• Harde (2017a) shows that (1) the anthropogenic contribution to increased atmospheric CO2 can be no greater than 15%.                     It shows further that (2) the same mechanism which can account for nearly all of the modern increase of atmospheric CO2              can likewise account for nearly all of the prehistoric increase which has been inferred from pseudo observations.

 

• Kohler et al (2017) submit a Comment on Harde (2017a), sweeping criticisms that simply reiterate the party line:                                  a catalogue of tenuous claims and citations that are neither definitive nor new.

 

• Harde (2017b) submits a Reply which, through rigorous analysis, demonstrates the following:

 

           (i) The criticisms of Kohler et al are erroneous.

​

          (ii) Fundamental assumptions of the IPCC, upon which Kohler et al rely,

               are fatally flawed. The foundation of IPCC advocacy,

               those assumptions do not obey the laws of physics

               which control atmospheric CO2.

 

         (iii) Key failures identified in (ii) invalidate the very premise of the IPCC.                                                                             

               They render prediction of atmospheric CO2 on the basis of anthropogenic emission impossible.    

             

               If climate models cannot predict atmospheric CO2, they can hardly predict

               climate properties which are purportedly influenced by atmospheric CO2.

​

• Global and Planetary Change (GPC) and its publisher, Elsevier, then censor the material.                                                                            They publish the Comment by Kohler et al. However, they refuse to publish the Reply,

        which corrects those erroneous claims.

 

        Treatment of this scientific exchange is unprecedented, a stark denial of due process.

 

• Elsevier’s publications charges are paid, in significant part, with public funds.

        Its conduct of this scientific exchange begs the following question:

 

                Should the public be footing the bill for activities that sequester scientific knowledge

                from the public (for its own good, of course) – even from the scientific community,

                those who are best qualified to understand its importance?

 

​

     Correspondence to GPC and Elsevier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

​

     Kohler et al (2017)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

 

     Harde (2017b): Reply to Kohler et al (2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3