Let's also not forget that the core premise the concept of anthropogenetic CO2-driven climate change depends on--i.e. that CO2 traps heat in a meaningful way and with no top threshold--is itself problematic and the product of questionable "science".
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/355119-greenhouse-gases-simply-do-not-absorb-enough-heat-to-warm-earth/
But science is not done by consensus, by popular vote, or by group think. As Michael Crichton put it: “In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” ... Climate scientists argue that the thermal energy absorbed by greenhouse gases is re-radiated, causing warming of air, slowing cooling of Earth and even directly warming Earth. There simply is not enough heat involved in any of these proposed processes to have any significant effect on global warming. Greenhouse-warming theory “just ain’t so.”
https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/
The fundamental mistakes with greenhouse-warming theory are plotting energy on the y-axis of Planck’s empirical law and integrating as a function of frequency to get one number for the total amount of thermal energy flowing per second in units of watts per square meter. This method grossly overestimates the thermal effects of infrared energy.
Note that both of the above articles were authored by Dr. Peter Langdon Ward, who’s published more than 50 scientific papers, and who continues working to resolve several enigmatic observations related to climate change.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/28/media-claims-co2-traps-heat-a-big-lie-or-a-big-stupid/
But satellite data and energy budgets estimated by climate scientists’ have calculated that of the absorbed incoming solar heat, the earth radiates 99.6%, with several tenths of percent uncertainty, back to space as infrared heat waves. The greenhouse effect is more complex because CO2 has both warming and cooling effects.
https://www.ocregister.com/2012/01/27/james-moodey-co2-doesnt-rise-up-trap-and-retain-heat/
Specific gravity is the weight of a gas compared with air. Carbon Dioxide has a specific gravity of 1.52. It is about one and a half times heavier than air. It is the same weight as propane and anyone who uses propane knows it to be very heavy. Carbon dioxide sinks into our storm drains and into the ground like a puddle of water.
Note that James Moodey managed a gas measurement and testing company which held licenses by California Department of Weights and Measures, where he learned the physics of gas measurement and taught classes at gas utilities, i.e. he's a CO2 expert.
https://principia-scientific.com/climate-fraud-exposed-co2-doesnt-rise-trap-retain-heat/
The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim. Just check out the NASA image (above) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment. This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus, in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground
Plus, that the
true scourge threatening the environment, lives and livelihoods is certain forms of renewable energy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fQZfFy9cFs
Until climatologists drop the fanciful models and start practicing real scientific methodology, including consultation with chemists, geologists and all other areas of science crucial to climate change, they’ll not only continue to bark up the wrong tree but are now pied pipers leading a good portion of society over a steep cliff that could very well throw us back into “snowball Earth” territory.
Note to everyone: unless you are willing to thoroughly read through every link above and are prepared to address every point made in them (not just what I type myself, nor just what I quoted—my post entails everything in those articles as well), please do not reply. I’m not looking for gameplaying or people taking the easy route, but genuine, detailed, verbose, scientific discussion.
Also note that this post has been updated with quotes from the various references I provided links for to help prevent errant commentary like some below from people who don't take the time to actually dive in and ingest the content within them.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
AmeriGirl26 (12879)
a year ago
Yeah, I mean, didn't these idiots forget that plants breathe in carbon dioxide? That earth has a natural carbon cycle that utilizes both the soil and the ocean? Or are they calling that pseudoscience now?
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
why would Michael Crichtons opinion matter?
"There simply is not enough heat involved in any of these proposed processes to have any significant effect on global warming. Greenhouse-warming theory “just ain’t so.”"
That is his opinion and the science shows otherwise. C02 levels in the atmosphere have almost doubled in the last 120 years this will have an impact. cause and effect are real things. Does Cause and effect stop working because Michael Crichton says so? I need to see the evidence and Michaels studies on this. He was of course a climatologist working in the field before his passing?
Here is an actual real scientist basing it off more than his opinion https://youtu.be/uRkUMlj3Os8
@3:30
we know from satelite measurements that the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere is causing the earth to radiate less energy into space than it used to. so inevitably when you have a system with more heat coming into the system than going out it gets hotter
Where is he wrong. and how did Michael Critchon suspend the laws of physics?
reply
share
warrior-poet (1339)
a year ago
It’s interesting you focused on just that Chrichton quote and ignored the 99.9% of information in those URLs that have nothing to do with Chrichton. But why wouldn’t his opinion matter? No opinion should be dismissed. It may hold less weight since he’s merely relaying information he’s gleaned, but he was a well-studied science writer and understood such matters.
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
But definitely don’t take his word alone for anything. That’s just one quote. I highly recommend you read through those URLs with an open mind, though. Why? Because science does not “show otherwise”. What shows otherwise isn’t science, i.e. the product of repeated experimentation to test hypotheses. It’s the product of manipulated data and fabricated modeling that barely takes into consideration actual data collected, while sanitizing unwanted historical data that doesn’t fit the narrative.
I’d agree with that video that those deniers are vastly off-base and forming conclusions based on belief. I mean, anything from a creationist is going to be highly questionable. A number of the “denier” arguments are definitely unsupported by evidence, and he does a pretty good job of debunking their claims. Unfortunately, the speaker in that video gets some things wrong himself.
The highest heat on record is not recent if looking at raw, unmanipulated data. That only occurs after the data has been altered, e.g. ignoring the heat of the 30s and earlier, and/or cherry-picking weather patterns of specific, localized regions that support the argument, all while ignoring the cyclical nature of the climate. And remember, weather does not indicate climate.
He’s also very wrong about glaciers. There’s actually more total ice now than there has been in decades. And satellite photos of many glaciers that have been claimed to be receding show more volume and surface coverage, not less (again, they cherry-pick photos from warmer times of the year in those specific regions then disingenuously use them to support the narrative).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNhnJDWi-wQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUJsAq3Qic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsCwZu3nvoM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lUV7KeViVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYE9hVk0cyM
You also don’t need to listen to Crichton regarding consensus in science, either. But I’d wager you’d listen to Richard Feynman:
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/62a15aa9e8e40e2cb2ce412d/If-anyone-who-disagrees-with-man-made-climate-change-wants-to-have-a-serious-conversation?reply=62a6bb358d399c712446914d
Consensus without allowing questions, nor the possibility of adjustment, isn’t science. Science is persistent, perpetual skepticism, never locking into a trap of belief, while adapting conclusions and adjusting probability ratios based on the output of extensive experimentation. Science is experimentation producing repeatable output. As soon as you hear “consensus”, especially from any entity who profits from that consent, it should be a red flag to be very wary of. Science isn’t a group of people who already think alike patting each other on the back and rubber-stamping each other’s papers in the name of “peer review”.
Yes, there’s much more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been in recent history, and the industrial age is absolutely spewing more of it out there. This is indisputable, and anyone disagreeing is ignoring verifiable measurements. Experiments show several outcomes from this, and all are a net positive even if a bit of heat is also being trapped from it (which again, is questionable, and is something that cannot be reproduced experimentally—repeat: all experiments show that CO2 doesn’t trap heat long enough to adversely raise it on any scale). What experiment after experiment has shown time and time again is that higher levels of non-pollutant CO2 produce much greater crop yields and plant growth, i.e. even if there is slight warming, it’s a net gain.
Consequently, the Earth is much greener than it was decades ago in large part due to a higher ppm of CO2.
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming
https://randallcarlson.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/The-Redemption-of-the-Beast.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLy2mLOEQoU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVZhuj-ffZ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T14Xzfeltw
However, that doesn’t mean that we should just keep pumping it out with reckless abandon without fully understanding the consequences. We also shouldn’t reduce it much more if it could lead to another “snowball Earth”. On the other hand, CO2 ppm has been significantly higher in Earth’s past, and during each time there were explosions of life (the Cambrian explosion occurred during one of the highest CO2 levels in Earth history), so there’s that. All factors must be carefully considered.
CONTINUED…
reply
share
warrior-poet (1339)
a year ago
…CONTINUING
We need to tread prudently and ensure we truly grasp what’s going on, curtailing kneejerk, misguided corrective measures. I support replacing fossil fuel power generation with the proven technology of nuclear energy, but U.S. CO2 emissions have declined drastically over the past number of years, while other countries ramp it up. Trying to reduce U.S. emissions further outside of nuclear won’t succeed, or have any real effect on total CO2 output. It’s just going to hurt people.
And no, satellite measurements do not show that carbon dioxide increase causes less energy to be radiated. Satellites can’t show that connection. It’s a false equivalency. It's important to consider all angles, and to listen to all viewpoints:
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/14/8/1244
https://principia-scientific.com/carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming/
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf
https://www.infowars.com/posts/co2-has-almost-no-effect-on-global-temperature-says-leading-climate-scientist/
https://expose-news.com/2022/06/05/real-climate-experts-are-stepping-forward/
https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models
https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/666002/21b43e1b155051227ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf
I used to put more weight on the notion of anthropogenic CO2-driven climate change. The concept seemed reasonable, even if flawed in areas. But once delving deeply into it, the so-called “science” appeared increasingly off-base, the scientific process behind it tainted by belief, forcing manipulation of evidence to fit bias. It became evident that the evidence didn’t directly support the theory. No, cause and effect hasn’t “stopped working”. But the core “cause-and-effect” premise of CO2 being a primary factor in the irradiation of heat back to the surface is itself errant and unsupported by experimentation.
What’s worse is that this faulty science has been ginned up into an imaginary crisis by non-scientists.
Anytime an entity of authority and power immediately dismisses any questions about a premise they’re espousing without even beginning to consider any concerns raised, it should be a glaring warning sign that something’s gone wrong. Suppression of opposing viewpoints is the hallmark of a weak position. This directly ties into the oft-stated yet completely erroneous claim that 97% of climate scientists agree about anthropogenic CO2-caused climate change.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/10/the-97-climate-consensusstarts-to-crumble-with-485-new-papers-in-2017-that-question-it/
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620301748
Yes, the narrator in the video you linked to is correct that “when you have a system with more heat coming into the system than going out it gets hotter”. What he gets wrong is that CO2 is proven to be the primary factor for why that might be occurring, if it is even occurring at all, for the reasons explained in detail in the URLs I provided in the previous post that you summarily dismissed. It’s why the modelling has time and time again over the decades gotten predictions so very wrong: it’s based on a faulty premise that is not only unsupported by experimentation, but directly contradicted by it.
What field of “science” can make countless predictions time after time, with no experimentation, and get every single one of them wrong and still thrive? A corrupted one. One that’s motivated by profit and propped up by fanatical belief.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=67248
Many scientists have forgotten how to be scientists. And it’s not just this subject that’s been affected by this phenomenon. String Theory and many other niche areas of quantum physics and cosmology, even areas of research such as archeology, have been corrupted by self-interest, a need for continued funding for livelihoods depending on it, status and power, etc., forcing them to cling to past conclusions that are being increasingly upended by new discoveries and information while shutting down anyone who questions what they perceive to be their superior authority on “the science”.
Unfortunately, that’s the nature of institutions. They will always put their own survival above all else.
But science is about persistent skepticism, adaptable conclusions as new information is substantiated, and constant experimentation to establish, reiterate and verify repeatable results. It’s why I still see a warming planet as plausible and in need of genuine study (not cult-driven pretend study), with all possible causes considered. A real scientist will…
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
I am not reading your attempt to just overwhelm with quantity and make more claims you cant back up. the thing about an exchange is you should actually address what i actually said like i did with you and not gishgallop.
But instead of responding to what amounted to 1 paragraph in text from me. you came back with 10 paragraphs and 5 links. i put it in a word counter. you responded to 115 words with 1 THOUSAND. It does not appear you know how to debate effectively or in good faith.
it also appears from your first link to the other convos you have had here. you have a liking of posting opinion pieces, debunked person and websites, but not actual studies.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1339)
a year ago
"gishgallop" tells me all I need to know, LeoDecaprio. So does your inability and/or unwillingness to spend the time needed to fully contemplate and discuss (not debate) the numerous subtleties and nuances of a very complicated subject matter. And I addressed your anemic one-paragraph post in my first paragraph, in every paragraph thereafter, and continued to address other areas of the video you provided a link to. So I don't get where you're coming from.
You think this was an "attempt to overwhelm"? Is that a tactic to avoid discussion, or are you being serious? If so, you need to realize that genuine scientific discourse involves detailed, measured, thoroughly thought-out dissertations, not headlines and inane, simplistic platitudes. It's one of the biggest issues with various areas of modern science, and especially modern society. A bunch of cool-aid drinking nincompoops repeating meaningless banalities.
And no, none of those resources are "debunked". People can't just claim "debunked" and make it reality. Additionally, you shouldn't have asked "Where is he wrong" if you didn't want me to answer.
You started your post with "I'm not reading", epitomizing a major problem in modern society. It does not appear you know how, nor have the moral fortitude or intellect, to discuss effectively or in good faith.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
tvfan (9918)
a year ago
Well said.
Batfleck is a sock account for one of the leftist idiots of this forum.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
"gishgallop" tells me all I need to know, Leo"
what are you going on about now? did you gishgallop or no?
definition:is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments
a discussion is a natural thing where we address topics and move on. when you write 10 times as much as the other person and go on a rant that is not an actual discussion.
the only one lacking good faith is you. or you would have specifically addressed my points. you took what i said and are now accusing me of it. let this be a lesson to you about how to engage honestly.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1339)
a year ago
https://media.tenor.com/PIV7IvRbg_QAAAAC/oh-bet.gif
what are you going on about now? did you gishgallop or no?
There's another poster here that repeatedly used that word, and he also ran them together (it's two words) so I suspect you're him under another username. And no, by its very definition I did not gish gallop.
or you would have specifically addressed my points
I did. At length. I also continued discussing all the other points made in the URLs in my original post that you chose to ignore, where you quite literally did the exact thing you're accusing me of by avoiding all elements except the one small bit you wanted to focus on. I expected you to thoroughly imbibe and digest them before responding. Instead, you completely ignored the core point, i.e. that CO2 hasn't been proven to trap heat. FYI I've added additional quotes from the links in the hopes others won't so easily sidestep them.
Talk about engaging dishonestly. It's why I will not be corresponding further.
Also, additional viewpoint regarding the true nature and frailty of the "peer review" process, and why you putting so much faith in such bad science is a massive mistake leading to false beliefs and wayward proclamations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxB3yy2H7j4
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
it may seem like a new idea, but when someone addresses what the person said, they expect the other person in the discussion to address it back, and not write 10 times as much and not stay on the specific point.
in good faith i addressed your link and provided my own. and in return i get 10 paragraphs, 5 links and a discussion about the issues with scientists not doing science and all being corrupt and that its fake studies. which you asserted without proof. i treied to keep it focused becuase even when i investigate your other links it was just as bad.
https://www.ocregister.com/2012/01/27/james-moodey-co2-doesnt-rise-up-trap-and-retain-heat/
who is james moodey? certainly not a scientist. you provided an opinion piece, not a study, in some random paper as "proof".and yet wanted me to keep engaging?
this is sheer folly and no thinking person would actually engage and address your scattershot claptrap. imagine i do engage? what will i get in return to a 10 paragraph response from you?
50 paragraph off topic response? more links? i gave you a chance and you could not even address one paragraph i wrote and rather went onto other topics. from engagement 1 you have shown you dont engage and discuss. you preach
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
you do not discuss, you preach. you have made that clear
you have now edited your comment to make it appear all your links were equally discussed and that i ignored them and simply selected one. when the focus was the Michael Critchon one and the others were simply lumped together. how dishonest and disingenuous
reply
share