I am not an expert in issues involving climatology, but I am certainly someone who has been, is being, and will continue to be affected by political, legal, economic, financial, and educational policies that are shaped by individuals who are seeking to acquire control over the way in which climatology is understood. When time permits, I have read some of your articles on climatology and found them to be quite informative and reflective of other things which I have been, and am, reading. The link which follows connects to a pdf version of a free book which recently has bubbled to the surface of consciousness and is entitled: Climatology, Technocracy, and Sovereignty ( https://www.billwhitehouse.com/Cli-Tech-Sov-New.pdf ). Notwithstanding my lack of expertise, the epistemological battle which is being waged cannot be left to just the experts, but, rather, that epistemic cudgel must also be picked up by nobody's like myself who need to find ways to add their voice concerning this -- and other issues -- in what will be, hopefully, a constructive manner. By adding our voices together -- both expert and non-expert -- perhaps a collective force can be generated which will help counter the problematic narrative in which an unfortunate number of IPCC and other like-minded organizations, individuals, and institutions have sought to sow misinformation and disinformation (with the help of vested interests in government, academia, and the media) in the minds of so many people. Whatever mistakes might be present in the aforementioned book are mine, but I believe anyone who cares to engage that work will find that it reflects a defensible set of positions concerning climatology, technocracy, and sovereignty which might have some heuristic value for whomever takes the time to read and critically reflect on that material.
Of course, it "cannot be left to just the experts". There is a fun quotation expressing this, usually attributed to Georges Pompidou (https://www.quoteikon.com/georges-pompidou-quotes.html). "There are three ways to ruin: women, gambling, and listening to experts. The first is the pleasantest, the second is the fastest, but the third is the most certain". (I am aware that the AI bots hate the quotation, characterizing it cynical, sexist and politically incorrect--but the latter is the reason that I like it).
Thank you for your response and liking of the initial comment. Not that you are going to read, or that I expect you to read, the pdf connected to the link given in my comment, but, just in case, I have updated the material in the pdf slightly and provided a new link to that updated book so that anyone who does have an interest will be directed to the right location and material.
This article rightly points out that climate depends on cosmic parameters that characterize the climatic conditions of our planet Earth: 1) solar radiation, 2) the atmosphere, and 3) the rhythm of the seasons. Solar radiation is essential to explaining the broad features of planetary climate conditions, which are modulated by the distance from the star (the Sun), the planet's rotation period, and its albedo. The existence of an atmosphere adds an extra level of complexity, modifying the influence of solar radiation and the radiation emitted by the planet, which in turn modifies the climatic conditions on the planet concerned. Finally, obliquity and eccentricity introduce even more subtle and complex climatic nuances from one planet to another, depending on the existence (or absence) of more or less contrasting seasons and their more or less (in)equal lengths.
We must pay tribute to Milutin Milankovitch for understanding this.
The main reason why the concept of the greenhouse effect is not scientifically acceptable is that it violates the first law of thermodynamics: assuming that CO2 plays a role in warming the atmosphere, it cannot heat the surface and be heated by it.
As this article clearly demonstrates, air temperature decreases with altitude up to the tropopause, which is the coldest (non-material) surface of the atmosphere. This observation has never been contradicted anywhere on the globe. Consequently, each layer of the atmosphere can only emit radiation upwards and not downwards.
The endless discussions about the greenhouse effect only reveal ignorance of the first three principles of thermodynamics, which are not intuitive.
Many scientists use paleoclimatic observations from Antarctic ice cores, but why not refer to Greenland ice cores?
In Antarctica, there is about 3 km of ice, providing a description of climate variations over about a million years, while in Greenland there is also 3 km of ice, but it only describes about 140,000 years of climate. This difference can be explained if we accept that ice caps melt from the base and that this has nothing to do with the temperature of the atmosphere. In fact, the triple point diagram for water (H2O) shows that ice can melt at temperatures as low as -60°C and that the rate of melting depends only on the temperature of the ice.
Furthermore, Antarctica has existed for 34 million years and has therefore undergone 34 complete melting cycles while remaining in thermodynamic equilibrium, which implies remarkable stability in global atmospheric circulation.
This simple observation shows that only cosmic parameters can provide sufficient stability to maintain atmospheric circulation over several million years.
There are internal variations within the system, but these must remain sufficiently small for the Earth system to remain in thermodynamic equilibrium, at least on our timescale.
You can read some of my articles at the following address:
I have enjoyed reading about the Hungarian Academy of Science and seeing the photos! How interesting that Milutin Milankovic worked in the library there during WW1 and how important to have been in contact with the true greats of Science; the real Truth-seekers. One is not surprised that the debate didn't take place. It's the same everywhere. In the UK, the BBC has always denied there is any other point of view even while claiming to be 'impartial.'
Thank you for including the four other papers (by Laszio Szarka, Samuel Furfari, Javier Vinos and Marcel Crok) with your excellent paper that you presented and have on the website of the ITIA.
Thank you, Ariane! Including the other papers is important, I think, because they cover different aspects. The Academy has also posted them. But it is prudent to have multiple posts of the same information. The "angelic forces" who care about us and ensure that we only receive politically correct information, also banning any other information, may one day erase several sites or make them inaccessible. Having multiple posts may make their job more difficult...
Incidentally, I noticed that several web sites that are banned in the "democratic" European Union, including Greece and the entire European academic network, are accessible in Hungary. I guess the role model in Europe is Kaja Kallas (the Vice-President of the European Commission) who does not know who fought whom and who attacked whom in the WWII. They don't just want us uninformed. They want us illiterate.
They want us lazy and dependent on them, so they can feel fulfilled as managers and do-gooder dicatators. It will be up to individuals to agree to the arrangement, or not, and they will, no doubt, make not agreeing very difficult.
Science at its best - fact based and analytically sound! Following Prof. Koutsoyiannis´s systematic shattering of the deceitfully propagated climate alarmism - pillar by pillar - is pure pleasure. It is also an examplary demonstration of how easy it is for the political regimes and their puppeteers to defraud the public over decades and to deprive them from the most productive energy sources, that have been fueling the explosive rise in widespread wealth generation despite explosive population growth.
Thanks for the flattering comment! About the energy sources, you may also see the presentation in the same event by Samuel Furfari, also accessible through the link I gave above (https://www.itia.ntua.gr/2573/).
You make the hypothesis that the growing biomass, which has more carbon now than it did a century ago, is nevertheless the source of the atmospheric carbon rise. I have teased you about being an alchemist, able to create new carbon from trees. Now you defend your absurdity with “There are large quantities of carbon in land and ocean …these quantities change in time, as also does the quantity contained in the atmosphere.” Do you really think a little hand waving solves your carbon conservation problem?!!! You don’t have much respect for your readers, but maybe you know them better than I do.
I have emphasized the carbon conservation argument because I think it is the easiest to understand. It was also the argument used by noted sceptics John Christy, Judith Curry, Steve Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer, when they wrote in the Trump administration’s DOE Climate Assessment Report (July 2025):
“The annual increase in concentration is only about half of the CO2 emitted because land and ocean processes currently absorb “excess” CO2 at a rate approximately 50 percent of the human emissions. Future concentrations, and hence future human influences on the climate, therefore depend upon two components: (1) future rates of global human CO2 emissions, and (2) how fast the land and ocean remove extra CO2 from the atmosphere.”
But since you claim not to understand this line of reasoning, I will drop it for now and critique other aspects of your presentation at Beyond the Climate Change Consensus, The International Conference of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, December 2025.
Start with your erroneous statements about 14C.
1. You say “The isotopic carbon data (…Δ¹⁴C) show changes in the isotopic synthesis of atmospheric CO₂, but no sign of human influence.” Your statement is false. The Suess effect is clearly evident in Figure 1 of Presentation of Atmospheric 14CO2 Data https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/discussion-presentation-of-atmospheric-14co2-data/193CDF1F705B269BC975AF178CEF1AC3 I encourage you to understand the magnitude of the effect as well. To do so you will have to recognize, as Suess himself did back in the 1950’s, that it is diluted by disequilibrium isotopic fluxes (DIFs). You have to understand these to also understand how adding 14C devoid carbon to the atmosphere in the first half of the 20th century raised its 14C concentration. It did this even while lowering delta 14C, which measures the 14C/12C ratio. Nature is beautiful when it is subtle. I make an attempt to explain DIFs in Clear Thinking https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Andrews-2023-Clear-Thinking-about-Atmospheric-CO2.pdf
2. You say “Plants are also “devoid of ¹⁴C”, whose decrease is due to cessation of nuclear tests.” This statement is nonsense. I call it out to demonstrate your hubris in making proclamations on topics you seem to know nothing about. Fossil fuels are devoid of 14C because they have been isolated from the atmosphere for thousands of 14C half-lives (14C beta decays to nitrogen in ~5700 years). Living plants have 14C content matching the environment they are growing in, ignoring small fractionation effects.
Not appreciating the role of DIFs has confused Berry, Harde, the late Salby, and Skable and his coauthors. They may be confusing you. If you changed your assertion from “The fact that land and oceans constitute a net sink does not imply anything about the cause of the CO₂ rise" to “The fact that land and oceans constitute a net sink does not imply that 30% of the carbon in the present atmosphere was once locked in a fossil fuel” then I would completely agree. The fraction is much less than that because of DIF’s.
I appreciate you tolerating me (barely) on your blog. I know you wish I would go away. I will stay away from politics, but I will continue to correct mistaken arguments. My contributions to the climate debate are not original like yours, and like you I am not a climate scientist. I have frankly found it much easier to find mistakes in sceptics’ papers than in consensus science papers, but I do find mistakes in the media description of climate science as well. I have respect for you as a salesman: smoothing data when it helps your case, splicing in occasional wise quips from Greek philosophers with your pages of algebra. But the product you are selling is deeply flawed. In defending it in our polarized environment you risk losing your objectivity, and with it your integrity. What would Diogenes say?
John Christy, Judith Curry, Steve Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer are decent scientists and good people. I agree with them on many issues, but I also have significant disagreements with them. When I discuss with them, I am always pleased and honoured to hear their disagreements and their scientific arguments. They have always been polite to me (and others).
But what about you? What kind of person and scientist are you? Are you of the same calibre with the above? What are the reasons for your nauseating insistence on repeating the same things? What gives you the ability to teach me that I
- “will have to recognize”
- “have to understand these”
while at the same time you admit that
- “[your] contributions to the climate debate are not original like [mine]”.
You call me “not a climate scientist”. Well, your latter statement is correct. I am not a “climate scientist” and I will never become because, as I explain in my talk, “climate science” is not science. It is a euphemism for climate sophistry. The field I am trying to serve with my 14 recent climate papers and the other research items is called climatology. And, as I explain in this very post, the greatest climatologist in history was Milankovitch. The fact that his profession was civil engineering (incidentally, the same with mine) did not prevent him from becoming a giant in climatology. That is, your (and other climalarmists') tactic to use labels such as "not a climate scientist" (and "denier" etc.) is irrelevant with science.
Also, your statement “I know you wish I would go away” is correct. I wrote you several times, “please stop”. The reason is not that I disagree with you scientifically. This is positive. The reason is that you write toxic and insulting statements like:
- “you defend your absurdity”
- “This statement is nonsense”
- “I call it out to demonstrate your hubris”
- “making proclamations on topics you seem to know nothing about”
- “I have respect for you as a salesman”
- “But the product you are selling is deeply flawed.”
Well, I am not superhuman, and I try hard not to reciprocate or mirror your toxic and insulting statements. I hope that till now I have managed not to become toxic and insulting. But I dislike encounters with you. I could ban you from my blog, but that would go against my principles. Anyhow, I am tired with you and I will no longer take your comments seriously. If you continue, I will form a standard text to always post as a reply to them.
PS—a note to other readers. DA criticized a couple of my statements, which, I insist, are correct, and I give full explanation in my 14 climate papers of the last five years. With respect to ¹⁴C, DA criticizes my phrase “whose decrease is due to cessation of nuclear tests.” On the other hand, the paper he suggested contains the statements:
- “Such perturbations have included the large excess of ¹⁴CO₂ originating from above-ground testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and early 1960s (commonly referred to as “bomb radiocarbon”) and the anomalously high natural production of ¹⁴C and dramatically altered carbon cycle dynamics during the last ice age”.
- “Following nearly complete cessation of testing in 1964 the amount of atmospheric ¹⁴CO₂ rather rapidly decreased“.
My take on the issue is detailed in “Appendix C. Indirect Validation of the RRR Results Using 14C Isotopic Data” in my paper “Refined reservoir routing (RRR) and its application to atmospheric carbon dioxide balance”, https://www.itia.ntua.gr/2474/
You threaten to respond to me only with a standard text. As your responses for the last couple of years have been nothing but evasion, that is hardly a threat. I have tried many times to engage with you in a technical conversation, but the only response I get are irrelevant comments, or “you are being political”, and now “you are being rude.” I fully understand why you avoid technical discussions. You have no answers to my criticisms. Yes, your evasions have gotten under my skin, my comments have gotten sharper, and I am not proud of that. I did tone them down in editing my last post before pressing “send”. “Deeply flawed” that was in my post was a euphemism for “bullshit” in an earlier draft. You haven’t just risked losing your objectivity, you have lost it. You haven’t just risked losing your integrity, you have lost it. You are intelligent enough to know that trees don’t create new carbon but won’t admit it.
You ask about my science and personality. I earned a PhD in experimental high energy physics 53 years ago, learned about superconducting magnet technology while managing a project as a post doc, then had a 22-year career in industry making superconducting magnets for MRI and other applications. I was vice president of a $100M division when I returned to academia for several years of teaching before retirement. I get along with people just fine. But as a scientist I have zero tolerance for dishonesty, and that is why we do not get along.
Climate change policy is a complex and difficult problem. You are wrong to call me an alarmist, but I am indeed concerned for my grandchildren. We should be discussing how to optimize the phase out rate of fossil fuels, and I don’t know what that is. I will listen to arguments that say Europe had been going too fast until recently, but I believe the US has been going too slowly. But misinformation from people like yourself has sabotaged any rational discussion. I presume you have no grandchildren.
«μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ» (“after one and a second admonition, quit”—Saint Paul, Titus, 3:10).
“the climate change scam is so stupid, cruel and obvious, anyone promoting it is viewed by the sensible as either corrupt or stupid and probably both” (Elizabeth Nickson).
“ist dem Dummen gegenüber mehr Vorsicht geboten als gegenüber dem Bösen. Niemals werden wir mehr versuchen, den Dummen durch Gründe zu überzeugen; es ist sinnlos und gefährlich” (“we must be more cautious with the stupid than with the evil. We will never again try to convince the stupid by reason; it is pointless and dangerous”—Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Theorie der Dummheit).
I think there is no word more abused in human history (especially over the past few decades) than the word science. I also think that Demetris keeps touching on this issue repeatedly. For a long period of the twentieth century, particularly from the 1930s onward, we thought we had resolved these issues, but it seems we forgot them amid climatic and health crises. It was mostly then, when Technocratism arrived as a new trend.
Personally, my favorite approach is Popper’s—that is, the principle of falsifiability—but (given your reference to Diogenes) I would like to refer you to the origins of this story and to Xenophanes (I assume Popper himself would have done the same in your case, had he been alive). On the other hand, of course, I find myself thinking that perhaps you are simply a follower—or a “child”—of Kuhn (even if you are not aware of it).
As we all know, sometimes, science is a beach. From economic “science,” to legal and medical science (and the humanities more generally), all the way to “climate science,” over the past decades there has been a strong, underlying distinction between scientists and “scientists”—but especially between scientists and “experts” (as David Horrobin had very aptly described in a monumental article of his, not so very long ago).
Consequently, in our case—as should always happen in life—I believe we must return to the sources and ask what the etymology of words actually is. Only in this way will we arrive at a common language of understanding, in which deception will have no foothold.
I’m going to read a bit of Michel de Montaigne now—especially chapters 23 and 25 (or even better, H. Diels and W. Kranz, The Presocratics, if you prefer). In any case, I found your comment interesting - if not enjoyed it. As someone who has experienced it firsthand, let me inform you that AI can produce astonishing psychological profiles based on text, in a very "scientific" way. In any case, I wonder whether someone’s self-identification as a “scientist” contains (at best) an enormous dose of arrogance. But on that matter, perhaps Dunning & Kruger are more qualified.
Happy New Year and never forget the basic principle: Cui bono!
You appear to be a clone of Demetris: full of Greek wisdom but short on substance. I will take the lack of any technical discussion in your comment as evidence that you, like Demetris, have no answer to my technical criticism of his work.
I certainly agree with Popper, or Francis Bacon for that matter, that if a hypothesis is contradicted by data, it is wrong. For example, the hypothesis that the CO2 increase in the current era is “natural” and not due to fossil fuel burning, is falsified by the MEASURED positive net global uptake. I know that the practice of adjusting climate models based on new data is sometimes criticized as making the models “non-falsifiable”. But while determining the source of the CO2 increase is a simple problem, you must recognize that the rest of the climate problem is complex. A bad projection by a model may be said to falsify that particular model and set of parameters but certainly does not falsify the overall anthropogenic CO2 driven global warming hypothesis. If you have a suggestion on how to study climate without approximate and imperfect models, go ahead and make it, but I do not believe you can.
Despite your focus on language, you distinguish between scientists, “scientists”, “experts” and technocrats without defining what you mean. I know that skeptics like to describe the authors of IPCC reports as “bureaucrats” rather than scientists because bureaucrats are an easier target. Which category would you put Demetris in? Are you saying all scientists are arrogant or just me? There is a serious topic here on the role of scientists as policy advocates. When I received my doctorate in physics, I did not see any fine print saying that I was relinquishing my right to participate in the democratic process by contributing whatever insights I had on public issues.
I had to look up your basic principle “Cui bono”. Don’t you think skeptics are on shaky ground to ask “who benefits” in the climate discussion? Motives are tricky and I mostly avoid attributing them, but there is money to be made defending the continued use of fossil fuels, whether you are a politician or a would-be influencer. Some skeptics (e.g. Ed Berry) openly solicit money to support their “research”. I don’t think anyone is getting rich at the CO2 Coalition, but their funding by energy companies is well established. Demetris has told me directly that he does not receive any payments for his publications, and I believe him. As I have said before, I fear Demetris made an honest mistake, then sacrificed his integrity defending it. It is difficult to say, “I was wrong”.
Thanks for pointing to slides 30 and 47. I had only skimmed the outline of your talk and missed the link to the slides. These slides establish that we agree on the data. The green dashed curve in slide 30 is the negative of what I have called “net global uptake” following Ballantyne. Since the green dashed cure is consistently negative between 1960 and 2020, net global uptake is consistently positive, and we arrive upon the agreed fact that land and oceans constitute a net sink. But I dispute your deductions after that.
While natural processes can be adding CO2 to net sinks as you say in 47, they cannot be adding NET CO2. It is a perverse notion of causality that concludes that the rise of water level in a leaky bucket being filled by a hose is caused by the leak rather than the hose.
In slide 47 you correctly show “SN”, the natural sink rate, but then ignore it when comparing EN with EH. You are guilty of bad accounting: discussing credits without considering debits. Yes, the biomass grew between 1958 and 2023, and so did its carbon content. Where do you think the extra carbon in the expanded biomass came from? Not from the oceans, whose lower pH indicates that they have also gained carbon in that period, as required by Henry’s Law when the atmospheric carbon went up. Not from the atmosphere which of course has also gained carbon in that period. Only the fossil fuel reserves lost carbon between 1958 and 2023, as we burned it, putting it in the atmosphere, and then nature distributed about half of it elsewhere. You dismiss carbon conservation as a trivial constraint and then violate it in your conclusions. I summarized your errors earlier by saying “trees don’t make carbon, they just borrow it.”
You say my posts are irrelevant. No, the truth is not irrelevant. Your ideas are outliers for good reasons.
"I had only skimmed the outline of your talk and missed the link to the slides."
Of course--not necessary for you to see the slides. Your imagination is so creative that you can criticize them without seeing them.
"Not from the oceans, whose lower pH indicates that they have also gained carbon in that period, as required by Henry’s Law when the atmospheric carbon went up."
Again, congratulations on your imagination, since I did not refer to Henry’s Law in my presentation.
But I referred to agreement of models and data, including in the two slides in discussion. And, as I say in the last slide and repeat in the post, "data have falsified the mainstream
climate theory" (which is a political project, rather than a theory).
I think it would be a good idea if you also read the main points of my presentation reproduced in this very post, and then proceed to reading the slides.
You ara magician, Demetris, pulling carbon out of your hat whenever you need it, and transforming a net sink into a net soursce with your magic wand. Do you ignore Henry's Law because it is a political theory? Yours is the model falsified by data.
Not invoking Henry's law doesn't mean I am ignorant of it.
But, I am not transforming a net sink into a net source. A net sink remains a net sink. As seen in my slide 47, "The fact that land and oceans constitute a net sink does not imply anything about the cause of the CO₂ rise. It is none other than a mathematical necessity dictated by mass conservation."
Thank you for calling me a wizard... If you had called me a witch, I would have been in greater danger of being burned at the stake...
"The fact that land and oceans constitute a net sink does not imply anything about the cause of the CO₂ rise." I disagree, and this is the crux of our differences. I don't understand how you think you can understand the CO2 rise without stating in detail where the carbon comes from. You suggest that it comes from vegetation decay, but that carbon was previously in the atmosphere. In your view, what would the carbon inventories be today if all the fossil fuels had been left in the ground over the last century?
Since you have not laid out your view of what your model says carbon inventories would be today if no fossil fuels had been burned over the last century, I will do it for you:
1. Since by your reckoning, the atmospheric rise is natural (caused by an unexplained warming) the 280ppm to 420ppm rise would still have happened. That is (420ppm-280ppm) x 2.124 GTC/ppm = 297 GT of carbon would still have been added to the atmosphere.
2. Since by your slide 47: “Apparently, the biosphere expansion… has not been caused by human emissions” (that mysterious warming again) it too is unchanged. That would be something like 150 GT of carbon, though this number is less certain.
3. How has the ocean carbon content changed? The model must respect carbon conservation. So we must get the 497 GT of carbon for the atmosphere and land biomass from there, unless you have another suggestion. [There are no depleted fossil fuel reserves to get it from.] So your model says that the oceans would have lost a lot of carbon. But that runs into trouble with Henry’s Law, which would seem to require the oceans to gain carbon when the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere above it increases.
I shouldn’t have to spell out the absurdity of your model this way. The absurdity is apparent from your statement: “The fact that land and oceans constitute a net sink does not imply anything about the cause of the CO₂ rise.” That sounds more like a religious statement than a scientific statement.
1. There are large quantities of carbon in land and ocean--see Fig. 2 in "The superiority of refined reservoir routing (RRR) in modelling atmospheric carbon dioxide", https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384868011 and the IPCC report referenced there.
2. These quantities change in time, as also does the quantity contained in the atmosphere.
3. Science is not about training one's imagination, as you and others do, nor about showing that one knows to do arithmetic multiplication. Science is about seeking the truth, making hypotheses and checking them against real world data. In particular, this blog, as its title (Climath) suggests, is to use mathematics to model climate.
4. The graphics on my slides 20, 27, 29, 30, 41, 45, 46, in the presentation discussed here have done exactly this. Similar is the scope of my essay on the superiority of RRR I mentioned above.
5. If you do similar scientific work yourself, you may notify us to see it. Otherwise, please keep your abilities in imagination and arithmetic multiplication for yourself.
Budapest is beautiful. I was there two years ago. Let us deal once again with the "natural fluxes into the atmophere are much bigger than human emissions" question. That is a true statement, but the data unambiguously also say the natural fluxes OUT OF the atmosphere are bigger still. Will you at least concede, as you once did, that for the last century natural processes have been removing more carbon from the atmsphere than they have been adding?
"concede, as you once did, that for the last century natural processes have been removing more carbon from the atmsphere than they have been adding?"
This isn't true. The truth is that I was telling that from the outset, and there was nothing to "concede". See also slides 47 and the footnote of slide 30 in this presentation.
I wonder if you will ever "concede" the true reasons for your ad nauseam repetition of irrelevant arguments.
Thanks Charles! Pleased that you liked my "unpolitically incorrect" (or politically incorrect) work.
I am aware of NN' work, which I've cited. I had several discussions with him and his colleague Karl Zeller. There are several points of agreement and disagreement among us, which is fine for scientists.
I am not an expert in issues involving climatology, but I am certainly someone who has been, is being, and will continue to be affected by political, legal, economic, financial, and educational policies that are shaped by individuals who are seeking to acquire control over the way in which climatology is understood. When time permits, I have read some of your articles on climatology and found them to be quite informative and reflective of other things which I have been, and am, reading. The link which follows connects to a pdf version of a free book which recently has bubbled to the surface of consciousness and is entitled: Climatology, Technocracy, and Sovereignty ( https://www.billwhitehouse.com/Cli-Tech-Sov-New.pdf ). Notwithstanding my lack of expertise, the epistemological battle which is being waged cannot be left to just the experts, but, rather, that epistemic cudgel must also be picked up by nobody's like myself who need to find ways to add their voice concerning this -- and other issues -- in what will be, hopefully, a constructive manner. By adding our voices together -- both expert and non-expert -- perhaps a collective force can be generated which will help counter the problematic narrative in which an unfortunate number of IPCC and other like-minded organizations, individuals, and institutions have sought to sow misinformation and disinformation (with the help of vested interests in government, academia, and the media) in the minds of so many people. Whatever mistakes might be present in the aforementioned book are mine, but I believe anyone who cares to engage that work will find that it reflects a defensible set of positions concerning climatology, technocracy, and sovereignty which might have some heuristic value for whomever takes the time to read and critically reflect on that material.
Thank you for the comment and the link, Anab!
Of course, it "cannot be left to just the experts". There is a fun quotation expressing this, usually attributed to Georges Pompidou (https://www.quoteikon.com/georges-pompidou-quotes.html). "There are three ways to ruin: women, gambling, and listening to experts. The first is the pleasantest, the second is the fastest, but the third is the most certain". (I am aware that the AI bots hate the quotation, characterizing it cynical, sexist and politically incorrect--but the latter is the reason that I like it).
Thank you for your response and liking of the initial comment. Not that you are going to read, or that I expect you to read, the pdf connected to the link given in my comment, but, just in case, I have updated the material in the pdf slightly and provided a new link to that updated book so that anyone who does have an interest will be directed to the right location and material.
This article rightly points out that climate depends on cosmic parameters that characterize the climatic conditions of our planet Earth: 1) solar radiation, 2) the atmosphere, and 3) the rhythm of the seasons. Solar radiation is essential to explaining the broad features of planetary climate conditions, which are modulated by the distance from the star (the Sun), the planet's rotation period, and its albedo. The existence of an atmosphere adds an extra level of complexity, modifying the influence of solar radiation and the radiation emitted by the planet, which in turn modifies the climatic conditions on the planet concerned. Finally, obliquity and eccentricity introduce even more subtle and complex climatic nuances from one planet to another, depending on the existence (or absence) of more or less contrasting seasons and their more or less (in)equal lengths.
We must pay tribute to Milutin Milankovitch for understanding this.
The main reason why the concept of the greenhouse effect is not scientifically acceptable is that it violates the first law of thermodynamics: assuming that CO2 plays a role in warming the atmosphere, it cannot heat the surface and be heated by it.
As this article clearly demonstrates, air temperature decreases with altitude up to the tropopause, which is the coldest (non-material) surface of the atmosphere. This observation has never been contradicted anywhere on the globe. Consequently, each layer of the atmosphere can only emit radiation upwards and not downwards.
The endless discussions about the greenhouse effect only reveal ignorance of the first three principles of thermodynamics, which are not intuitive.
Many scientists use paleoclimatic observations from Antarctic ice cores, but why not refer to Greenland ice cores?
In Antarctica, there is about 3 km of ice, providing a description of climate variations over about a million years, while in Greenland there is also 3 km of ice, but it only describes about 140,000 years of climate. This difference can be explained if we accept that ice caps melt from the base and that this has nothing to do with the temperature of the atmosphere. In fact, the triple point diagram for water (H2O) shows that ice can melt at temperatures as low as -60°C and that the rate of melting depends only on the temperature of the ice.
Furthermore, Antarctica has existed for 34 million years and has therefore undergone 34 complete melting cycles while remaining in thermodynamic equilibrium, which implies remarkable stability in global atmospheric circulation.
This simple observation shows that only cosmic parameters can provide sufficient stability to maintain atmospheric circulation over several million years.
There are internal variations within the system, but these must remain sufficiently small for the Earth system to remain in thermodynamic equilibrium, at least on our timescale.
You can read some of my articles at the following address:
https://independent.academia.edu/PaulPettr%C3%A9
Thanks very much for your insights and the link to your articles, Paul! Happy 2026!
I have enjoyed reading about the Hungarian Academy of Science and seeing the photos! How interesting that Milutin Milankovic worked in the library there during WW1 and how important to have been in contact with the true greats of Science; the real Truth-seekers. One is not surprised that the debate didn't take place. It's the same everywhere. In the UK, the BBC has always denied there is any other point of view even while claiming to be 'impartial.'
Thank you for including the four other papers (by Laszio Szarka, Samuel Furfari, Javier Vinos and Marcel Crok) with your excellent paper that you presented and have on the website of the ITIA.
The 10-point summary is really useful.
Thank you, Ariane! Including the other papers is important, I think, because they cover different aspects. The Academy has also posted them. But it is prudent to have multiple posts of the same information. The "angelic forces" who care about us and ensure that we only receive politically correct information, also banning any other information, may one day erase several sites or make them inaccessible. Having multiple posts may make their job more difficult...
Incidentally, I noticed that several web sites that are banned in the "democratic" European Union, including Greece and the entire European academic network, are accessible in Hungary. I guess the role model in Europe is Kaja Kallas (the Vice-President of the European Commission) who does not know who fought whom and who attacked whom in the WWII. They don't just want us uninformed. They want us illiterate.
They want us lazy and dependent on them, so they can feel fulfilled as managers and do-gooder dicatators. It will be up to individuals to agree to the arrangement, or not, and they will, no doubt, make not agreeing very difficult.
Science at its best - fact based and analytically sound! Following Prof. Koutsoyiannis´s systematic shattering of the deceitfully propagated climate alarmism - pillar by pillar - is pure pleasure. It is also an examplary demonstration of how easy it is for the political regimes and their puppeteers to defraud the public over decades and to deprive them from the most productive energy sources, that have been fueling the explosive rise in widespread wealth generation despite explosive population growth.
Thanks for the flattering comment! About the energy sources, you may also see the presentation in the same event by Samuel Furfari, also accessible through the link I gave above (https://www.itia.ntua.gr/2573/).
Demetris,
You make the hypothesis that the growing biomass, which has more carbon now than it did a century ago, is nevertheless the source of the atmospheric carbon rise. I have teased you about being an alchemist, able to create new carbon from trees. Now you defend your absurdity with “There are large quantities of carbon in land and ocean …these quantities change in time, as also does the quantity contained in the atmosphere.” Do you really think a little hand waving solves your carbon conservation problem?!!! You don’t have much respect for your readers, but maybe you know them better than I do.
I have emphasized the carbon conservation argument because I think it is the easiest to understand. It was also the argument used by noted sceptics John Christy, Judith Curry, Steve Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer, when they wrote in the Trump administration’s DOE Climate Assessment Report (July 2025):
“The annual increase in concentration is only about half of the CO2 emitted because land and ocean processes currently absorb “excess” CO2 at a rate approximately 50 percent of the human emissions. Future concentrations, and hence future human influences on the climate, therefore depend upon two components: (1) future rates of global human CO2 emissions, and (2) how fast the land and ocean remove extra CO2 from the atmosphere.”
But since you claim not to understand this line of reasoning, I will drop it for now and critique other aspects of your presentation at Beyond the Climate Change Consensus, The International Conference of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, December 2025.
Start with your erroneous statements about 14C.
1. You say “The isotopic carbon data (…Δ¹⁴C) show changes in the isotopic synthesis of atmospheric CO₂, but no sign of human influence.” Your statement is false. The Suess effect is clearly evident in Figure 1 of Presentation of Atmospheric 14CO2 Data https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/discussion-presentation-of-atmospheric-14co2-data/193CDF1F705B269BC975AF178CEF1AC3 I encourage you to understand the magnitude of the effect as well. To do so you will have to recognize, as Suess himself did back in the 1950’s, that it is diluted by disequilibrium isotopic fluxes (DIFs). You have to understand these to also understand how adding 14C devoid carbon to the atmosphere in the first half of the 20th century raised its 14C concentration. It did this even while lowering delta 14C, which measures the 14C/12C ratio. Nature is beautiful when it is subtle. I make an attempt to explain DIFs in Clear Thinking https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Andrews-2023-Clear-Thinking-about-Atmospheric-CO2.pdf
2. You say “Plants are also “devoid of ¹⁴C”, whose decrease is due to cessation of nuclear tests.” This statement is nonsense. I call it out to demonstrate your hubris in making proclamations on topics you seem to know nothing about. Fossil fuels are devoid of 14C because they have been isolated from the atmosphere for thousands of 14C half-lives (14C beta decays to nitrogen in ~5700 years). Living plants have 14C content matching the environment they are growing in, ignoring small fractionation effects.
Not appreciating the role of DIFs has confused Berry, Harde, the late Salby, and Skable and his coauthors. They may be confusing you. If you changed your assertion from “The fact that land and oceans constitute a net sink does not imply anything about the cause of the CO₂ rise" to “The fact that land and oceans constitute a net sink does not imply that 30% of the carbon in the present atmosphere was once locked in a fossil fuel” then I would completely agree. The fraction is much less than that because of DIF’s.
I appreciate you tolerating me (barely) on your blog. I know you wish I would go away. I will stay away from politics, but I will continue to correct mistaken arguments. My contributions to the climate debate are not original like yours, and like you I am not a climate scientist. I have frankly found it much easier to find mistakes in sceptics’ papers than in consensus science papers, but I do find mistakes in the media description of climate science as well. I have respect for you as a salesman: smoothing data when it helps your case, splicing in occasional wise quips from Greek philosophers with your pages of algebra. But the product you are selling is deeply flawed. In defending it in our polarized environment you risk losing your objectivity, and with it your integrity. What would Diogenes say?
Reply to David Andrews:
John Christy, Judith Curry, Steve Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer are decent scientists and good people. I agree with them on many issues, but I also have significant disagreements with them. When I discuss with them, I am always pleased and honoured to hear their disagreements and their scientific arguments. They have always been polite to me (and others).
But what about you? What kind of person and scientist are you? Are you of the same calibre with the above? What are the reasons for your nauseating insistence on repeating the same things? What gives you the ability to teach me that I
- “will have to recognize”
- “have to understand these”
while at the same time you admit that
- “[your] contributions to the climate debate are not original like [mine]”.
You call me “not a climate scientist”. Well, your latter statement is correct. I am not a “climate scientist” and I will never become because, as I explain in my talk, “climate science” is not science. It is a euphemism for climate sophistry. The field I am trying to serve with my 14 recent climate papers and the other research items is called climatology. And, as I explain in this very post, the greatest climatologist in history was Milankovitch. The fact that his profession was civil engineering (incidentally, the same with mine) did not prevent him from becoming a giant in climatology. That is, your (and other climalarmists') tactic to use labels such as "not a climate scientist" (and "denier" etc.) is irrelevant with science.
Also, your statement “I know you wish I would go away” is correct. I wrote you several times, “please stop”. The reason is not that I disagree with you scientifically. This is positive. The reason is that you write toxic and insulting statements like:
- “you defend your absurdity”
- “This statement is nonsense”
- “I call it out to demonstrate your hubris”
- “making proclamations on topics you seem to know nothing about”
- “I have respect for you as a salesman”
- “But the product you are selling is deeply flawed.”
Well, I am not superhuman, and I try hard not to reciprocate or mirror your toxic and insulting statements. I hope that till now I have managed not to become toxic and insulting. But I dislike encounters with you. I could ban you from my blog, but that would go against my principles. Anyhow, I am tired with you and I will no longer take your comments seriously. If you continue, I will form a standard text to always post as a reply to them.
PS—a note to other readers. DA criticized a couple of my statements, which, I insist, are correct, and I give full explanation in my 14 climate papers of the last five years. With respect to ¹⁴C, DA criticizes my phrase “whose decrease is due to cessation of nuclear tests.” On the other hand, the paper he suggested contains the statements:
- “Such perturbations have included the large excess of ¹⁴CO₂ originating from above-ground testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and early 1960s (commonly referred to as “bomb radiocarbon”) and the anomalously high natural production of ¹⁴C and dramatically altered carbon cycle dynamics during the last ice age”.
- “Following nearly complete cessation of testing in 1964 the amount of atmospheric ¹⁴CO₂ rather rapidly decreased“.
My take on the issue is detailed in “Appendix C. Indirect Validation of the RRR Results Using 14C Isotopic Data” in my paper “Refined reservoir routing (RRR) and its application to atmospheric carbon dioxide balance”, https://www.itia.ntua.gr/2474/
Demetris,
You threaten to respond to me only with a standard text. As your responses for the last couple of years have been nothing but evasion, that is hardly a threat. I have tried many times to engage with you in a technical conversation, but the only response I get are irrelevant comments, or “you are being political”, and now “you are being rude.” I fully understand why you avoid technical discussions. You have no answers to my criticisms. Yes, your evasions have gotten under my skin, my comments have gotten sharper, and I am not proud of that. I did tone them down in editing my last post before pressing “send”. “Deeply flawed” that was in my post was a euphemism for “bullshit” in an earlier draft. You haven’t just risked losing your objectivity, you have lost it. You haven’t just risked losing your integrity, you have lost it. You are intelligent enough to know that trees don’t create new carbon but won’t admit it.
You ask about my science and personality. I earned a PhD in experimental high energy physics 53 years ago, learned about superconducting magnet technology while managing a project as a post doc, then had a 22-year career in industry making superconducting magnets for MRI and other applications. I was vice president of a $100M division when I returned to academia for several years of teaching before retirement. I get along with people just fine. But as a scientist I have zero tolerance for dishonesty, and that is why we do not get along.
Climate change policy is a complex and difficult problem. You are wrong to call me an alarmist, but I am indeed concerned for my grandchildren. We should be discussing how to optimize the phase out rate of fossil fuels, and I don’t know what that is. I will listen to arguments that say Europe had been going too fast until recently, but I believe the US has been going too slowly. But misinformation from people like yourself has sabotaged any rational discussion. I presume you have no grandchildren.
Relevant quotations, instead of a reply:
«μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ» (“after one and a second admonition, quit”—Saint Paul, Titus, 3:10).
“the climate change scam is so stupid, cruel and obvious, anyone promoting it is viewed by the sensible as either corrupt or stupid and probably both” (Elizabeth Nickson).
“ist dem Dummen gegenüber mehr Vorsicht geboten als gegenüber dem Bösen. Niemals werden wir mehr versuchen, den Dummen durch Gründe zu überzeugen; es ist sinnlos und gefährlich” (“we must be more cautious with the stupid than with the evil. We will never again try to convince the stupid by reason; it is pointless and dangerous”—Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Theorie der Dummheit).
Dear David,
I think there is no word more abused in human history (especially over the past few decades) than the word science. I also think that Demetris keeps touching on this issue repeatedly. For a long period of the twentieth century, particularly from the 1930s onward, we thought we had resolved these issues, but it seems we forgot them amid climatic and health crises. It was mostly then, when Technocratism arrived as a new trend.
Personally, my favorite approach is Popper’s—that is, the principle of falsifiability—but (given your reference to Diogenes) I would like to refer you to the origins of this story and to Xenophanes (I assume Popper himself would have done the same in your case, had he been alive). On the other hand, of course, I find myself thinking that perhaps you are simply a follower—or a “child”—of Kuhn (even if you are not aware of it).
As we all know, sometimes, science is a beach. From economic “science,” to legal and medical science (and the humanities more generally), all the way to “climate science,” over the past decades there has been a strong, underlying distinction between scientists and “scientists”—but especially between scientists and “experts” (as David Horrobin had very aptly described in a monumental article of his, not so very long ago).
Consequently, in our case—as should always happen in life—I believe we must return to the sources and ask what the etymology of words actually is. Only in this way will we arrive at a common language of understanding, in which deception will have no foothold.
I’m going to read a bit of Michel de Montaigne now—especially chapters 23 and 25 (or even better, H. Diels and W. Kranz, The Presocratics, if you prefer). In any case, I found your comment interesting - if not enjoyed it. As someone who has experienced it firsthand, let me inform you that AI can produce astonishing psychological profiles based on text, in a very "scientific" way. In any case, I wonder whether someone’s self-identification as a “scientist” contains (at best) an enormous dose of arrogance. But on that matter, perhaps Dunning & Kruger are more qualified.
Happy New Year and never forget the basic principle: Cui bono!
Christos,
You appear to be a clone of Demetris: full of Greek wisdom but short on substance. I will take the lack of any technical discussion in your comment as evidence that you, like Demetris, have no answer to my technical criticism of his work.
I certainly agree with Popper, or Francis Bacon for that matter, that if a hypothesis is contradicted by data, it is wrong. For example, the hypothesis that the CO2 increase in the current era is “natural” and not due to fossil fuel burning, is falsified by the MEASURED positive net global uptake. I know that the practice of adjusting climate models based on new data is sometimes criticized as making the models “non-falsifiable”. But while determining the source of the CO2 increase is a simple problem, you must recognize that the rest of the climate problem is complex. A bad projection by a model may be said to falsify that particular model and set of parameters but certainly does not falsify the overall anthropogenic CO2 driven global warming hypothesis. If you have a suggestion on how to study climate without approximate and imperfect models, go ahead and make it, but I do not believe you can.
Despite your focus on language, you distinguish between scientists, “scientists”, “experts” and technocrats without defining what you mean. I know that skeptics like to describe the authors of IPCC reports as “bureaucrats” rather than scientists because bureaucrats are an easier target. Which category would you put Demetris in? Are you saying all scientists are arrogant or just me? There is a serious topic here on the role of scientists as policy advocates. When I received my doctorate in physics, I did not see any fine print saying that I was relinquishing my right to participate in the democratic process by contributing whatever insights I had on public issues.
I had to look up your basic principle “Cui bono”. Don’t you think skeptics are on shaky ground to ask “who benefits” in the climate discussion? Motives are tricky and I mostly avoid attributing them, but there is money to be made defending the continued use of fossil fuels, whether you are a politician or a would-be influencer. Some skeptics (e.g. Ed Berry) openly solicit money to support their “research”. I don’t think anyone is getting rich at the CO2 Coalition, but their funding by energy companies is well established. Demetris has told me directly that he does not receive any payments for his publications, and I believe him. As I have said before, I fear Demetris made an honest mistake, then sacrificed his integrity defending it. It is difficult to say, “I was wrong”.
Demetris,
Thanks for pointing to slides 30 and 47. I had only skimmed the outline of your talk and missed the link to the slides. These slides establish that we agree on the data. The green dashed curve in slide 30 is the negative of what I have called “net global uptake” following Ballantyne. Since the green dashed cure is consistently negative between 1960 and 2020, net global uptake is consistently positive, and we arrive upon the agreed fact that land and oceans constitute a net sink. But I dispute your deductions after that.
While natural processes can be adding CO2 to net sinks as you say in 47, they cannot be adding NET CO2. It is a perverse notion of causality that concludes that the rise of water level in a leaky bucket being filled by a hose is caused by the leak rather than the hose.
In slide 47 you correctly show “SN”, the natural sink rate, but then ignore it when comparing EN with EH. You are guilty of bad accounting: discussing credits without considering debits. Yes, the biomass grew between 1958 and 2023, and so did its carbon content. Where do you think the extra carbon in the expanded biomass came from? Not from the oceans, whose lower pH indicates that they have also gained carbon in that period, as required by Henry’s Law when the atmospheric carbon went up. Not from the atmosphere which of course has also gained carbon in that period. Only the fossil fuel reserves lost carbon between 1958 and 2023, as we burned it, putting it in the atmosphere, and then nature distributed about half of it elsewhere. You dismiss carbon conservation as a trivial constraint and then violate it in your conclusions. I summarized your errors earlier by saying “trees don’t make carbon, they just borrow it.”
You say my posts are irrelevant. No, the truth is not irrelevant. Your ideas are outliers for good reasons.
"I had only skimmed the outline of your talk and missed the link to the slides."
Of course--not necessary for you to see the slides. Your imagination is so creative that you can criticize them without seeing them.
"Not from the oceans, whose lower pH indicates that they have also gained carbon in that period, as required by Henry’s Law when the atmospheric carbon went up."
Again, congratulations on your imagination, since I did not refer to Henry’s Law in my presentation.
But I referred to agreement of models and data, including in the two slides in discussion. And, as I say in the last slide and repeat in the post, "data have falsified the mainstream
climate theory" (which is a political project, rather than a theory).
I think it would be a good idea if you also read the main points of my presentation reproduced in this very post, and then proceed to reading the slides.
You ara magician, Demetris, pulling carbon out of your hat whenever you need it, and transforming a net sink into a net soursce with your magic wand. Do you ignore Henry's Law because it is a political theory? Yours is the model falsified by data.
Not invoking Henry's law doesn't mean I am ignorant of it.
But, I am not transforming a net sink into a net source. A net sink remains a net sink. As seen in my slide 47, "The fact that land and oceans constitute a net sink does not imply anything about the cause of the CO₂ rise. It is none other than a mathematical necessity dictated by mass conservation."
Thank you for calling me a wizard... If you had called me a witch, I would have been in greater danger of being burned at the stake...
"The fact that land and oceans constitute a net sink does not imply anything about the cause of the CO₂ rise." I disagree, and this is the crux of our differences. I don't understand how you think you can understand the CO2 rise without stating in detail where the carbon comes from. You suggest that it comes from vegetation decay, but that carbon was previously in the atmosphere. In your view, what would the carbon inventories be today if all the fossil fuels had been left in the ground over the last century?
Demetris,
Since you have not laid out your view of what your model says carbon inventories would be today if no fossil fuels had been burned over the last century, I will do it for you:
1. Since by your reckoning, the atmospheric rise is natural (caused by an unexplained warming) the 280ppm to 420ppm rise would still have happened. That is (420ppm-280ppm) x 2.124 GTC/ppm = 297 GT of carbon would still have been added to the atmosphere.
2. Since by your slide 47: “Apparently, the biosphere expansion… has not been caused by human emissions” (that mysterious warming again) it too is unchanged. That would be something like 150 GT of carbon, though this number is less certain.
3. How has the ocean carbon content changed? The model must respect carbon conservation. So we must get the 497 GT of carbon for the atmosphere and land biomass from there, unless you have another suggestion. [There are no depleted fossil fuel reserves to get it from.] So your model says that the oceans would have lost a lot of carbon. But that runs into trouble with Henry’s Law, which would seem to require the oceans to gain carbon when the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere above it increases.
I shouldn’t have to spell out the absurdity of your model this way. The absurdity is apparent from your statement: “The fact that land and oceans constitute a net sink does not imply anything about the cause of the CO₂ rise.” That sounds more like a religious statement than a scientific statement.
1. There are large quantities of carbon in land and ocean--see Fig. 2 in "The superiority of refined reservoir routing (RRR) in modelling atmospheric carbon dioxide", https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384868011 and the IPCC report referenced there.
2. These quantities change in time, as also does the quantity contained in the atmosphere.
3. Science is not about training one's imagination, as you and others do, nor about showing that one knows to do arithmetic multiplication. Science is about seeking the truth, making hypotheses and checking them against real world data. In particular, this blog, as its title (Climath) suggests, is to use mathematics to model climate.
4. The graphics on my slides 20, 27, 29, 30, 41, 45, 46, in the presentation discussed here have done exactly this. Similar is the scope of my essay on the superiority of RRR I mentioned above.
5. If you do similar scientific work yourself, you may notify us to see it. Otherwise, please keep your abilities in imagination and arithmetic multiplication for yourself.
A great summary of the main science issues.
My sympathy on the loss of your wife; my situation is the same.
Thank you, Jack! I reciprocate the sympathy!
Budapest is beautiful. I was there two years ago. Let us deal once again with the "natural fluxes into the atmophere are much bigger than human emissions" question. That is a true statement, but the data unambiguously also say the natural fluxes OUT OF the atmosphere are bigger still. Will you at least concede, as you once did, that for the last century natural processes have been removing more carbon from the atmsphere than they have been adding?
"concede, as you once did, that for the last century natural processes have been removing more carbon from the atmsphere than they have been adding?"
This isn't true. The truth is that I was telling that from the outset, and there was nothing to "concede". See also slides 47 and the footnote of slide 30 in this presentation.
I wonder if you will ever "concede" the true reasons for your ad nauseam repetition of irrelevant arguments.
Thanks Charles! Pleased that you liked my "unpolitically incorrect" (or politically incorrect) work.
I am aware of NN' work, which I've cited. I had several discussions with him and his colleague Karl Zeller. There are several points of agreement and disagreement among us, which is fine for scientists.