My Favorite Atom is Carbon!

Written by Dr Pierre R Latour Chemical Engineer on October 26, 2014. Posted in Current News

Here is why carbon is my favorite atom. It is quite beautiful really; once you learn to behold and appreciate it. I cover chemistry, physics, politics and common sense. 

Chemistry Lesson.

With over 100 elements in the periodic table of atoms, why is one so special that it has its own branch of chemistry? Chemistry is divided into two main branches: organic and inorganic. Organic chemistry is the science of molecules with carbon. Inorganic is the chemistry of molecules of all the other elements. Yet organic chemistry is much larger and more complicated, interesting and useful than inorganic chemistry. There are many more different organic molecules than inorganic ones. Organic chemistry is the science of life and medicine. Carbon is one of the few elements known since antiquity.

Organic chemistry has many sub-branches: petroleum, coal, petrochemical, polymer, textile, rubber, agricultural, biochemical, pharmaceutical, paper, perfume, cosmetics, food, nanotech, diamond. Discovery of DNA by Crick & Watson is one of the greatest discoveries of mankind. Major areas of study are: chemical bonds, molecular structure, reaction rates, catalysis, acid-base, stereochemistry, alkanes (linear & cyclic), alkenes & alkynes, aromatics, combustion, polymers, alkyl halides, substitution/elimination/addition reactions, alcohols & ethers, aldehydes & ketones, acids & esters, amines/Imines/nitriles, nitrates/amino acids/amides, conjugation & Diels-Alder, sugars/starches/carbohydrates, DNA & nucleic acids, amino acids/peptides/proteins, blood, metals, Fullerenes, spectroscopy, chromatography, polarimetry, nuclear magnetic resonance, purification by crystallization, distillation, extraction, absorption.

Chemical engineering develops products and manufacturing plants for businesses like the chemical industry, hydrocarbon processing industry, pharmaceutical industry, pulp and paper industry and any industry using molecules. It employs the science of fluid mechanics of gases, liquids & solids, energy transfer by conduction, convection and radiation, mass transfer, chemistry and economics. It models chemical process systems mathematically with appropriate rigor and empiricism to build and operate chemical processes. It applies control systems engineering to achieve desirable outcomes.

Pure carbon is a solid. What is carbon made of? 6 protons and 6 electrons and 6, 7 or 8 neutrons (98.89{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} has 6.) Two electrons are inside and four are outside, available for pair bonding with electrons of other atoms with less than 8 outside electrons like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur and other atoms, bonding to form molecules in many ways.

Where does carbon come from? How are carbon atoms made? They are formed from nuclear fusion reactions among protons, neutrons, electrons and photons at high temperatures during exploding, dying stars and nebula. They are created like all other atoms except most of the hydrogen and helium, which were formed by the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Earth and people are made of stardust, centered on carbon.

What makes carbon so special? Why does carbon get its own branch of chemistry? The answer lies in a special balance of three key factors or properties of the carbon atom: abundance, complexity and stability. When we compare carbon to the other elements, we will see that only carbon is able to blend these three factors in a unique way.¹

Let’s start by comparing abundance. Hydrogen is the clear winner at about 73{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} mass, followed by helium comprising 24{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, and then oxygen at about 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. Out of more than 100 known elements, just this trio makes up 98{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of all the matter in the solar system! But coming in at number four is carbon, making up about 0.5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the matter in the solar system.

When we turn out attention to our own bodies, we see that we are actually made of about 20{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} carbon by mass. This is far more than the relative abundance of carbon in our environment. Our bodies are carbon collectors. Clearly, there is something about carbon that makes it a better choice for the structural basics of organic molecules.

Why is it that carbon has been selected by nature to be the backbone for the molecules essential for life? In order to answer this question, we will have to take a look at the complexity of bonding behavior of carbon compared to other, even more abundant elements.

If we start from the left of the table, elements of the first column can form one bond at most. Those of the second column can form two and the trend continues until we reach the fourth column, with carbon at the top. After this, the maximum number of possible bonds begins to decrease again, to three, two, one, then zero for the eighth column at the right. This makes hydrogen a relatively uninteresting nucleus from the bonding perspective since it can only form a single bond with another atom. They just hang on molecule ends like tree ornaments.

Helium (nature’s second most abundant element overall, but vanishingly rare on Earth) appears in group eight of the table, making it unlikely to form any bonds at all. Helium usually only exists naturally as isolated atoms that don’t commonly react with other elements. It’s not essential to life on Earth at all.

Our final contender with carbon for the role of a backbone atom is oxygen. Oxygen typically makes two bonds to other atoms. In doing so, oxygen can act either as a bridge, bonding to two different atoms perpetuating a chain, or as a terminal atom, making what is known as a double bond.

But once oxygen’s two bonds are established, it is satisfied and there are no additional locations available to decorate or modify an oxygen chain. Using oxygen as a backbone atom would lead to a rather dull set of molecules.

But carbon interests organic chemists because it is found in group four of the table, meaning that it can, and often does, form four bonds to complete its octet – more bonds than any other element in the second row of the periodic table. This allows carbon to bond to itself to form chains, branches, loops and more geometric structures.

Furthermore, these complex carbon scaffolds often have remaining unsatisfied bonds which can be terminated by hydrogen atoms, or decorated by bonding them to any number of other candidates. It should be clear now that those extra bonds that carbon can form will make all the difference!

But we aren’t quite done yet. If you are keeping score, we still have nitrogen and silicon on the list of possible backbone elements for larger, complex scaffolds. Nitrogen and silicon have withstood the test of both abundance and complexity. With nitrogen abundant in the atmosphere and able to form three bonds, while silicon makes up a large part of the Earth’s crust and is able to make four bonds.

What separates carbon from nitrogen and silicon is the last factor we have to consider – strength. You wouldn’t build a skyscraper with a frame of cardboard, would you? Of course not! The structure support has to be stronger than the doors, windows, and walls which it holds in place.

Organic molecules are no different. Just like a building, they need a support structure tough enough to hold the functional parts of the molecule in place. Any candidate for this role will have to be tough enough to withstand the conditions which cause other parts of the molecule to react. So the final factor leading to nature’s choice of carbon for small molecule scaffolds is the stability of the carbon – carbon bond.

With bonds only half as strong as carbon, nitrogen can’t compete, and even silicon, a favorite candidate as carbon’s alternate because of its abundance and ability to form four bonds, fails to meet the third standard because a covalent network of silicon atoms would simply not be stable enough to survive chemical reactions meant to modify other bonds within the molecules it would comprise.

So, if we consider the first three rows of the periodic table. It now becomes obvious how these three factors make carbon uniquely suited to the formation of molecular scaffolds and thus, its own branch of chemistry. Only carbon is abundant, complex and strong enough.¹ Carbon wins!

What about carbon dioxide, CO₂? Carbon dioxide is my favorite molecule. Solid carbon atoms combine with invisible oxygen gas molecules to form another invisible gas, CO₂. CO₂ is the end product of combustion (oxidation) reactions of carbon based molecules with oxygen, releasing thermal energy from the broken bonds between C and O, heat, useful to man. Very useful!

For hydrocarbons from methane, CH₄, to petroleum, CH₂, to coal CH₁, the simplified reaction is

CH_n + (1+0.25n)O₂ = CO₂ + 0.5nH₂O + heat; n = 0 to 4.

So each carbon atom unites with an oxygen molecule to form a CO₂ molecule. The fuel molecule’s hydrogen atoms unite with extra oxygen to form water. The CH_n fuel can be cellulose, starch, any dead plant, even with an O and S atom. This is the primary reaction in the bodies of humans and all animals. Our food is CH_n made by plants (or animals from plants) and our lungs recover pure O₂ from the 21{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} in air. We exhale the CO₂ we produce and excrete H₂O, using the heat released to move, stay warm and alive.

But where do the CH_n, O₂ and heat come from? The miracle reaction of life: photosynthesis by green plants! Here it is in simplified form.

CO₂ + 0.5nH₂O + sunlight = CH_n + (1+0.25n)O₂ with chlorophyll catalyst

Looks like combustion reaction in reverse; putting inert CO₂ and water back together so plants make hydrocarbons and grow. Nature rarely works in both directions, but it does for the miracle of life, explained by biology and biochemistry. Oxidation reaction is in fauna like you and the photosynthesis reaction is in flora like your lawn. These two reactions are The Cycle of Life driving the partnership between living animals and plants on Earth; flora and fauna. Sunlight is the prime mover, its energy stored in carbon molecule bonds made by plants and eventually released from the food in our bodies when we are alive and the fossil fuel to support our comfort and eradicate poverty, hunger and disease.

CO₂, O₂ and H₂O are carriers of the chemistry life cycle. If you like O₂ and H₂O, why not their colleague, CO₂? CO₂ really is green plant food, supplied by fauna like you. The heat released by combustion to the atmosphere is converted from thermal energy to radiation and emitted back to space in all directions with the global total at 239 w/m² of Earth’s surface, the same rate solar power is absorbed/emitted by the atmosphere, 78 w/m², and by the surface, 161 w/m².

Carbon and CO₂ are not pollutants, they never hurt anyone. CO₂ is inert, doesn’t react with much of anything, except by photosynthesis. See why humans bond so well to carbon? We make pencils out of graphite, pure carbon. Women love carbon: “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend” – a glorious song by Diamond Expert Marilyn Monroe.

Radiating Gas Physics.

If non-radiating O₂ is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO₂, emissivity, e, of planet to space must increase.

I = σ e (T/100)⁴

If e increases with CO₂ at constant I, T goes down. Therefore CO₂ causes global cooling.

I = intensity of any radiating body, w/m², of its spherical surface, measured by Earth satellite spectrophotometers to be about 239.

T = temperature of radiating body, K

σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67

e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Colorful Earth radiator e = 0.612 emits given intensity at temperature higher than black body.

I = (1 – albedo)S/4, conservation of energy, in = out, neglecting photosynthesis, volcanoes.

S = solar radiation intensity, 1365 to 1370 w/m² incident disk or 1365/4 to 1370/4 w/m² of incident sphere.

Albedo = reflectivity, fraction, mostly by clouds, estimate 0.7.

Substituting: I = (1 – alb) S/4 = σ e (T/100)⁴

Dividing by σ e: (T/100)4 = (1 – alb) S/4 σ e = I/σ e

If S increases, T increases. If alb or e increase, T decreases.

If Earth were a perfect black body emitter,

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*1.000 = 42.16 = 2.548⁴ or T = 254.8K = -18.33C

Actually it is a colorful 0.612 emitter,

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.612 = 68.890 = 2.881⁴ or T = 288.1K = 14.95C

The difference 14.95 – (-18.33) = +33.3C is the difference between colorful Earth’s radiating temperature and its theoretical black body equivalent when radiating at same intensity, 239.

J Hanson², Al Gore and EPA mistakenly declared this 33C to be the greenhouse effect³.

Double radiating atmospheric CO₂ concentration and emissivity to space increases a small amount, say 0.001 to 0.613.

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.613 = 68.777 = 2.880⁴ or T = 288.0K = 14.83C.

So global sensitivity is 14.83 – 14.95 = -0.12C, global cooling. Controversy resolved by elementary algebra; no need for $1 billion/day research to prove the impossible, global warming. If you disagree with Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law of physics, used successfully since 1884, take it up with them, not me.

The Greatest Hoax of All Time.

In the 1990’s some environmentalists and powerful politicians decided to launch a war against carbon and one of its natural life supporting molecules, CO₂. For irrational reasons they were opposed to fossil fuel combustion that generated the industrial revolution since 1900 that helped mankind prosper. They decided to scare the world into condemning carbon because increasing atmospheric CO₂ was increasing with the industrial revolution and human prosperity, so they falsely accused CO₂ of causing catastrophic global warming^{4, 5, 6}.

When that failed to cause catastrophic climate change by 2000 as global temperature stabilized since 1997, they paid some 70 university climatologists and astrophysicists to conduct research to prove their beliefs and allegations, at a rate of $1 billion/day by 2014. They wanted government to regulate, curtail and heavily tax CO₂ produced by combustion central to human living. They emphasized radiation and ignored the rest of physics, chemistry, biology, weather forecasting, all the other sciences, engineering and economics. They restricted money and communications to a select few organized by a non-research agency of the UN called International Panel on Climate Change, UN IPCC.

When thousands of other scientists said they were skeptical of the AGW lack of science and outlandish predictions from empirical models of correlation, not causation, they were ridiculed, ostracized, called skeptics and deniers and not allowed to participate in debate or publish their rebuttals. Science was corrupted by money driven scare propaganda.

Scheme. A group of wealthy world government tyrants concocted a fraudulent scheme to consolidate power in the United Nations. Billionaire Maurice Strong, US VP Al Gore and Democrat Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren were instrumental at the 1992 UN Rio Conference on Environment⁶. They financed UN International Panel on Climate Change with government assessments to lead the effort to destroy the fossil fuel business and capitalism under a guise of environmentalism to save the Earth from greedy humans, underserving of freedom of thought and inalienable rights endowed by God and nature.

They distorted ancient due no harm morality of Prudence to a Precautionary Principle and abused their own Principle to justify their ends by any means, a known philosophical no – no. Costs are irrelevant, benefits need not be quantified, and facts are summarily dismissed. Unlike rules of science and jurisprudence, AGW claims need no valid supporting evidence. They are just empty claims.

Inventions. They invented a Green House Gas Theory, GHGT that says atmospheric anthropogenic CO₂ traps heat, causing global temperature to increase dangerously and drive disastrous climate change merely because carbon dioxide is a radiation absorbing gas, like every other molecule. There are many versions of this theory described in English and diagrams but none in the quantitative language of science and nature: mathematics. So it has no predictive power.

GHG Theory was invented to explain a so-called 33C atmospheric greenhouse gas global warming effect. In 1981 James Hansen² stated the average thermal temperature at Earth’s surface is 15C (ok) and Earth radiates to space at -18C (ok). Then he declared the difference 15 – (-18) = 33C (arithmetic ok) is the famous greenhouse gas effect, GHE = 33C. This is not ok because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers. The 33C are meaningless whatchamacallits. This greenhouse gas effect does not exist³.

They postulated a new mechanism of radiant energy transfer, back radiation, from cold atmospheric CO₂ molecules from the sky down to warmer surface, which absorbs it, warming further and radiating more intensely. This violates the Second Law of Thermo which states energy is transferred from hot bodies to colder ones, never from cold to hot. The existence of back-radiation would create energy, which AGW promoters need to drive AGW in perpetuity, in violation of First Law of Thermo. Their theory constitutes a perpetual motion machine of the first and second kinds, an impossibility of nature⁷. Promoting a theory in violation of two of nature’s most basic laws is fraud of the highest order, a felony.

They proceeded to claim they could build a thermostat for Earth by adjusting fossil fuel combustion rate; when straightforward control systems engineering analysis prior to 1997 Kyoto Protocol mandating said thermostat proved the proposed system was unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable; it will never work, it is an engineering impossibility^{8, 9}.

Modeling. Since there is no GHGT physics^{5, 10}, there is no mathematical description to model and quantify it. It has no predictive power. So they resort to empirical statistical correlations of historic data, which may prove correlation but can never prove causation alone.  This is well known to control systems engineers, who are not allowed to participate. Promoters have lost their inherent ability to learn. They invented hockey stick runaway tipping points by extrapolation to regions of invalidity. They magnified one possible warming mechanism while ignoring at least four cooling mechanisms, particularly energy balance stabilizing photosynthesis. In fact a recent study¹¹ by UT and ORNL shows present models underrate the growth of plants from increasing CO₂ by 16{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} because they don’t properly account for diffusion of CO₂ through leaves. “Nature is working hard holding CO₂ in check.”

Recruiting. They recruited and handsomely financed a small group of climatologists to prove CO₂ causes dramatic global warming and climate change, without disclosing the methods justifying their conclusions. They led an assault on the scientific method of Bacon, Galileo, Newton and Einstein. When thousands of scientists and engineers called their theory, methods and conclusions into question to point of refuting them¹², AGW promoters resorted to name calling, coercion, threats, legal actions and character assassination.  The honorable intellectual skepticism of ancient Greek philosophers adopted by scientists since the Age of Reason from 1600 was ridiculed and dismissed. Skeptics, doubters and falsifiers were deemed (Holocaust) Deniers to shut them up. They coerced peer reviewed journal editors to shun scientific work that refuted their outlandish claims.

Marketing. They developed a worldwide scare propaganda effort. Some silly AGW promoters resorted to childish claims like since CO₂ is an absorbing/radiation gas, it acts like a greenhouse in the sky, when it doesn’t. And temperature will jump like a hockey stick in 2000 due to increasing CO₂, when it stabilized in 1998 through 2014 and all predictions from statistical computer models were widely divergent and terribly wrong. And carbon is bad so we must monitor and shrink our carbon footprints! Whatever that means. One famous promoter was invited to speak at Oxford U and bitterly condemned gasoline and diesel engines moving cars, trains, planes and ships since 1900 for wasting energy, as mandated by great engineer Sadi Carnot version of Second Law of Thermo in 1824 and respected by all mechanical engineers to this day.

AGW promoter won a Nobel Peace Prize for a horror movie packed with bogus science and engineering. One of his inconvenient truths is he simply looked at 420,000 years of temperature and CO₂ data, saw they were nicely correlated, and mistakenly concluded correlation proves causation, without any underlying physics explanation. (The rooster crows daily, 30 minutes before sunrise; so rooster causes sun to rise.) National Geographic made the same mistake in June 2007, Global Thaw. That is intellectual fraud of the first order. Careful statistical data analysis by Houston’s University of St Thomas, Environmental Science Department and many others¹³ shows temperature does not follow, lag, CO₂, rather CO₂ follows, lags, temperature. With lag time about 800 years. This is hard to see in the 420,000 year record (800/420,000 = 0.0019). The explanation is elementary chemistry: like Champagne, soda and beer, the solubility of CO₂ in water and ocean decreases with temperature; cold water holds more dissolved CO₂, warm water effervesces it. Temperature is driven by the sun. Nobel Prize winner became multimillionaire, divorced wife and retired to his huge Malibu beach house. Everybody loves to drink CO₂ and exhale it at 4000 ppmv.

Defense. When confronted with proofs GHGT is false by eminent physicists¹⁰, they resorted to an argument that the theory was undeniable and unfalsifiable, moving it from the realm of knowledge to faith. That was easily refuted as well¹⁴.

Attack. They declared CO₂ a pollutant, when chemists proved it is not. US Supreme Court ruled EPA has legal authority under CAAA 1990 to declare CO₂ a pollutant, provided the declaration was based on sound science. EPA subsequently did so declare, ignoring the proviso by simply citing the UN IPCC said so. Obama Administration used that deception to invest enormous sums to political supporters for uneconomic renewable green energy initiatives and wage a war on coal to raise electricity rates, because coal is natural carbon, my favorite atom.

Democrats passed a 1428 page House Bill HR2454 “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009”, to enact a CO₂ Cap & Trade Law to raise taxes and deprive flora of their CO₂ food. It failed in the Democrat controlled Senate by one vote. Europe fell for the UN IPCC CO₂ hoax in 1997 and is now retreating; Spain, Germany, UK lost their shirts. Australia fell for it in 2010 and repealed in 2014. Brilliantly, China, India, Japan, Russia, South America and Africa did not fall for it.

Their smear campaign (polar bears, ocean ice melts, shrinking glaciers, rising tides, hurricanes, droughts, floods, wars, earthquakes, disease, poverty, hunger, pollution, crime) has been refuted at every turn by skeptics like Prof Richard Lindzen, Heartland Institute and Marc Morano¹⁵.

Status. I have found at least five mechanisms for CO₂ affecting different temperatures with estimates of sensitivity, DegC/CO₂ doubling (400 in 2014 to 800 ppmv in 2075):

1.       Global radiation: cooling.  -0.12C
2.       Incoming solar absorption: cooling. -0.05C
3.       Heat capacity Lapse rate: warming surface +1C; cooling upper atmosphere -1C, net 0C
4.       Radiant heat transfer rate resistance increase: warming surface +0.5C; cooling upper atmosphere -0.5C, net 0C
5.       Photosynthesis: cooling -0.5C

Net warming surface +0.83C; cooling upper -2.17C. Net global cooling -0.67C. Each is vanishingly small and hard to calculate because physical properties of Earth are complicated.

UN IPCC unsubstantiated warming sensitivity estimates have been shrinking from +3.5C in 2000 to +2.5C in 2014. At that rate of -1C/15 years they will reach 0 by 2050, and we can all go home. Reminds me of heated arguments on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Climate Change. Further I cannot find a physical link between CO₂ and climate change. Even when CO₂ is increasing and climate is relatively steady, unchanging, 1900 – 2014. Ice ages last about 100,000 years, between warm periods of 20,000 years. The cycle period is about 120,000 years, caused by planetary motion of solar system. Lucy walked Ethiopia around 3.6 million years ago, so humans have survived >3,600,000/120,000 = >30 cycles already, by evolution and adaptation. Since current warm period began about 18,000 years ago, keep your sweater handy. CO₂ and renewables won’t help much, fossil fuels combustion and nuclear power will.

Reconciliation. How do I explain the difference between my skeptic position and AGW promoter position? Why the enormous difference? My motivation is based on freedom, learning, understanding, integrity, logic, science, engineering, mathematics, appreciation and gratitude. Theirs is not. I observe the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, as declared by TJ, 1776.

Lesson: remain skeptical or cynical, think carefully, clearly and critically, do analysis before synthesis, trust your common sense, verify and oppose tyranny. They are out to get your money, heart and mind. The question is how much power and money will hoax promoters steal before their hand is called, their jig is up and they are brought to justice? Probably nobody cares. Mistakes were made, they meant well, all is forgiven.

Now you know why carbon is my favorite atom and carbon dioxide my favorite molecule. I hope my essay doesn’t offend anyone; but I admit I find Al Gore tiresome and offensive. He is the consummate con-artist. An Inconvenient Truth, for him.

References.

1.       Ron B Davis Jr, “Foundations of Organic Chemistry”, Course #1185, The Great Courses, 2014. http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/foundations-of-organic-chemistry.html
2.       J Hansen, D Johnson, A Lacis, S Lebedeff, P Lee, D Rind, G Russell, “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, Science, V213, 28Aug1981, pp 957-966.
3.       Pierre R Latour, “James Hanson’s Bogus “33 degrees” Greenhouse Gas Effect”, 15Nov2003, http://www.principia-scientific.org/james-hansen-s-bogus-33-degrees-greenhouse-gas-effect.html
4.       Christopher C Horner, “Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism”, Regnery Publishing, 2007. http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Global-Warming-ebook/dp/B000RH0C40/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413235962&sr=1-3&keywords=Christopher+Horner
5.       Tim Ball, Claes Johnson, Martin Hertzberg, Charles Anderson, Hans Schreuder, John O’Sullivan, et al “Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”, Stairway Press, 2011.

http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413235884&sr=1-4&keywords=tim+ball

6.      Tim Ball, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”, Stairway Press, 2014. http://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science-ebook/dp/B00HXO9XGS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413235884&sr=1-1&keywords=tim+ball

7. Pierre R Latour, “No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still”, 20Nov2013 http://www.principia-scientific.org/no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still.html

8. Pierre R Latour, “Engineering Earth’s Thermostat with CO2?”, Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb 2010, posted 27Jun2010. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5916

9. Roger Sowell, “Chemical Engineer Takes on Global Warming”, 9Feb2009. http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html

10. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D Tscheuschner, “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics”, Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364, 2009. http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.116

11. Jidde Plas, “US Study Revealed: CO2 Forecasts Perhaps Overestimated”, 14Oct2014. http://www.capitalwired.com/us-study-revealed-co2-forecasts-perhaps-overestimated/23899/

12. Marc Morano, ed, “More than 1000 International Scientists Dissent over Man-made Global Warming Claims, Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading “Consensus” in 2008, 2009, 2010”, US Senate Minority Report updated by Climate Depot.com. Latour on pg 153/321. http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

13. Pierre R Latour, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Lags Temperature: The Proof”, 13Jun2014  http://www.principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof.html

14. Pierre R Latour, “Undeniable and Unfalsifiable”, 10Jan2014. http://www.principia-scientific.org/undeniable-unfalsifiable.html

15. Marc Moreno, http://www.climatedepot.com/

Trackback from your site.