Not really.<p>I have other things to do.<p>The Al Gore, IPCC arguments look bad to me, just from what I wrote, that the temperature record and the CO2 record convince me that CO2 has little or nothing to do with temperature.<p>There is a biggie point:  The Al Gore crowd has a claim about CO2 that would have us shoot in the gut much of current civilization.  There are at least two ways to respond:<p>(1) From a lot of really good science, find a better answer.<p>(2) F&#x27;get about finding a better answer or even any answer but just debunk the Al Gore answer by finding holes in its argument.<p>Then for (2), one way is really simple, just look at the temperature and CO2 record back through the Vostok data 500,000+ years ago.  I&#x27;ve basically done that and concluded that from the records we can reject the Gore claims about the effects of CO2 on climate.  That Vostok data is what Gore gave as his main evidence that the higher temperatures were from higher concentrations of CO2.  Alas, the CO2 concentrations rose about 800 years after the temperatures rose.<p>Another way to do (2) is just to use one of the main criteria of science:  Can it make accurate predictions?  Well, from some of the references I gave, apparently not.  That is, by the CO2, Planck black body radiation, Navier-Stokes, etc. models, the temperature should be very significantly higher now.  Well, it&#x27;s not.  So, in science, we reject the prediction and the modelling that made it.<p>So, as in (2), we don&#x27;t find a good answer but just debunk and reject the Gore CO2 approach.  Finding a good answer might be really difficult science, but debunking a proposed answer need not involve much science at all.  That rejection is likely just what we are all supposed to do and maybe not publishable.  So, we don&#x27;t look for an academic record of it.<p>For the references I gave, right, they are not primary, but they do give some pointers to primary references.  E.g., one of the graphs does name all the models.  If that graph is all hogwash, I&#x27;d be among the first to want to have good information on that.<p>For that graph with results of the 70 or so models, I just found a link to the graph.  I have the graph on my computer from years ago, but I didn&#x27;t have a link to it on the Internet (I confess -- sloppy record keeping).  So, I just took a long gibberish string left over from when I downloaded the graph, pasted it into Google, and let Google give me a link to the graph.  I don&#x27;t know where the graph came from originally (it may say but I haven&#x27;t looked at that graph in detail for years) but likely not the Web page of the URL I gave.  Sorry &#x27;bout that, but I just found a way for you to see the famous graph.