Here are three short articles published in 2020 on the now censored electroverse.net…
CO2 Levels Were 400+PPM In The 1940s
Outspoken Ph.D. Physical Scientist Ned Nikolov has raised an important question: Can we trust NOAA’s Mauna Loa CO2 readings (aka the Keeling Curve)?
The pre-industrial CO2 level of ~280 ppm –the starting point of many an alarmist chart– comes from ice cores which do not preserve the high-frequency elevated CO2 values that existed in the atmosphere at the time, explains Nikolov.
However, when using chemical methods to obtain direct atmospheric measurements, it is revealed that CO2 levels have, in the past, always closely followed global temperature anomalies (with a few years lag).
Using this method, it has been revealed that CO2 levels climbed above 400 ppm in the 1940s, a period succeeding the very hot Dust Bowl of the 1930s:
Compare this to the NOAA’s atmospheric CO2 chart (shown below).
Note its perfectly clean, simple, and linear trajectory for some 60-odd years.
The Mauna Loa observations are flawed and contrived, at best, “heavily doctored,” at worst, suspects Nikolov.
The smoothed Beck (2007) CO2 dataset (embedded below) is based on roughly 90,000 direct atmospheric measurements using chemical methods, many of them made by Nobel Prize laureates, writes Nikolov.
The set closely follows global temperature anomalies of the HadCRUT4 dataset for 85 years with an average lag of around 2 years. Also important to note, Beck’s data are completely independent of the HadCRUT 4 temperature record.
NOAA’s atmospheric CO2 record (below) is based on direct air measurements at Mauna Loa HI using infrared spectroscopy.
NOAA ESRL states: “We have confidence that the CO2 measurements made at the Mauna Loa Observatory reflect the truth about our global atmosphere.” However, NOAA’s record does not follow HADCRUT4 temperature anomalies, like Beck’s record does.
This is something that Nikolov finds highly questionable.
“The Keeling CO2 curve has some synthetic features that suggest it might have been contrived or heavily doctored. No real-world measurements of a parameter would follow such a clean, simple, and straight trajectory for 60 years.”
Cloud-Albedo Controls Earth’s Climate, Not CO2
Continuing with the work of Ned Nikolov, Ph.D., he and his team claim to have found the first robust evidence that decadal variations of Earth’s climate are driven by changes in cloud albedo, rather than CO2.
Nikolov is preparing a paper on his findings now, but has recently given a few tantalizing teasers on Twitter — one of which suggests that albedo variations are likely forced by the Sun’s magnetic activity.
Nikolov and his team “tested the hypothesis that global temperature variations over recent decades were caused by fluctuations in global cloud cover … [We have] developed a new analytic albedo-temperature model … [which] predicts departures of the global near-surface temperature from a long-term baseline as a function of Earth’s albedo deviations from a baseline reflective.”
Basically, the results show a high level of accuracy of modeled Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) in terms of both inter-annual variability and decadal trends using 2 independent global temperature datasets (UAH and HadCRUT4), providing what Nikolov claims to be “a robust support to our hypothesis: Climate is indeed driven by changes in cloud albedo!“
Nikolov elaborates further, writing, “The essence of our findings is that cloud-albedo changes are the IMMEDIATE cause for surface temperature changes. What controls cloud variations is a different question … [the] Sun’s magnetic activity and solar wind likely play a crucial role.”
In a succinct rebuttal to the CO2 theory, Nikolov concludes, “The evidence provided by modern NASA planetary data is unequivocal that CO2 as a noncondensing trace gas in our atmosphere has no effect on Earth’s climate! The atmospheric thermal effect is 100% due to pressure, not radiative properties of trace gases: omicsonline.org.”
Wikipedia Deletes “List Of Scientists Who Disagree With The Scientific Consensus On Global Warming”
In an indication of where the climate debate is at today, a handful of Wikipedia editors have “voted” to delete the immensely useful and topical page: “List of Scientists who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming“…
Here’s the reasoning for the censorship, as per one of the Wiki editors:
“The result was delete. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming.”
In other words, this decision was apparently taken by a single individual, the ‘Editor’ in Wiki parlance, with his/her perceived “consensus” based solely on the online discussion among a little over 50 Wikipedia users, each of whom was evidently asked to vote on whether to “Keep” or “Delete” the page.
However, far from a consensus, by my count (please check it) I make it 35 Deletes and 19 Keeps.
What qualifies the Editor to dictate that 35 to 19 constitutes a consensus, and furthermore, to use that claim to then justify deleting a key document on arguably the most important (and most expensive) global social issue since World War Two?
Thankfully, there were a number of sane voices in the mix — 19 by my count.
Here is one such voice falling on the side of “keep”:
“KEEP!KEEP!KEEP! Those listed are not noteworthy? Any utility it ever had is long past? It’s a list of cranks? Absolute rubbish. There are 4 explicit criteria for inclusion. 1) the individual must have published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences; 2) he or she must have made a clear statement disagreeing with one or more of the IPCC Third Report’s three main conclusions, and 3) the scientists has to have been described in reliable sources as a climate skeptic, denier, or in disagreement with any of the three main conclusions. Additionally, to ensure notability, only individuals with a wikipedia article can be included. Someone advocating for deletion, if the article is a mishmash of miscreants . . . I DARE YOU TO STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY LAZY! Stop throwing up buzz words like “denialist” and “consensus” which provide you with an unjustified view from your perceived moral high ground. Pick a person or persons you don’t think should be included, actually apply the four criteria and make an argument that they do or do not belong on the list! As for me, I’ve been an editor of this page for a little over a year. By my count, I’ve successfully added seven scientists to the list (I’ll soon be recommending an 8th). . . and I’ve shown my work every time, and those seven met the criteria. And as to relevance . . . the last IPCC report, IPCC 5, seems to have cut its projected warming over the next two decades in half (see IPCC 5 Figure 11.25). And actual observed warming is in the bottom 2.5 percent of the IPCC 3 models’ range. My god, this page is more relevant than ever.”
And here is the very last comment:
“You guys are doing very badly. Consider removing your bias. There is no such thing as consensus in science. Whereas you may think you are right, there are plenty real climate scientists who know that climate has always changed. I am a biologist and I am not part of this false consensus. Also, you guys use very bad words about people who don’t agree with this ignorance of yours. Bad wikipedia.”
Dissenting voices are of course key to scientific progress, and there shouldn’t be a system in place where some arbitrary (or otherwise) attempt at censorship can be successful on the back of loud opinions.
Fortunately, this now deleted wiki page formed the backbone of my article, “THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE, and so has been preserved–at least for now, until Electroverse is also scrubbed from existence (believe me, they’re working on it).
UPDATE (May 31, 2023): My original website electroverse.net was indeed demonetized and then censored shortly after the release of this 2020 article. Only the Wayback Machine has it now (but only a portion of it, unfortunately), including that article. “THE LIST”: