List cites a freerepublic post that still has a copy of an original news article that is no longer available:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1422147/posts
It starts off badly with "man’s addition to the carbon-dioxide flux in the atmosphere, by fossil-fuel combustion, is essentially irrelevant"
Arguments Condensed:
- Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
- Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
- The "Arctic Ocean Model" explains warming
- We need the greenhouse effect
- co2 rise is natural
- I am part of a "large minority"
Notes:
- uses the phrase "so-called greenhouse gas". I see this phrase a lot. What does it mean? Are they casting their luck whether co2 is a greenhouse gas? Perhaps they are suggesting the possibility that "greenhouse gases" don't even exist. What is up with this frequently used phrase?
- This author actually puts forward their own explaination for the warming: "And behind that again is the alternative warming concept, most generally known as the Arctic Ocean Model, which is considered by many to be the real driver for the temperature oscillations and has been for the last million years or so.".
Thanks so much for your efforts on this, Bob.
ReplyDeleteWhen this is a bit more complete it might be worth using as a basis for forcing Inhofe to move the material from the EPW site to his own page, where it would be far less likely to mislead inadvertent browsers.
On my List of climate scientists I've been filling in citation stats on some of these Inhofe list names. I found over 150 of the 603 (as sorted by Tim) were on my list from having poured in the signers of the Manhattan Declaration and such.
ReplyDeleteI got Essenhigh done yesterday. He actually published and got cited a bit; only trouble is its all papers on combustion of coal, mostly from the 60's thru the 80's in journals such as Fuel, Combustion and Fuel, Energy & Fuel and the Combustion Institute.
The few (4) that match 'climate' were in Energy & Environment and Transportation Research, but then just one with LJ Hickey et al (2004) in Geology: "Burning of forest materials under late Paleozoic high atmospheric oxygen levels" which on a quick skim looks like an honest effort in paleoecology. I didn't find any of the co-authors in the skeptic lists I've got.
I won't have Essenhigh's info updated online until I export my Excel file and rerun my script - later tonight or tomorrow. Here's the page:
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/