All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Wednesday, 11 May 2011

(Un)Real Climate Challenged by Climate Guy

Please check out this clear and pithy summary of radiation physics as it applies to the global warming aspect of climate science, by Climate Guy:

Scientific proof of persistent errors in climate science dogma (if proof matters?).

Soon to be peer reviewed... if the peers will oblige...

Also available as a PDF file HERE.
From: Denis Rancourt <>
Date: Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:10 PM
Subject: climate

Dear Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Caspar Ammann, Rasmus Benestad, Ray Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Steig, David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert, Thibault de Garidel, Jim Bouldin, and William Michael Connolley,

Dear contributors to Real Climate,

Dear colleagues,

Re: A new article for your review

Please consider this new article:
"Radiation physics constraints on global warming

I believe this article contains proof of incorrect/unjustified assumptions and corresponding results published on the Real Climate web site.

I would welcome your reviews of my article for posting.

I will feature all your comments and criticisms on the same blog.

Denis Rancourt, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. (Physics)
Former professor and environmental researcher, University of Ottawa, Canada


UPDATE by Denis Rancourt (Climate Guy HERE
Go to Link to see latest correspondence.

Peer criticism -- REVISED version of Rancourt radiation physics paper

[Prof. Ray Pierrehumbert]
  1. Rancourt writes original version of article, HERE.
  2. Asks for and receives peer criticism, HERE.
  3. Rancourt writes significantly revised version of article, HERE.
  4. Asks for and receives further peer criticism about revised version, PRESENT POST.
  5. It appears that Rancourt's revised paper is correct: The predicted effect of CO2 is two orders of magnitude smaller than the effects of other parameters.

1 comment:

  1. Follow up:


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!