering data to generate future hypotheses.
- An astronomer discovering a new type of celestial object through a sky survey.
- A geologist mapping rock formations.
- Validity: The conclusions here ("This species exists," "This planet has these atmospheric components") are valid based on direct observation and measurement, not falsification. They provide the raw material for future falsifiable theories.
Science often works by building models or making generalizations based on accumulated evidence. This is inductive reasoning (moving from specific observations to general rules).
- Examples:
- Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection: Darwin didn't "falsify" evolution. He built an overwhelmingly persuasive case by inductively combining evidence from paleontology, biogeography, embryology, and morphology. The theory's core is testable and falsifiable in its mechanisms, but its acceptance came from the cumulative weight of evidence, not a single crucial experiment.
- Geology and Plate Tectonics: The theory was assembled from multiple lines of evidence (fossil records, continent shapes, seafloor spreading) that collectively made it the only coherent explanation.
- Validity: The conclusion is valid not because alternatives have been falsified in a single blow, but because the model provides the best, most consistent explanation for a vast body of data.
In fields like climate science, astrophysics, or epidemiology, scientists often build complex computer models to understand systems that cannot be experimented on directly.
- Process: They don't typically falsify a single hypothesis. Instead, they run simulations with varying parameters to see which model outputs best fit the observed real-world data.
- Validity: A model's conclusion is considered valid if it is robust (gives similar results under slight variations), can retrodict past events accurately, and makes successful predictions about future ones. It's a form of inference to the best explanation.
Not all science is about finding a single cause that can be falsified. Much of modern science (e.g., epidemiology, psychology, sociology) deals with probabilities and correlations.
- Process: A study might find that a certain drug is associated with a reduced risk of heart attack with a p-value of < 0.01. This doesn't "falsify" the hypothesis that the drug has no effect in a Popperian sense. Instead, it uses statistical methods to infer that the observed effect is very unlikely to be due to random chance.
- Validity: The conclusion is valid based on the strength of the statistical evidence and the rigor of the experimental design, even in the absence of a direct falsification mechanism for the core relationship.
- Auxiliary Hypotheses: A failed experiment doesn't always falsify the main theory. It could mean that an "auxiliary hypothesis" (e.g., about the accuracy of the measuring instrument or the experimental setup) was wrong. Scientists often give their core theories a "protective belt" by adjusting these auxiliary assumptions.
- Paradigms: Kuhn argued that science operates within "paradigms." Scientists don't abandon a paradigm (like Newtonian mechanics) at the first sign of a falsifying instance. They work to resolve the anomalies within the paradigm. A paradigm shift only occurs when a new, more compelling paradigm emerges.
- Falsifiability is not the only route to a scientifically valid conclusion.
- It is the essential gatekeeper for what counts as a testable scientific hypothesis and is the driving force behind rigorous experimental testing.
- Other vital routes include exploratory observation, inductive reasoning and model-building, computational simulation, and statistical inference.
--- DeepSeek answer ends -----------------------------
14) [a post on LinkedIn] "For years, we were told that CO2 – a trace gas that makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere – determines the Earth's climate. But a new study in Science of Climate Change [ie SCC publishing] exposes the error: the data is wrong."
The source Jacobs shared (in a comment below his headline claim) was NoTricksZone.
According to Media Bias Fact Check:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/notrickszone/
"Overall, we rate NoTricksZone a pseudoscience blog based on the publication of climate change disinformation opposing the consensus of science."
The study they cite is:
"Global Warming and the “impossible” Radiation Imbalance" by Ad Huijser
Re - SCC publishing ("Science of Climate Change"), where it is published-
They admit that:
"The objective of this journal was and is, to publish – different to many other journals – also peer re-viewed scientific contributions, which contradict the ... climate hypotheses of the IPCC and thus, to open the view to alternative interpretations of climate change."
Not a neutral, science-based organisation, then.
Hermann Harde, their editor, has a track record of producing poor papers about climate. Eg:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/02/something-harde-to-believe/
Huijser, author of the article that was the original source for the story and claim, is not a climate scientist. His papers appear not to have been peer reviewed in any credible scientific journal.
According to:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arie_Huijser
"After his retirement in 2006, Huijser delved into the possible causes of climate change and was mainly influenced by the views of climate deniers . He wrote several articles on the subject, including one for the American website WattsUpWithThat, a website that has been accused of misleading practices. Huijser summarized his views on climate in 2022 in an essay published on the website of climate denier Hans Labohm. Huijser concludes that (quote) 'The idea that CO2 is the main culprit for all warming since 1850 is unlikely and nothing more than an unproven hypothesis '. This contradicts the theory generally accepted by climate science that human action increases the greenhouse effect."
So, the whole post by Jacobs fails several aspects of the "CRAAP" framework. It's full of holes, and Jacobs probably realised that from the start, because he failed to reveal those sources in his headline post. He must have realised that readers would see his post for what it is, which is crass anti-AGW claptrap pseudoscience based on a paper from someone who isn't even a climate scientist and which has not been properly peer reviewed in a credible scientific journal.
Re the "trace gas ... 0.04%" quip, I've signposted debunking of that trope in number 6) above.
Jacobs is starting to cycle back to earlier claims and repeat them, without addressing or even acknowledging the rebuttals that have been pointed out to him. That's one sign that he is gish galloping.
15) In a LinkedIn post, Jacobs signposted a 90 second video of Alex Newman.
My response:
Newman uses the frequently seen "CO2 is not a pollutant", "CO2 is plant food" and "CO2 is only a trace gas" and "human driven CO2 emissions are only a tiny proportion of atmospheric CO2" anti-AGW tropes, which are debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Also, the only scientist he cites is Happer, who is well known for spreading anti-AGW misinformation. See:
https://skepticalscience.com/misinformers.php
Other anti-AGW claims made by Alex Newman in recent years have been fact-checked and found to be false/incorrect. For example, see:
https://science.feedback.org/review/solar-forcing-is-not-the-main-cause-of-current-global-warming-contrary-to-claim-by-alex-newman-in-the-epoch-times/
Jacobs went on to say:
"Look at it now, because soon this will be punishable. [quoting:] "The Belgian government is working with climate activists who want to introduce censorship around news about climate and energy. At the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, climate minister Jean-Luc Crucke (Les Engagés) signed an agreement with QuotaClimat, an NGO that wants to make critical statements about climate change a criminal offence. "Disinformation is like CO₂," Crucke said. "You don't see it, but it ruins everything."
My response:
Disinformation (the deliberate spreading of false or grossly misleading information about climate change) is a severe problem. It delays actions to address AGW. I think we need to balance the penalties for spreading disinformation with the rights of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities not to cause public harm. AGW causes public harm. That harm is amplified by disinformation that reduces the effectiveness of the actions to solve AGW. Disinformers need to be held to account for that the extra harm caused by their actions.
16) "CO₂ is not pollution".
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm
17) "The idea that 0.04% of the atmosphere can control the entire climate is downright ridiculous"
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
Here, Jacobs is cycling back to points 6 and 14, but without having addressed, or even acknowledged, the rebuttals to his points 6 or 14.
That's a sign that he is gish galloping.
18) "... for totalitarian minds who can convince the population that human CO₂ is the devil, it's fantastic. Every human activity emits CO₂. Then as a civil servant, politician you can regulate, prohibit and control everything those citizens do."
That is hyperbole and false politicisation of carbon. It uses a diversion and distraction. Human-driven global warming is a global problem, which requires solutions on a global basis. But that does not mean that it needs totalitarian rule to solve it. Jacobs' comment is a form of strawman.
19) "... there are no more disasters, there has been no increase in climate-related catastrophes since reliable measurements began".
This is an interesting, and at least debatable, topic.
Eg see:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-increasing-extreme-weather-damage-costs.htm
from which:
"The bottom line is that many types of extreme weather are being intensified by human-caused global warming, and that will continue in the future. And there is evidence that climate change is adding to the costs of extreme weather damage."
20) "[CO2] can't cause dangerous global warming"
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
21) "Of all CO2 emissions, 4% is human contribution"
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
22) "... there are no more disasters, there has been no increase in climate-related catastrophes since reliable measurements began"
Debunked here:
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/drop-climate-related-disaster-deaths-not-evidence-against-climate-emergency-2023-09-19/
from which:
"Weather-related disasters have become more frequent, intense, and costly in recent decades as documented by many different sources and analyses. Climate change is already disrupting billions of lives, with nearly half of the world’s population vulnerable to increasingly dangerous climate impacts.
For example, despite global deaths decreasing since the 1950s, the number of reported disasters has increased fivefold, driven by climate change, more extreme weather, and improved reporting, the WMO, has shown.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR6 report, states with a certainty of over 99% probability that hot extremes have increased in intensity and frequency globally since 1950, as have the duration and intensity of heatwaves.
Losses and damages from climate change are escalating, too.
For example, a 2017 UN report, on economic losses from disasters charted climate-related incidents accounting for $2,245 billion in the period 1998-2017, 77% of the total costs from all disasters. Between 1978 and 1997, they accounted for $895 billion, 68% of the total.
Reported losses from extreme weather events (a subset of climate-related disasters) increased by 151%, adjusted to 2017 U.S. dollars.
[re-] The bar graph circulating online first appeared in a newsletter, by climate change sceptic Bjorn Lomborg in response to the UN’s, 2022 “Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction”. VERDICT: Misleading. Disaster mortality is not a useful metric for quantifying climate change, and climate-related disasters have increased in number, intensity, and economic cost."
Because of a comment Jacobs made online that was clearly insulting to women, I blocked him in November 2025.
H) Mark Branham (Principal Consultant at QUANTUM SOLUTIONS, Nineveh, Indiana, United States)
Branham's modus operandi is straightforward AGW denial.
Recently, he has applied that to several topics including Arctic sea ice loss, Glacier ice loss, and he has thrown in conspiracy theories about the IPCC, the NOAA and NASA as well. He also suggests an age-old AGW dismissive claim that global warming is caused by the sun, and engages in gish galloping.
I'll deal with each of those in turn, in the following numbered sections, headlined with a title of the actual facts supported by the credible scientific evidence.
1) Arctic sea ice loss is evidence of AGW
Arctic sea ice loss is most graphically illustrated by data from NSIDC, as shown below.
Branham's modus operandi is straightforward AGW denial.
Recently, he has applied that to several topics including Arctic sea ice loss, Glacier ice loss, and he has thrown in conspiracy theories about the IPCC, the NOAA and NASA as well. He also suggests an age-old AGW dismissive claim that global warming is caused by the sun, and engages in gish galloping.
I'll deal with each of those in turn, in the following numbered sections, headlined with a title of the actual facts supported by the credible scientific evidence.
1) Arctic sea ice loss is evidence of AGW
Arctic sea ice loss is most graphically illustrated by data from NSIDC, as shown below.
It shows a clear trend for declining Arctic sea ice.
Branham claims, to the contrary:
"There needs to be a thumbs down button for nonsense like this... the arctic ice sheets have a normal distribution of more ice years and less ice years, the long trumpeted collapse and ice free poles are no where in sight."
I challenged him to provide evidence to support this and some other outlandish claims as follows:
Your claims addressed:
1.1) "arctic ice sheets have a normal distribution of more ice years and less ice years"
False, in timeframes climate scientists consider appropriate to assess the impacts of AGW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline
1.2) "the climate models are garbage"
False. See:
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
1.3) "we've had times where CO2 was higher and temperature was cooler as well as times where CO2 was lower and yet temperature was higher."
Misleading misinformation.
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
1.4) Branham then cited a youtube video by Dr John Robson, who is not a credible source on climate change. As well as this fact, I also pointed out his source was a video published at Climate Discussion Nexus.
From AI:
"The Climate Discussion Nexus (CDN) is a YouTube channel and website that promotes views questioning the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Its content is frequently cited as an example of climate change misinformation by scientists and climate advocacy groups, who have produced material to debunk its specific claims."
I also signposted a video in which Robson's data and inferences were shown to be incorrect at a very basic level.
His claims about Arctic sea ice are debunked here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmD6t9BYlfI
from which the attached, sourced from NOAA, is a good summary of the long-term trend on Artcic sea ice.
Branham claims, to the contrary:
"There needs to be a thumbs down button for nonsense like this... the arctic ice sheets have a normal distribution of more ice years and less ice years, the long trumpeted collapse and ice free poles are no where in sight."
I challenged him to provide evidence to support this and some other outlandish claims as follows:
Your claims addressed:
1.1) "arctic ice sheets have a normal distribution of more ice years and less ice years"
False, in timeframes climate scientists consider appropriate to assess the impacts of AGW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline
1.2) "the climate models are garbage"
False. See:
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
1.3) "we've had times where CO2 was higher and temperature was cooler as well as times where CO2 was lower and yet temperature was higher."
Misleading misinformation.
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
1.4) Branham then cited a youtube video by Dr John Robson, who is not a credible source on climate change. As well as this fact, I also pointed out his source was a video published at Climate Discussion Nexus.
From AI:
"The Climate Discussion Nexus (CDN) is a YouTube channel and website that promotes views questioning the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Its content is frequently cited as an example of climate change misinformation by scientists and climate advocacy groups, who have produced material to debunk its specific claims."
I also signposted a video in which Robson's data and inferences were shown to be incorrect at a very basic level.
His claims about Arctic sea ice are debunked here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmD6t9BYlfI
from which the attached, sourced from NOAA, is a good summary of the long-term trend on Artcic sea ice.
1.5) Branham responded:
"Robinson's correction didn't have anything to do with the conclusion which was based on the cluster of the line data and had nothing to do with the idea that ice thickens every year during winter...duh. As to your graph above. Notice that it arbitrarily picks a March and a September out of every year. This is called cherry picking the data to get the answer you want to hear, not science."
My response was to provide counterevidence from NSIDC, citing a credible scientific journal.
1.6) Branham said "Appealing to the authority of a magazine that agrees with your opinion isn't very convincing against the data."
I replied:
You suggest "... appealing to authority... "
re appeal to authority, see this AI summary:
"An "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted as true solely because an authority figure said it, often without considering evidence. Checking credibility, on the other hand, is a critical thinking process to evaluate if the authority is qualified in the relevant field, whether their claims are supported by evidence, and if there are any biases, making it a valid way to assess an argument."
The evidence for AGW is freely available from extensive credible scientific sources.
Unfortunately, sources that lack credibility are so full of unsubstantiated pseudoscientific claptrap that it is generally a waste of people's time to try to review and check them. That's why we have the peer review process in credible scientific journals. If you can cite those credible sources, then it's worth people's time to look at them. Otherwise, all you're doing is encouraging misinformation and disinformation that is designed to mislead people.
1.7) Branham said, in response to requests for credible data:
"Ok, here's the data straight from NASA; https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5521 Notice it's only from 1978 onward which keeps from showing lower ice ranges earlier, so it's a little deceptive. And since you love peer reviewed papers, here's one from nature; https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02882-1 which broaches the uncomfortable subject that sea ice isn't melting as fast as the models have projected."
My response:
Thank you for referencing a scientific source (NASA) to try to support your claims about Arctic sea ice.
I note, from that NASA source, that:
"Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice, and their combined total are shown. On Febuary 12th 2025 the total sea ice reached a record low of 15.7 million square kilometers. Data is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center [NSIDC] at the University of Colorado Boulder."
That contradicts Branham's claim that "...the arctic ice sheets have a normal distribution of more ice years and less ice years, the long trumpeted collapse and ice free poles are no where in sight."
He claims:
“sea ice isn't melting as fast as the models have projected”
He cites:
Yu (2025) “Decelerated Arctic Sea ice loss triggered by accelerated North Pacific warming over the past decade”
Note, from that paper:
“Despite this temporary slowdown, the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice under persistent greenhouse gas emissions is expected to continue, with projections indicating a potential ice-free summer before 2030. The 2007–2024 deceleration likely reflects an interplay between anthropogenic forcing−accelerating sea ice loss−and natural variability, counteracted by increases associated with warming in the North Pacific Ocean.”
The very paper that Branham cites actually contradicts what he claims.
The charts above from NSIDC and NOAA, and the data they come from, have not yet been met with any credible counterevidence from Branham.
2) Glacier ice loss is evidence of AGW's impacts
Now, let's turn to glacier ice loss rates. Glacier ice loss trends are clear from data from NOAA, as shown below. Ice loss is accelerating.
2.1) Branham's response to that was:
"No, they [ie the glaciers] collapse in your imagination."
As support for his claim, he cited another video by Dr John Robson.
Again, I indicated that Robson is not a credible source on climate change.
2.2) Branham's response was "His credibility is irrelevant, what is relevant is the data which he did not invent but what has been gathered by NASA and NOAA data records that they no longer want to have in the public eye."
My reply:
"No it [ie Robson's credibility] isn't [irrelevant]. You can't rely on a source that lacks credibility. If you have data you want to rely on, then cite the data and a credible source for it. Otherwise, all you're doing is spreading misinformation and disinformation.
For some actual data from a credible source, see:
Rounce (2023) "Global glacier change in the 21st century: Every increase in temperature matters":
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo1324
It's published in Science (the journal).
from which:
"Rounce et al. projected how those glaciers will be affected under global temperature increases of 1.5° to 4°C, finding losses of one quarter to nearly one half of their mass by 2100.""
2.3) Branham's response:
"The key word there you like to overlook is projected. Not fact, not data, projected by a model. The simple truth is that the model doesn't match the data."
My response:
"You claim "the model doesn't match the data". What evidence can you provide to support that claim?"
I also pointed out this article:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-mountain-glaciers
from which:
"Based on preliminary data through the 2023/24 monitoring year, the climate reference glaciers tracked by the World Glacier Monitoring Service have lost, since 1970, ice mass equivalent to nearly 27.3 meters of liquid water—the same as slicing roughly 30 meters (98 feet) of ice off the entire surface of each glacier.
Glaciers have shrunk every year for the past 37 years.
Ice loss in mountain glaciers is accelerating: each of the last three complete decades has brought bigger declines than the decade before.
Melting glaciers and ice sheets are the biggest cause of sea level rise in recent decades."
and from AI:
"Glaciers are losing ice at an accelerating rate, losing approximately 273 billion tonnes annually between 2000 and 2023, which is equivalent to a global sea level rise of about 0.75 mm per year. The rate of loss has increased significantly, with ice melt between 2012 and 2023 being 36% higher than in the previous decade... Central Europe has lost around 40% of its glacier ice since 2000... and the five years with the largest global glacier mass losses have all occurred in the last six years."
I also signposted the NOAA chart above, showing accelerating rate of glacier ice loss.
re Branham's citing another video from Robson, I responded:
Rather than citing a youtube video from a source I've already pointed out as lacking credibility, please support your claims with the data from a credible source. That shouldn't be very difficult. NASA and NOAA would be fine. Even better would be a scientific paper from a credible journal which supports the claims you make."
2.4) Instead of addressing the data I had signposted, Branham said:
"I notice that you keep referencing AI. You do know that large language models only parrot back what they've been trained on. It's like getting all your information from twitter. Ridiculous."
I responded:
"Occasionally, AI provides a decent summary, which saves a little time. It's not a substitute for credible scientific work and evidence, which is why I also signpost credible scientific evidence."
In summary, Branham denies the science of AGW, and has not provided actual, credible scientific evidence to support his views. In fact, when he does cite credible scientific sources, they contradict his claims.
3) The IPCC is a credible source of scientific evidence for AGW
Below is a further exchange on LinkedIn, this time about the scientific findings of the IPCC, in a thread under a post by Eric Keyser (also listed in this rogues gallery).
3.1) From Mark Branham
This is very interesting. I hope you let us know what you find. Other groups like the Climate Discussion Nexus, CDN, and Tony Heller have been combing over a lot of other cities and found similar date manipulation, bordering in my opinion of academic fraud.
From David Calver
Re Tony Heller (Steven Goddard):
https://www.desmog.com/steven-goddard/
Steven Goddard
Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) Credentials Background Steven Goddard is a climate science denier, regular contributor to WattsUpWithThat (WUWT)…
3.2) From Mark Branham
To David Calver
So what? In an honest scientific debate everyone should be able to ask questions and pick apart any given theory, even the local garage mechanic with no degree. What I care about and review is the data, facts and logic derived from them. Ad hominem attacks based on personality are the weakest kind of argument because it simply doesn't deal with the initial question. The theory that survives questioning from any and all comers is likely closer to being truth. So I say debate it all out in the open and let the chips fall where they may.
From David Calver
to Mark Branham
from Google AI:
"an ad hominem argument is considered valid and non-fallacious when the personal attack is relevant to the person's credibility regarding the specific claim or testimony they are offering. "
I sometimes use the "CRAAP" framework to evaluate materials:
https://researchguides.ben.edu/source-evaluation
One of the elements is Authority / credibility, ie is the source a credible one. In this example, Tony Heller (Steven Goddard) is not credible on the subject of AGW because he is known to be an AGW denier, as per the DeSMog article. Heller's view is not consistent with the vast majority of scientific evidence on the subject.
Of course, he is free to have any opinion he likes. But it will not sway many people when it contradicts the scientific evidence. And people are free to point out his lack of credibility on the subject.
Research Guides: Evaluating Sources: The CRAAP Test
Use the resources in this guide to help you develop the critical evaluation skills to select the best books, journal ariticles, and web sites to support your research projects.
One person's (usually an AGW denier's) "data manipulation" is another person's (usually a climate scientist's) "adjusting data to correct for known inaccuracies, to make it more accurate".
You suggest:
"The theory that survives questioning from any and all comers is likely closer to being truth."
That is true, and AGW has been questioned more than any other scientific matter for several decades now, and has always come out stronger each time. The scientific evidence is so deep and overwhelming that the IPCC says, in AR6 WG1 (2021):
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."
But there is also "JaQing", and that is what Keyser does, over and over, with his cherry picking and dismissing of the scientific evidence for AGW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Asking_Questions
"[W]hen true scientists ask a question, they want an answer and will give due consideration to any possibilities. Deniers, on the other hand, will ask the same undermining questions over and over, long after they have been definitively answered. The questions—used to cast doubt—are all they are interested in, not the process of discovery they're meant to inspire."
Just Asking Questions - Wikipedia
3.3) From Mark Branham
To David Calver
Having a scientific review where all the reviewers are from the same department isn't a real, rigorous review because everyone has a vested interest in getting their own papers published. So the you scratch my back and I'll scratch yous has a lot of reviews becoming meaningless. As to AGW; you depend on the IPCC which is a political organization, not a scientific one and who's entire budget is dependent on that claim. Not a reliable authority at all.
Then NASA and NOAA should publish the details of the corrections they made, but they haven't. Secondly, after the "recalibrations" the reconstructions make historical facts like the medieval warm period and the little ice age look as if they never existed. Any time you make these kinds of changes and they diverge from historical facts, that's a pretty good clue that it's a lousy theory.
So what you are espousing is that an appeal to authority is a better argument than examining the actual facts and data. Sorry, but you and I are never going to agree on that premise.
From David Calver
To Mark Branham
You claim:
"As to AGW; you depend on the IPCC which is a political organization, not a scientific one and who's entire budget is dependent on that claim. Not a reliable authority at all."
People who dismiss the IPCC in that way are clearly ignoring the fact that the contents of IPCC reports comprise the best scientific knowledge about climate change, from literally millions of independent, credible scientists around the world.
Your claim is essentially a form of conspiracy theory.
Apart from a general accusation of it being "a political organization" (which, after all, the IPCC admits to because it is an interface between scientists and political policy makers, but which does not mean it is not credible), can you offer any evidence for your claim that the IPCC is "Not a reliable authority at all"?
From David Calver
To Mark Branham
You claim:
""recalibrations" the reconstructions make historical facts like the medieval warm period and the little ice age look as if they never existed."
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Medieval-Warm-Period.htm
IPCC update temperature graphs with best available data
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science...
You suggest "what you are espousing is that an appeal to authority is a better argument than examining the actual facts and data"
No. The evidence for AGW is freely available from extensive credible scientific sources.
Unfortunately, sources that lack credibility are so full of unsubstantiated pseudoscientific claptrap that it is generally a waste of people's time to try to review and check them. That's why we have the peer review process in credible scientific journals. If you can cite those sources, then it's worth people's time to look at them. Otherwise, all you're doing is encouraging misinformation and disinformation that is designed to mislead people.
re appeal to authority, see this AI summary:
"An "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted as true solely because an authority figure said it, often without considering evidence. Checking credibility, on the other hand, is a critical thinking process to evaluate if the authority is qualified in the relevant field, whether their claims are supported by evidence, and if there are any biases, making it a valid way to assess an argument."
"Checking credibility is a critical thinking process to evaluate if the authority is qualified in the relevant field, whether their claims are supported by evidence, and if there are any biases, making it a valid way to assess an argument."
People don't always have to do credibility checking themselves. There are lots of sources that have done that credibility checking.
I sometimes look sources up at RealClimate, Media Bias Fact Check, Sourcewatch, skepticalscience.com, DeSmog. They cover most of the sources lacking credibility that are commonly referenced by anti-AGW misinformers and disinformers.
Climate Science Glossary
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science...
3.4) From Mark Branham
Checking credibility is fine, but is not a substitute for reviewing the actual data.
Do you ever reference actual data instead of a rehashing of the data from a biased rag like skeptical science?
Independent? Every scientist's work you have referenced belongs to or is connected to this group. A group by the way which derives its entire budget and reason for existence of moving money around the climate alarmism movement. It's a lot like only subscribing to blue sky to get your political opinions.
From David Calver
To Mark Branham
You ask:
"Do you ever reference actual data instead of a rehashing of the data from a biased rag like skeptical science? "
Firstly, what evidence can you provide of bias at skepticalscience.com? According to Media Bias Fact Check:
"Overall, we rate Skeptical Science, Pro-Science based on presenting credible peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports the consensus on climate change.
Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: VERY-HIGH"
Secondly, the scientific studies supporting what skepticalscience.com says are clearly signposted in their articles.
As well as that source, I also reference other sources.
IPCC reports are a good, credible source.
Readers also might like to look at posts by Glen Alleman MSSM
because he has listed many good sources.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/climate-change-resources-glen-alleman/
And:
Climate Science Glossary
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science...
You claim, about "this group" [the IPCC]; " Independent? Every scientist's work you have referenced belongs to or is connected to this group. A group by the way which derives its entire budget and reason for existence of moving money around the climate alarmism movement. It's a lot like only subscribing to blue sky to get your political opinions."
You can, of course, have an opinion about bias at the IPCC, but that doesn't alter the fact that you have not provided any evidence for such claimed bias, and the IPCC remains a credible source of good evidence about climate science.
According to Media Bias Fact Check:
"Overall, we rate The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a pro-science source based on minimal bias and direct interpretation and research studies.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE (-1.0)
Factual Reporting: HIGH (0.3)
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY"
Branham has not acknowledged or responded to my counters to his various claims about the IPCC.
4 NASA/NOAA temperature data have not been fraudulently corrupted
Each of Branham's claims are addressed as follows, with thanks to Florence K. (Lifetime Learner - Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States) for her signposting of some of the rebuttal materials.
4.1 “… the temperature record for the last hundred years or so… The data has been carefully culled by NASA and NOAA to emphasize urban heat island thermometers and skip over rural thermometers, so the data they publish is corrupted... The 1.2C warming … is only evident in urban heat island thermometers, it you look at rural thermometers, it isn't that much of an increase.”
False.
NASA and NOAA explicitly correct for urban heat island effects when compiling global temperature records, and independent analyses confirm that the warming trend remains even after those adjustments.
4.2 “NASA/NOAA data has changed over the years. It's not just urban heat island compensation, its been a cooling of the past and a warming of the current… historical facts like the medieval warm period and the little ice age seem to have never existed NASA has essentially engaged in academic fraud”
False.
Re- the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, they are not ignored; the IPCC and numerous studies discuss them extensively. The difference is that those were regional events, while today’s warming is global, faster, and strongly tied to human activity. That’s why the scientific consensus is clear: climate change is real, and NASA’s data is vital for understanding it.
References:
Davis (2017), The Relationship between Atmospheric CO₂ and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years, Davis (2017), IPCC reports on Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, NASA FAQ on Urban Heat Island corrections
NASA and NOAA do adjust historical data, but those corrections are transparent and necessary to account for changes in measurement methods. Independent datasets, satellite records, Berkeley Earth, HadCRUT, all confirm the same warming trend. Calling this fraud ignores the fact that multiple independent lines of evidence show human activity is the dominant driver of recent climate change.
The fact that NASA and NOAA data has been adjusted over time isn’t evidence of fraud—it’s evidence of scientific rigor. When measurement methods change, like moving from ship buckets to buoys, scientists correct for those biases to make the record consistent. These adjustments are published openly, and independent datasets like Berkeley Earth and satellite records confirm the same warming trend. So the warming isn’t a product of manipulation, it’s a product of reality. References:
Carbon Brief. (2017, July 19). Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records. Carbon Brief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. (n.d.). GISTEMP: Frequently asked questions. NASA. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/
Berkeley Earth. (n.d.). Data overview. Berkeley Earth. https://berkeleyearth.org/data/
In fact, as the Carbon Brief explainer describes, the effect of adjustments has been to reduce the size of the modern temperature anomaly, not increase it as you claim. From the AI summary of the Carbon Brief explainer:
"... a Carbon Brief analysis confirms that temperature data adjustments have generally made older, pre-1950 temperatures appear higher than their raw measurements suggest. This actually has the net effect of slightly reducing the overall calculated rate of long-term warming compared to using the unadjusted data."
Branham responded to this section (4.2) by calling it "repetitions of claims to authority".
No. For a valid 'claim to authority' (or 'appeal to authority') refutation to work, Branham would have to show that the authority cited is not credible. He has not done that.
On the contrary to that, see:
https://science.feedback.org/review/nasa-did-not-create-global-warming-by-manipulating-data-tony-heller-steven-goddard/
from which:
"NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data... Scientists at NASA—as well as other groups—constantly work to ensure that the data being used to estimate global average temperatures are as accurate as possible. As time goes on, updates can lead to small changes to estimates for previous years. These changes, however, are much too small to cause the warming trend that is clear in all available datasets."
4.3 “NASA and NOAA have had three major revisions of the data. If these were systematic error corrections, you would expect a random walk pattern in how the data changes post revision... In random error, you would expect some correction changes to send some data up and some down."
False inference.
This is not a situation of a random walk. For example, at least one set of data adjustments is because of a systematic over or under measurement of sea surface temps, because of the previous method for measurement. Therefore, the adjustments to data for all the measurements taken, in all sea locations, using that previous method, are in the same direction.
We know that average global temperatures are rising. Branham provides no evidence to support his claim of random walk effects in the adjustments to raw historical temperature observations.
Furthermore, revisions of temperature data have had the overall effect of increasing older temperatures and reducing recent ones, thereby reducing the recent rise in recorded average global temps compared with historical temps. Despite that, the frecent rising global average temperature trends (since industrialisation) are still clear, statistically significant and unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years.
From Google AI:
"Carbon Brief data shows that adjustments to global temperature records actually make the long-term warming trend appear less than the raw data, particularly before 1950, due to corrections for changes in measurement (like ships using engine intakes vs. buckets) that historically recorded cooler temperatures"
Source for that:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/
4.4 “ … proxy records going back in time several thousands of years show times where CO2 was higher and yet temperatures were lower, as well times where CO2 was lower and yet temperatures were higher.”
The evidence for correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures is well established with scientific evidence. But it's not an immediate relationship in time, because of various factors. For example, observed surface temperatures are affected by short-term climate variability, and recent warming of deep oceans. But the long-term trends in temperatures, and the link to human activities, have been established beyond any reasonable scientific doubt.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
-------------
5 Other aspects of AGW
Branham then digressed and diverted attention by bringing unrelated topics into the discussion, rather than responding to the various pieces of scientific evidence refuting his earlier claims. This is a common tactic of gish gallopers when they know they have a very weak position in the face of the actual scientific evidence. The gish gallopper hopes to draw the respondent, and the readers, away from the refutations of their claims.
5.1 “man's activities are about 3% of the natural carbon cycle” (a point he has made more than once as he has cycled back to reuse points he has previously made without addressing the rebuttals of them)
The idea that human activity is only 3% of the carbon cycle is misleading. Natural fluxes are balanced, but human emissions add ~42 gigatonnes of CO₂ per year, which the Earth cannot fully absorb. That’s why atmospheric CO₂ has risen from 280 ppm to over 420 ppm. This is a common but misleading talking point. While natural fluxes (oceans, vegetation) are large, they are balanced—nature absorbs what it emits. Human emissions (~42 gigatonnes of CO₂ per year) are additional and not fully absorbed, causing net accumulation in the atmosphere. That’s why CO₂ concentrations have risen by ~50% since the industrial revolution.
Climate Change Tracker. (2025). Human-induced yearly CO₂ emissions. Climate Change Tracker. https://climatechangetracker.org/co2/human-induced-yearly-co2-emissions
Lee, T. B. (2016, January 24). Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data. Ars Technica. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2024, October 29). Carbon dioxide emissions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/carbon-dioxide-emissions
5.2 “If CO2 and temperature and CO2 were as tightly correlated ... then why haven't temperatures already doubled?”
- Misunderstanding: climate sensitivity is not instantaneous.
- Doubling CO₂ (~560 ppm) is projected to cause ~2.5–4°C warming over centuries, not immediately - we’re only halfway there. The ~1.2°C warming we’ve already seen matches the physics and the data.
- Current warming (~1.2°C since pre‑industrial) matches expectations given ~50% increase in CO₂, plus ocean heat uptake delaying surface warming.
5.3 “Where did humans get their CO2 as opposed to "natural" CO2? It came from sources that were otherwise sequestered in just another form. At best human activity generates a detour for some of the natural CO2 along it's cycle.”
Misinformation. A true statement that is misleading.
The isotopic fingerprint (declining carbon‑13 and absence of carbon‑14) is direct data showing fossil fuel origin of most of the greenhouse gases emitted from human activities.
It's true that the carbon in those emissions is part of a carbon cycle, but one that has very long (geological) timescales if left to its own natural processes. Humans have, unfortunately, intervened in that cycle, pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases there in a very short time. The greenhouse gases will stay there long enough to cause increases in global average temps at a rate that is unprecedented in all the Earth's history (with the exception of asteroid impacts), causing a new mass extinction event of our own making.
5.4 “...the models are complete garbage”
All of the previous discussion was about actual observed temperatures. Branham tried to divert the conversation into talking about climate models that draw on that historical data and project them into the future. By using techniques such as checking the models to historical data (seeing if they would have predicted future temps if they had a starting point of now minus x years) the models have been shown to be accurate enough to be used as a basis for policy decisions.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
5.5 “The sun puts out about six trillion horsepower a second of energy in our direction, … since clouds are highly reflective, more or less clouds make a stronger contribution to black body heating of the earth than does CO2." [albedo]
False inference. Climate scientists have taken into account the sun's input to temperatures on Earth, and albedo.
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm
5.6 Branham said "When I compare the rural thermometer data to the urban thermometers, the great heating story dissolves"
I've asked him to provide his data and analysis for that and compare it with the work of climate scientists, for fact checking purposes.
Note that the climate scientists' work on this is sound, has been peer reviewed and checked, and shows that, despite urban centres being warmer than rural ones, the trends, ie changes in temp over time because of AGW, are the same in both types of measuring station, and are consistent with trends from other observational methods such as satellites.
More here:
https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
"Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have compared the data from remote stations (sites that are nowhere near human activity) to more urban sites. Likewise, investigators have also looked at sites across rural and urban China, which has experienced rapid growth in urbanisation over the past 30 years and is therefore very likely to show UHI. The difference between ideal rural sites compared to urban sites in temperature trends has been very small."
("trends" is the key word)
5.7 Branham said "...in the most recent [interglacial], the Holocene interglacial, CO2 began rising well before humanity could force it's rise."
Misinformation. It's true but misleading. CO2 from natural processes has driven temp changes in the past. But currently, since industrialisation, the most significant CO2 driving is from human activities. The anti-AGW inference you make is debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
from which:
"CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase."
5.8 Branham said "Notice also that the temperature has not risen along with CO2, therefore CO2 is not a simple thermostat for the planet."
Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
from which:
"Climate and CO2 levels have always varied together. During past ice ages CO2 levels were low, and during warm periods CO2 was higher."
and:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm
5.9 Branham said "... look at the length of the previous interglacial periods... Previous interglacial periods were hotter without the benefit of man's interference and if the past is any indication, we are a lot closer to an ice age than a runaway heating."
You would be right, if it was just natural drivers of temp in play. But that is not the case, as per IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021), where they say, based on the overwhelimg weight of scientific evidence (as referenced in their reports):
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."
See also section 4.4 above. Branham is cycling back again to repeat previous claims, without addressing the previous rebuttals. Further signs of his gish galloping behaviour.
5.10 Branham said he provided "clips of NASA and NOAA data but you won't even discuss them because they were packaged into a video by people you deem unworthy."
That would be Tony Heller. I've shown links to credible sources that show that Tony Heller is a self-proclaimed AGW denier whos work is heavily criticised and debunked by climate scientists. See section 3.1 above.
The LSE describes Heller as "... retired geologist Tony Heller, another member of the CO2 Coalition who for many years promoted climate change denial on Twitter under the false name of Steven Goddard."
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/fake-graphs-and-daft-conspiracy-yarns-in-durkins-latest-propaganda-film/
Heller has been pumping out discredited and rebutted false claims about AGW for decades. See this for example from 2014:
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2582
Notice, again, that Branham is cycling back to previously rebutted points, without addressing those rebuttals.
5.11 "[IPCC admitted that] ... storms are becoming neither more extreme nor more frequent".
Branham needs to provide IPCC citations to support his claim. He has not yet done so.
What he claims appears to contradict what IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021) actually says, which is as follows:
"The regional extremes and events that have been studied are geographically uneven (Section TS.4.1). A few events, for example,
extreme rainfall events in the United Kingdom, heatwaves in Australia, or Hurricane Harvey that hit Texas in 2017, have been heavily
studied. Many highly impactful extreme weather events have not been studied in the event attribution framework, particularly in
the developing world where studies are generally lacking. This is due to various reasons, including lack of observational data, lack of
reliable climate models, and lack of scientific capacity. While the events that have been studied are not representative of all extreme
events that have occurred, and results from these studies may also be subject to selection bias, the large number of event attribution
studies provide evidence that changes in the properties of these local and individual events are in line with expected consequences
of human influence on the climate and can be attributed to external drivers. {Cross-Working Group Box: Attribution, 11.1.4, 11.2.2}"
5.12 "... continental US ... used to have 22,000 weather stations, now about 2 thousand."
A brief search shows that to be a false claim.
According to Google AI:
"The number of temperature stations across the continental United States is not static, as various networks exist for different purposes and use different criteria for data inclusion. However, a figure of approximately 21,000 to over 39,000 stations is referenced in some scientific contexts.
Key U.S. temperature station networks and data sources include:
- GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4): NASA's analysis uses data from meteorological stations (NOAA GHCN v4) and ocean areas to estimate global temperature change. A 2021 visualization for this analysis shows 20,924 stations, selected for having "reasonably long, consistently measured time records".
- Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN): This large international dataset is a primary source for land-based weather station data used in global climate monitoring. More than 20,000 stations are available through the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).
- U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN): This is a smaller, high-quality network of 114 stations across the contiguous U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii, specifically designed for long-term climate monitoring in stable environments, protected from land-use changes that might affect data quality.
- NOAA NCEI Climate Normals: For typical climate averages (normals), data from over 9,800 stations are accessible through the NCEI's Quick Access tool."
5.13 "...they extrapolated and filled in the data with an algorithm they won't discuss in the scientific literature..."
Below is a Google AI summary in response to the request "describie the various mathematical and statistical methods (algorithms) to extrapolate and fill in gaps in global temperature data":
"Scientists use various mathematical and statistical methods to extrapolate and fill gaps in global temperature data, ranging from traditional statistical interpolation to advanced machine learning algorithms. These methods leverage the spatial and temporal correlations inherent in climate data to produce complete and homogenized datasets.
Common methods include:
Conventional Statistical Methods
- Mean/Norm Imputation: The simplest approach, where missing values are replaced by the mean of the available data (e.g., historical mean for that specific time/location or the mean of nearby stations). This method is computationally inexpensive but often results in an underestimation of standard errors and might not be robust for long gaps.
- Linear Regression: This method uses a regression model to estimate missing data points based on the values of highly correlated variables or data from neighboring stations. Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) is a widely used variant that considers several related data series as predictors.
- Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW): A spatial interpolation technique that assigns greater weight to observations closer to the missing data point, assuming that nearby locations have more similar temperature characteristics.
- Spline Interpolation: This technique fits a smooth polynomial function through existing data points to estimate missing values, effective for time series with smooth, continuous behavior.
- Principal Component Analysis (PCA) / Empirical Orthogonal Functions (EOF): Multivariate statistical methods that decompose the data into key spatial and temporal patterns (EOFs). Missing values are estimated based on these dominant patterns, allowing for effective gap-filling even in cases with large data gaps. The DINEOF (Data Interpolating Empirical Orthogonal Functions) algorithm is a specific iterative implementation for climate data.
- Expectation Maximization (EM) Algorithm: An iterative approach used for estimating parameters in statistical models with missing data. It alternates between an E-step (calculating the expected value of the missing data) and an M-step (maximizing the likelihood function) until convergence, often assuming a multivariate Gaussian distribution for the data.
- Kriging: A geostatistical interpolation method that uses a model of spatial autocorrelation to provide the best linear unbiased prediction of missing values. It is generally more sophisticated than IDW as it accounts for the statistical relationships among data points.
- Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs): Machine learning models that learn complex, non-linear patterns in the data to predict missing values. Methods include Multilayer Perceptrons (MLP), General Regression Neural Networks (GRNN), and deep learning approaches like DINCAE (Data-Interpolating Convolutional Auto-Encoders) and Graph Attention Networks (GAT).
- Random Forests (RF): An ensemble learning method using decision trees, which has been shown to be a very effective method for imputing missing meteorological data, particularly when multiple variables are involved.
- Bayesian Methods: These approaches, often combined with data augmentation (DA) and recursive correction processes, use probabilistic models to repair missing data, providing robust uncertainty estimates alongside the imputed values.
In addition to simply filling gaps, the process of homogenization is used to identify and adjust for non-climatic shifts in the data (e.g., changes in instrumentation, station location, or observation methods). Methods like MASH (Multivariate Analysis of Series for Homogenization) and RHtest are used to ensure that long-term temperature records accurately reflect true climate variability rather than artificial changes."
It's not clear that there is any truth in Branham's claim that these methods are not discussed in the scientific literature. He appears to be making a vague allegation of lack of transparency.
There is evidence that contradicts Branham's claim. In response to the question "describe the various mathematical and statistical methods (algorithms) to extrapolate and fill in gaps in global temperature data, as included in IPCC reports",
Google AI returns the following:
In its assessments, such as the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) from 2021, the IPCC utilizes several mathematical and statistical algorithms to fill spatial and temporal gaps in global temperature data. These methods ensure a more complete and accurate representation of Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST), particularly in data-scarce regions like the Arctic.
Primary Statistical Methods
The IPCC relies on advanced observational datasets (e.g., HadCRUT5, GISTEMP) that employ various infilling techniques:
- Kriging (Geostatistical Interpolation): A method used to predict missing values by utilizing information from neighboring data points. It assumes that the mathematical expectation of temperature is a function of the distance between observations, allowing for accurate spatial infilling in regions with sparse station coverage.
- Empirical Orthogonal Functions (EOF): This technique estimates missing data by analyzing the spatial and temporal patterns of the available data. It is particularly useful for identifying the most significant modes of temperature variability to reconstruct missing fields.
- Continuous Local Regression (LOESS): A nonlinear regression method used to derive GMST across all periods by applying windows (e.g., ±20 years) to data points. This method is noted for being unbiased compared to simple linear regression.
- Optimal Fingerprinting (Multivariate Linear Regression): This method attributes observed changes to specific drivers (like human influence) while simultaneously accounting for internal variability. It uses the expected space-time response patterns to normalize observations against internal climate noise.
Recent reports have increasingly incorporated machine learning and complex modeling to refine temperature estimates:
- Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence: Techniques like Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and General Regression Neural Networks (GRNN) are used to learn complex, non-linear relationships in high-dimensional datasets, outperforming some traditional interpolation methods in accuracy.
- CLIMFILL Framework: A multivariate gap-filling procedure that combines Kriging with iterative statistical methods to account for dependencies across multiple climate variables (e.g., soil moisture and land surface temperature) rather than filling them in isolation.
- Climate Emulators: Simplified models (e.g., MAGICC) that simulate the behavior of complex General Circulation Models (GCMs) to provide probabilistic estimates of temperature trajectories where direct observational data may be incomplete or unavailable.
- Bayesian Inference: Integrated statistical models that treat observational error, model error, and internal variability simultaneously to provide more robust confidence intervals for temperature reconstructions."
Branham needs to be more specific with his claim, and provide supporting evidence, for people to take his claim seriously.
5.14 "heat island data shows temperature increases because the cities have grown, but the rural thermometers don't have that increase"
Misleading claim. Branham's claim about Urban Heat Island effect is debunked here, where it is explained that Urban Heat Island effects, while real, are already taken into account by climate scientists, who still conclude that human activities, primarily greenhouse gas emissions, are the main drivers of global average temperature rises since industrialisation:
https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
5.15 "If you take the raw data from NASA and NOAA and filter it by looking at say the number of 90 degree days in the US for example, what you will see is that the 1930's and 1940's had the most and they declined since and have been slightly decreasing since then".
Rebutted here:
https://skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm
"The year 1934 was a very warm one in the United States. No-one disputes that. In fact, it's meteorologically quite interesting. The Dust Bowl years are thought to have been at least partly human-caused - by poor agricultural land-management. But the way temperatures have gone now, 1934 is merely of local, historic importance... 1934 used to be the hottest year on record in the USA. However, the USA only comprises 2% of the globe. What about the other 98%? According to NOAA temperature records, as of 2024, the hottest years on record globally were 2016 and then 2023, the latter year's temperature smashing the record by a wide margin."
5.16 "long before man, the earth had periods of more CO2 and lower temperatures as well periods of lower CO2 and higher temperatures, so CO2 is not a simple thermostat for the planet."
That anti-AGW trope is debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
5.17 "the entirety of man's activities account for about 3% of the natural carbon cycle"
That anti-AGW trope is debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
5.18 "... near religious belief in man made climate change is farcical"
Branham invokes the "skeptics are like Galileo" anti-AGW trope, rebutted here:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm
from which:
"The comparison is exactly backwards. Modern scientists follow the evidence-based scientific method that Galileo pioneered. Skeptics who oppose scientific findings that threaten their world view are far closer to Galileo's belief-based critics in the Catholic Church."
Overall conclusion
Branham makes spurious, unsubstantiated anti-AGW claims (more than 30 of which I address above). When challenged to provide evidence to support them, he generally cites sources that lack credibility.
When people rebut his claims with scientific evidence from credible sources, he uses an invalid claim that such rebuttals are 'appeals to authority'. When he cites credible sources himself, they often contradict his claims.
He also very easily slides down to the lower layers of the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. When this is pointed out to him, he doubles down on his arguments rather than acknowledging or correcting his behaviour.
After a while, he repeats himself - a very obvious sign of gish galloping behaviour.
The evidence shows that he is an anti-AGW pseudoscientific disinformation propagandist.
