There is nothing intrinsic to this work that precludes acceptance by a refereed journal. Journals like to publish papers that challenge the current bland consensus. These papers get a higher readership and citation count (even if most of the citations disagree with the paper). However, a non-mainstream paper must be more strongly supported by references and measurements than a less controversial run-of-the-mill paper.

As a referee, I would not reject any paper based on this work. However, I would request more supporting data than is currently on this website. Thus, I would send it back to the author for revision. I would expect any other referee to do the same. What kind of revisions would be desirable? The following are some examples of what I would look for as a referee:

1) Direct measurement of Henry's Law constants, rather than calculated values based on the ionic species present in ocean water.

2) Direct measurement of gas diffusion rates through Antarctic ice, rather than values estimated from ice-core records.

3) Measurement of the suppression of carbon dioxide absorptivity by water vapour at ambient and below ambient temperatures. This measurement is important in discussing alternative models. We know that, at higher temperatures, the interaction between water vapour and carbon dioxide results in a greatly reduced absorptivity/emissivity from carbon dioxide. (These measurements are used in designing furnaces, boilers, jet engines, and in assessing the safety of people in the presence of fires).

4) We have hypothesized that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations lag temperatures because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. We need to reconcile the measured lag (about 800 years) with calculated thermal inertia lags.

Individually, these requirements seem to be not too onerous. However, they would require a researcher devoted to the topic full time for probably three years. We have established suitable collaborators keen to go ahead with such studies. The problem is that, with overheads and equipment, the cost would be of order £200,000 to £250,000. We do not have access to this kind of money. We cannot expect oil companies to support such work because there is almost no chance of us exonerating carbon dioxide from a role in global warming. We cannot expect nuclear companies to support such work. Any study that confirms that we are not 100% certain that carbon dioxide causes global warming completely undermines any case for extended nuclear capacity. The UK Government will not support such work because it is totally committed to the carbon dioxide hypothesis and to a multi-billion investment in nuclear power. It is difficult to raise enthusiasm for the truth. The truth is that we do not know the cause of global warming, but strongly suspect carbon dioxide. It may be hundreds of years before the position is fully resolved. In the meantime, we must make decisions on the basis of uncertainty. Politicians hate uncertainty, and do not want to know the truth.

Without financial support, we may be able to address aspects of the work needed to secure refereed publications. However, this work could only be done as a series of undergraduate research projects. In the nature of things, some of these studies will be well done, others less well done. We are looking at in excess of ten years to bring the work up to the levels required for refereed publications. In the meantime, the methods used are fully described. The data sources are fully described, and all authenticated by the global warming community. We are also prepared to supply copies of the source code for our software. For conventional work, referees seldom request such data and software. Indeed, some of the major climate change centres refuse to supply such information to anyone who may challenge their conclusions.