Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20
th, 2020 at 3:01pm:
I will leave you to do your own research. Try searching Peabody Coal.
I already did that petal.
"In October 2017, a judge ruled that Peabody Energy's bankruptcy protected it from "global-warming lawsuits brought by California coastal communities [in July 2017] against fossil-fuel companies."[49]"
Source Wiki
Note it does NOT say it went bankrupt because of global warming lawsuits or "these miners paid to misrepresent AGW science".
It is still in the coal industry.
"In 2018, Peabody announced it plans to invest $10 million in a partnership with London-based Arq, a company that is advancing technology to convert coal into oil products.[50]
On December 3rd Peabody completed its purchase of the Shoal Creek Seaborne metallurgical coal mine from private coal producer Drummond Company, Inc. for $387 million.[51] "
ibid"Leading global coal producer Peabody Energy Corp BTU.N filed for U.S. bankruptcy protection on Wednesday after a sharp drop in coal prices left it unable to service debt of $10.1 billion, much of it incurred for an expansion into Australia."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-peabody-energy-bankruptcy-idUSKCN0XA0E7Nope. Nothing there about avoiding AGW claims.
But perhaps you have the documents that you claim were used in bankruptcy?
Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 20
th, 2020 at 3:01pm:
I did have a great laugh at your initial reply. Anything but admit basic physics is correct, eh?
Poor petal. For a "scientist" you are dumb.
We know CO2 theory.
Planck ( according to wiki), "Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T, when there is no net flow of matter or energy between the body and its environment.[1] " But we
know that the earth is not a black body, much as you wish it to be true. It is a grey body.
"The central dogma is critically evaluated in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory of the IPCC, claiming the Planck response is 1.2K when CO2 is doubled. The first basis of it is one dimensional model studies with the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5°K/km. It is failed from the lack of the parameter sensitivity analysis of the lapse rate for CO2 doubling. The second basis is the Planck response calculation by Cess in 1976 having a mathematical error. Therefore, the AGW theory is collapsed along with the canonical climate sensitivity of 3°K utilizing the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for CO2 doubling. The surface climate sensitivity is 0.14-0.17K in this study with the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W/m2. Since the CO2 issue is removed, coal will be the energy for the future of many nations in terms of the amount of resource and production cost.” "
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305x.26.6-7.1055Einstein? You mean the bloke who said CO2 can't store heat?
Perhaps James Hansen?
"The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse gas effect, is simple. An increase in gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This added opacity causes the planet’s heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. "
Hansen et al.; 2011
https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140
Nope. The opacity hasn't changed beyond norms.
Nope no reduced heat energy to space.
"The partition of the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data. New relationships among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-allsky model of the earth's atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43734929?seq=1More heating should give higher Relative Humidity
"The resultant, more humid atmosphere, causes a hotspot over the tropics at altitudes of 10km to 12km). "
"Temperature trends from raw radiosonde data are also inconsistent with climate models, which project an upper tropospheric warming maximum, especially in the tropics"
(Santer et al. 2005; Trenberth et al. 2007; Santer et al. 2008)
"the vertical trend profiles in the tropics did not show the enhanced upper tropospheric amplification as predicted by climate models"
http://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00668.1
Forum
Pages: 
