by Seth Adam Manley

I have been researching the hypothesis that “CO2 Causes Global Warming” for many years.  YEARS, not including the 7 years I spent studying at the University of Florida (Environmental Science and Engineering student) and at the University of Vermont (Civil and Environmental Engineering student followed as a Computer Science continuing education student).

During my academic studies (1990’s), this hypothesis of “CO2 Causes Global Warming” was so incredibly debunked, it was not even discussed among students or faculty.  So I began researching it to find out what the new evidence was that has caused it to become the foundation of so much taxation and political rhetoric: “The science is proven.”

So far, I have found nothing published that shows the rationality that links the hypothesis to the conclusion.  Not even any observational data, although there are plenty of observations that are interesting.  But no correlation or rationality.  

I have looked at the observational data and found this:

This data still needs to be double-checked.  I did not screen out poor data points yet (please see my next article “Data Integrity”).

The corresponding graph, which clearly shows slightly increasing CO2 between 1960 and present, is the foundation of the newly politicized hypothesis:

The original hypothesis clearly states that “Increased CO2 levels will produce Increased global temperatures.”  The temperature graph above is typical of all locations I have seen so far.  The hypothesis is refuted.

There are some (Brian P.) who claim there is another new hypothesis that is as yet unproven but supports the original hypothesis.  The additional new hypothesis is that “It takes many years for the effect of higher CO2 to be felt.”  

This new hypothesis is very, very doubtful.  The reason I say it is doubtful is that the basic, physical, phenomenon that the original hypothesis is based upon is that CO2 captures sunlight energy and re-releases it as heat.  This is the “Greenhouse” phenomenon that the global warming theory is based on.  In all laboratory tests, the effect of any “Greenhouse” gas like CO2 is nearly instantaneous.  It happens at the speed of light.  How else could you capture a photon?  The re-release of that photon’s energy is similarly at the speed of light, and the cooling of the subject gases (earth’s atmosphere) follows the same cooling trajectory as all other samples.  This has been shown over and over in laboratory experiments.

There are a GREAT number of independent scientists who do not get paid by “Climate Change Funding” who have stepped forward to voice objections to the political agenda, including at least one Nobel Prize laurite.  This following graph explains the idiocy further:

I hope to continue researching and develop a full paper where I stick to the scientific facts and expose all facets of this situation.  If I find anything contrary to my initial opinion, I will do my best to include that as well.  God willing.

Data Integrity

I started this endeavor (hosting an email chat group) because of concerns about Election Integrity.  Those concerns remain.  Without Free and Open Debate, and without Free and Transparent Elections, we do not have a democracy.  Our decision makers will be held hostage to what the powers-that-be dictate to them.

But during my investigation of this Climate Change situation, it has become apparent that the data is not entirely stable.

The temperature and precipitation data on which I am relying is produced by NOAA.  There have been noticeable changes in the SOURCE of the data which they provide over the years.

One MAJOR change has happened for Saint Johnsbury (the charts I provided earlier): Instead of sourcing the data from the traditional collaborative network, as of July 1st, 2024, NOAA is now reporting data they get for Saint Johnsbury from “High Plains Regional Climate Center.” 

This defies sensibilities.  I currently have outstanding requests to NOAA and the Fairbanks Museum in St. Johnsbury for clarification about data.  No responses yet.  FYI, check out Fairbanks Museum’s home page to find out where they stand on the topic of “Climate Change.”  The goal posts keep moving, and now they don’t say anything about CO2, but just “Mankind has done this,” claiming to have evidence, but providing no evidence or rationality.  My next request to Fairbanks Museum should be “Where do you get your funding from?”

Dams Removed

I have a concern that the VT Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) along with the VT Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) are in charge of civil works projects, such as Headwater Dam removals.  Why are environmentalists in charge of something that should be run by engineers, the same as roads and bridges?

They have not removed 30 headwater dams in Vermont.  They have removed 113 of them, as of early August.  Please find attached the information I got from the VT DEC.

The rain event in St. Johnsbury was reported on many news outlets, and by first hand observers, as being a 6-to-7 inch rain event.  The data reported by the “High Plains Regional Climate Center” says over 8 inches of rain fell.  This data set was collected in late August from NOAA (which now uses the HPRCC data for St J).  This rainfall total eclipse all other single day recorded rainfall events in the history of Vermont that I have found.  Hurricane Irene only dumped up to about 5 inches, as reported.  

I did an on-site investigation of the Castleton dam removal and subsequent damage.  I did not have enough time the day I drove down there to get my eyes on the former location of the dam, and the one local I was able to talk to appeared to be getting a million dollar make-over of their property, so they were unwilling to get into details about why the train-tracks were being replaced along the Castleton river.

I can’t help but wonder if there is something going on with the observational data in order to cover politicians’ butts.