ResearchGate is a great platform that allows archiving research items and discussing about them. It does not censor these items and the comments on them. Of course, this worries climalarmists, who scream about it (e.g. “ResearchGate is hijacked by fossil fuel lobbyists :( “).
Hopefully this would continue in the future, but one cannot be sure. The practice I have followed is to archive all items in multiple platforms. In addition to ResearchGate, I use my research team’s site, Itia, as well as the Wayback Machine. The latter is a great system and those who believe in transparency owe it a lot.
For some items, Substack is another safeguarding option—and also allows both dissemination of information and dialogue. Anyone can be an author in Substack and can make the content of his post publicly available. Well, there is the option to make it available to subscribers only, but I will try not to use it.
On the other hand, ResearchGate allows posting only by verified authors of scientific papers, but allows viewing to anyone. However the discussion comments can only be seen by verified members.
I praise all these platforms and I wish they continue their good practices and improve them further.
The onset of 2025 brought me the gift of a discussion in ResearchGate of my most recent paper as seen in the screenshot below.
This is the paper I presented in my previous Substack post:
Thank you for your strong negative reaction, which confirms the scientific credibility of the article, since the truths it reveals are disturbing to you.
Alain Robichaud, thanks for your comments! I will respond to them in instalments.
I am starting with your question, "Which interest are you talking about?" and your reference to petroleum industry.
Indeed, it is the petroleum industry that invented the climate change agenda. Namely, the project was commenced by the Rockefellers, who are the personification of Big Oil. Their protégé, Henry Kissinger, introduced the project into the international politics (United Nations), when he was the most powerful man on Earth (Secretary of State and also National Security Advisor of the USA, while the USA Vice President and later the President were being removed and replaced).
Today, Kissinger's pupil Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (Davos) has taken over as leader of the agenda, while non-petroleum plutocrats, such as Soros and Gates, have joined forces in the climate agenda. I have termed these forces "the climafia". Then we have the climinions, who are paid to provide a scientific veneer to the agenda, and the climorons who spread the propaganda without being paid.
If 97% of "climate scientists", as you say, support this agenda, that's a big success of climafia. No doubt about it. But I will continue to resist, i.e. to seek the truth independent of Big Oil and the other climafia that promote the agenda.
Alain Robichaud, as I said, I will respond in instalments. I have a lot of work planned or doing right now, so I will post one instalment per day. My today's instalment is about your reply to my earlier comment.
One of my planned works is the history of the ideas you discuss, including the "foundation" by Svante Arrhenius. So you have to wait for my new paper to see what went wrong with the scientific foundations.
However, as I say in the paper in discussion:
In scientific terms, the case of the magnified importance of CO₂, the focus on human emissions thereof, and the neglect of the ~25 times greater natural CO₂ emissions constitute a historical accident.
This accident was exploited in non-scientific (politico-economic) terms.
The "historic testimony to Congress" you refer to was a political action, and the framework for that political action was planned decades earlier by the Rockefellers and Kissinger.
Please read the sources that I gave in my previous reply. It would be disorienting to dwell on the minor actions of climinions and don't see the politics of the climafia. I will not follow the path promoted by the climafia’s propaganda.
"He has argued to me separately that confidence levels are out of fashion in Greek hydrology circles."
Could you please make public what I "argued to [you] separately" about the "Greek hydrology circles." Please quote what I originally said.
I don't recall saying that. Perhaps I did, as I am often trying to make black humour. But if I didn't, this would mean that you are lying.
What I recall is to have spoken about the American statistical circles, e.g.
Part of the statistician community argues against the concept of significance testing (Nuzzo, 2014; Wasserstein and Lazar, 2016; Amrhein and Greenland, 2018; Trafimow et al., 2018; Wasserstein et al., 2019), with the main critique summarized in the statement of the American Statistical Association that “the widespread use of 'statistical significance' (generally interpreted as ‘p ≤ 0.05’) as a license for making a claim of a scientific finding (or implied truth) leads to considerable distortion of the scientific process” (Wasserstein and Lazar, 2016).
Thanks for the link to Toll et al. paper. I keep the confirmation of the reduced cloud cover and hence the reduced albedo. Related is the following new paper by Goessling et al. (2024 in Science).
About the causes of that behaviour, I cannot be sure. I appreciate that these authors speculate about causes. For me, the facts matter. The facts are shown in my Figure 10 in the paper in discussion. Quoting from my paper:
Apparently, the albedo decline has no relationship with the increase of [CO₂]. Rather it has been caused by (or at least it is consistent with) a decline in cloud area fraction, also seen in Figure 10 (right). Notably, this explanation does not enable predictability of future climate. Rather, it raises additional questions, e.g., what caused the decline in clouds? Yet it highlights the importance of H₂O and the insignificance of CO₂ in climate.
I am sorry if I insulted you, but I have not realized where exactly… Could you be more specific and let me know which of my formulations you found insulting? I mean formulations about you, not about politics in general.
You raise political issues, and you ask me to avoid politics. The issue of petroleum industry was raised by you, not by me.
Well, the climate agenda is political and avoiding studying the political aspects is obeying the political agenda, which promotes itself as a physical reality, while it is a political mandate.
The new political issue you raised is whether SCC is a predatory journal. This is a standard political (mal)practice, to slander every journal that does not comply with censoring and silencing—according to the climandate and climalarmism that are dictated by the climafia.
Well, here is a quiz related to the issue you raised: Which of the following two journals is predatory?
Journal 1: Fee for full open access: maximum $350
Journal 2: Fee for hybrid open access: $10 400 with 12 months embargo.
Publisher of Journal 1: Negligible economic status
Publisher of Journal 2: 5th company in terms of capitalization in the London Stock Market; above the “Big Oil” BP
The climafia’s propaganda includes labelling as predatory any journal that respects freedom of scientific research and freedom of expression. Apparently this is an inversion of reality—a usual tactic of propaganda. And of course, it is a political issue.
Journal 1 is SCC. It published my papers free of charge. Also, all journals that have published my papers did that without charging me, respecting the facts that (a) my papers are good and (b) that my research is not funded and hence I cannot pay to publish it. In other words, if there is a predator in this case, that’s me as I take the opportunities that the journals offered to me. And I am grateful to them.
This is my today’s reply to you; to be continued tomorrow.
Please note that before applying our stochastic methodology to identify causality, we “removed” the periodic behaviour and we found a single IRF for the entire period. When we reinstated seasonality to our results based on this single IRF, we found what is seen in Figure 15 (lower) of our paper "On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere"
That is, perfect agreement of the causality-based model and reality.
In terms of your question about the diurnal variations of sea-surface temperature, I haven’t found such data. Perhaps there are some local data, but not systematic measurements on the global scale. The Argo data that I used in the above paper are given for the entire globe, but on a 3-monthly time scale.
See visual summary with quantification of the human contribution in the caption of Figure 1 of the paper in discussion and detailed calculations in the description of Figure 4. My estimate is that human contribution is responsible for 17% of the increase in [CO2]. The majority, 83% is from natural processes.
But even the 100% of the increase is not important, as the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is 4%-5%—not discernible in observations.
In defiance of the clmafiosi and climalarmists, there is no discernible effect of human actions on climate. But there are effects on other issues, such as in flood protection works and reservoirs, which helped reduce the death toll of catastrophic flood events and droughts, and improve prosperity.
PS. Don't forget, I've challenged you to do what you think I've missed in my papers (including statistical testing) and publish your results.
Glad to see now you recognize the “role of Kissinger and the Rockefeller family”. Whatever you think this role is, it could not be caused by what you say: “James Hansen was the first promoter”. For Rockefellers and Kissinger took political action much earlier than Hansen—and the effect cannot happen before the cause. Also, the cart [science] cannot go before the horse [politics—the horsepower for research]. For, it is the political class that funds the research and decides which projects are to be funded. Related icon:
Anyhow, the important thing is that you recognized that cimalarmism (including ideas that you seem to promote) and “petroleum industry” (in those years represented by the Rockefellers) are on the same side.
I am on the opposite side. I don’t have a problem if the petroleum industry sells oil (that’s its job) or energy products in general, including “renewables”. But when those and the entire climafia want to rule the world establishing an autocratic empire, then there is a problem. And a real scientist has the moral duty to seek and disseminate the scientific truth, irrespective of what those bosses want/dictate.
As per your comment about “predatory journals”, you refuse to see the truth and the politico-economic commitments of publishers. Despite the example and the information I gave you, which normally would prompt one to think, you preferred to repeat stereotypes and lecture us about peer-review. I know very well what peer review is, as I was in the cockpit (editorship) of the most historic hydrological journal for 12 years.
And I know the problems of the peer-review system—I have written many articles, editorials, joint editorials, etc., about them. See list in
So, lecturing me with your stereotypes is unnecessary. In Greek, we express what you are doing as «Έλα παππού μου να σου δείξω τ’ αμπελοχώραφά σου».1
Coming to your scientific comments, I will discuss your first one today:
“The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO₂ shows a clear fingerprint of fossil fuel combustion (reduced δ13 C and δ14 C), distinguishing it from CO₂ derived from natural sources like volcanic eruptions or the biosphere. […] This signature directly correlates the increase in atmospheric CO₂ to human activities, not natural sources.”
It appears that, again, you use the climalarmism-promoted stereotypes and try to “debunk” my work without even reading it. For there is proof now that what you say is invalid. In the paper in discussion, I summarize that proof. For the full details of the proof, see my works:
When you say, “These papers will contradic [sic] you”, listing a number of papers from 1955 to 2009, you confuse, for another time, time’s arrow. My 2024 paper is newer than all those you listed. I have referenced some of them in my papers. And I use data that did not exist when your listed papers were published. So, how “will” those papers contradict me? It is my paper that contradicts them, not the other way around.
When you say, “My employer was warn [sic] me agaisnt [sic] publishing with MDPI“, it’s your issue, not mine. I am an independent thinker, not influenced by promoted stereotypes. I am fully aware of this stereotype, which reflects the commercial wars of the publishers’ establishment against newcomers. And it also reflects the fact that the climafia does not want newcomers because controlling a multipolar publication system becomes more difficult.
As I said, I am on the opposite side and I struggle for freedom in research and expression. I fight against totalitarianism, manifesting itself in science as censoring and silencing of opposing views—as totalitarian systems have ever done.
When you suggest publishing in “NATURE, SCIENCE or other journals that would show that your claim is serious” the discussion becomes hilarious. For such journals are among the main players in the silencing system. Please read the Introduction of my paper “Relative importance of carbon dioxide and water in the greenhouse effect: Does the tail wag the dog?” where I provide data that NATURE admits being involved in politics and proclaims that this is the right thing.
When you search for dates to prove that my papers were not peer reviewed, you clearly give away your purpose to contribute to silencing by devaluing both my papers and the journals that published them. And you are not aware of the publishing system and the different treatment of discussion papers (replies to comments) and papers earlier presented in conferences (and thus discussed by peers before). In such cases, the dates noted in a journal item of such type refer to the submission of the final publishable version, while the discussion/review might have started months before.
When you say that “The service that SCC provides is to make it easy to find out about the latest crappy ideas out there” you try to devalue (in a rude way) the journal because it allows the publication of research that opposes the aims of climafia.
When you ask if I am “honoured to be supported by him” (I guess you mean David L. Hagen), you additionally try to devalue people (homini). My reply is: yes, I am proud and honoured to be supported by people who are able to think, rather than repeat stereotypes, who support freedom in science when others support totalitarianism, who respect difference of opinion.
All above quoted phrases of yours reflect political activism of climissioners, and are the exact opposite of scientific dialogue. Therefore, I will avoid further encounters with you. If you have some minimal respect about science and people trying to serve it, you will STOP annoying me with your politically motivated activism-driven comments.
If my papers were wrong, you would not be worried that they were published. Numerous published papers are wrong and nobody cares. Your worries and your politically motivated, political activism-driven comments are indirect proof of the correctness of my papers.
The plans for totalitarianism, which you support as evidenced by the above quoted phrases, may succeed, for the climafia that built the plans and supports them is very powerful.
But you will not succeed in silencing me. My compass is very solid and allows me resist these plans:
Παρρησία γὰρ ἔγωγε χρώμενος φυσιολογῶν χρησμωδεῖν τὰ συμφέροντα πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις μᾶλλον ἂν βουλοίμιν, κἄν μηδεὶς μέλλῃ συνήσειν, ἤ συγκατατιθέμενος τοῖς δόξαις καρποῦσθαι τὸν πυκνὸν παραπίπτοντα παρὰ τὸν πολλῶν ἔπαινον. [As I study nature, I would prefer to speak all truth bravely about what is beneficial to all people, even though it be understood by none, rather than to conform to popular opinion and thus gain the constant praise of the many (Epicurus, Vatican Sayings, 29)].
καὶ γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς [Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (Jesus Christ, quoted by John, 8:32)].
For years, some of us have been fighting for freedom of expression and against the climinals who call truth misinformation, censor what opposes their agenda and silence those who dare to speak the truth.
Now it seems we've got new allies, those who used to be the censors-in-chief... I watched Zuckerberg's video in astonishment:
UPDATE 2025-10-24: Unfortunately, at some later stage, ResearchGate decided to discontinue the option to discuss papers publicly. Even worse, they erased past discussions, including those on my papers. As I am all for transparency, I am glad that I have reproduced my replies in this post.
I’ve gathered more details about this change with help from Grok (created by xAI). In early 2025, ResearchGate made a political decision to remove the ability to add new public comments on research items, prioritizing structured Q&A and private messaging instead. By May 1, 2025, they erased all past comments, without offering exports or archives. This move—detailed in their official Help Center announcement—has frustrated many researchers, with some calling it a blow to transparency and scientific exchange. Alternatives like those I describe in this post can host research items, while some others (e.g. Zenodo, PubPeer, or Hypothes.is) can host discussions. As I explained in the beginning, I am trying to upload my archived records in multiple platforms to maintain openness.
I am afraid, this change signals a rise of the totalitarian monster of censorship and silencing, yet I am determined to fight back.
Thanks for reading Climath! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Demetris. Well presented and argued. Keep up your good work. David
Thank you for sharing all this.