The Climate Change Blog
We’re held in contempt by government, “the elite,” and corporations. But can you blame them?
Maybe we aren’t taught much in school, but, yet, we often seem to run into trouble applying the few truths that we are taught.
Like those about gases, and density.
The photo shows an example of stratification (separation) of liquids based on density.
“Heavier,” that is, more dense, liquids, are at the bottom, the less dense liquids rise to the top, all on their own and automatically.
Of course, this is only common sense.
You can see, and have seen, stratification of gases in action, too, because we’ve all seen helium-filled balloons that were released, soaring up into the sky.
Scientists Can’t Explain…
What feelings do those words inspire in you? It used to be that scientists couldn’t explain how bumblebees flew, and I suppose they still can’t. Inexplicably, it seems people don’t realize this means, not that bees are Voodoo, or bees can’t fly, but that scientists who do comment regarding this topic, are incompetent to comment on the matter of bumblebees.
But that kind of talk scares people. To deny science and scientists like that? Horrors!
- The claims of Climate Change promoters
- The science of gases
- “Official science” and its lies
- Real science & logic: their use and application
I’m not writing these blog articles as a bunch of random scribblings. They tie together, and help you use techniques and tactics to explore bad thinking, so you can be protected from the depredations of the legions of scumbags that are ruining the world for us. And this includes many, many so-called “scientists,” that are all-in on the Global Warming, Man-made Climate Change, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hoax.
Most scientists are so ill-informed, they don’t even recognize a phase of matter that we see every day: That of vapor. It is sort of gaseous, but tending to coalesce together, as we see in clouds and steam. Instead they say there are three common forms of matter, solid, liquid and gas. They seem to think that vapor is the gaseous state, but that goes against their own model, in which gases are independent molecules and/or atoms, whizzing around randomly, obviously not true of clouds, whether clouds of steam from a kettle or clouds in the sky.
Scientists can’t explain…
- Scientists can’t explain why we sleep.
- Scientists can’t explain where all the so-called “dark matter” is.
- Scientists can’t explain ball lightning.
- Scientists can’t explain anything metaphysical, including dreams, apparent “ESP,” and the like.
Dreams are an interesting case. If you dream while awake, that is considered “hallucinating,” and that can occur in the sleep-deprived, interestingly enough.
They can’t even explain rainbows! If you look for the “scientific explanation” they resort to hand-waving explanations using terms like “diffusion,” “scattering,” “refraction,” “reflection.” In fact, they contradict themselves by saying light refracts and reflects, in a raindrop, a varying number of times. No explanation of how it can perform this feat; in general, light will refract or reflect, but not both.
How does a rainbow work? Refer to my article here for an interesting discussion.
It’s called “magical thinking” when people think things occur without reason, or “because the experts say so.”
Or when they think that scientists’ shaky explanations make any sense, just because they come from scientists.
Of course, not all scientists agree on AGW, so we know already, without doubt, that some scientists must be wrong.
Some scientists say that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates heat back down to earth.
Looking at the claim of “absorption and re-radiation,” they say that CO2 lets light (higher-energy) through from the sun. That light reflects from the earth as heat (lower-energy), and is then absorbed on the way out by CO2 that “re-radiates” it back to earth.
First off, if it “reflects heat back down to earth on the way out,” it is more prone to reflecting heat away from earth on the way in.
Also, since the molecule is moving and twisting, it will re-radiate in all directions on the way back out, as well.
(In fact, all gases absorb and re-radiate. All those “absorption charts” you may see them trot out to persuade you are meaningless, used out of context. We should all be outraged that they attempt to exploit people to “sell” their BS stories with deceptive practices.)
Since there’s more “away” than “towards,” that is, the earth is a smaller cross-section than space, the effect, were CO2 to act in the magical way claimed, would be a cooling effect on earth!
Don’t worry though, they’ve got that covered, the global warming is causing cooling, too.
It’s mind-boggling that suckers fall for the AGW claims. But most people don’t even know what the claims are. They don’t investigate for themselves. They do what they’re told.
We’re tricked into it, to some extent. There are multiple mind games to elicit a response in the public.
Someone among the scam squad, inevitably, is smart enough to use this tool, and it works every time: Give a name, particularly a fancy, “scientific-sounding” name to something, and you’re on the road! Using “anthropogenic” for “man-made,” is a great one. Someone must’ve burned the midnight oil to concoct that one.
And that, friends, is a logical fallacy, though I doubt you’ll see it in any textbooks on logic, though in some ways, it is a form of “Appeal to Authority,” a fallacy of relevance. And, the scam is a tricky way of “Begging the Question,” a fallacy of presumption, which is especially egregious and sneaky. But this is one of many ways you’re tricked into lies.
This “labeling fallacy” probably deserves its own category, managing to be presumptive and irrelevant at the same time.
Blueprint for an Age of Rationality
How would we function in a different time, one structured as a rational time of progress? Well, there’d be:
- no “supernatural” thinking: every scientific claim would have to be supported by evidence — conclusive evidence
- no lies: no scientific endeavor would be immune to examination and cross-examination; all anomalies between claims and reality would be subject to intensive scrutiny
- no use of taxation for funding (no government funding) — all research would have to be privately funded and supported
- no schools and colleges/universities — they would be abolished in their present form; instead of “teachers,” people who were successful in the private sector would go on to teach modern, useful science, engineering and technology at schools or universities; there’d be no “career teachers.” Teaching what you’re taught to teach — that don’t fly. At primary school levels, the entire learning process to be rethought and revamped to be effective, useful and fun, not drudgery, and not tax-supported daycare for one adult and a passel of children
- a stop to pretending we know anything about the distant past, the distant future, the creation of the universe, outer space, and a million other things we don’t have the knowledge to be talking about; all science to be directed toward useful and practical advances, plus, to exploring what we have access to here, on Earth — we know hardly anything about ocean depths, Antarctica, the Earth at great depth, and so on, we know little about ourselves and other forms of life, so there is plenty to occupy our research without resorting to rash speculation, like about “Black Holes in space,” or trips to Mars.
We can’t know how much humans have contributed to CO2 — we don’t know what proportion of the gas is emitted by fires, volcanic eruptions, CO2 from ocean creatures, microbes and bacteria… It’s mindless speculation on the order of the “Black Hole” and “Dark Matter” nonsense, infantile science fiction. An age of rationality wouldn’t entertain it.
One huge impediment to an age of rationality is the presence of the Climatards — AGW/global warming believers and activists.
One claim they make is that CO2 is “well-mixed,” to support the idea of it “capping” the upper atmosphere.
Well, as it turns out, it is not “well-mixed” at all, according to a recent mainstream scientific study (2011), that for some reason got pulled.
That’s okay, because it’s also backed up by this 1985 Nature magazine study.
CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air, it has to lie low. In fact, that’s part of what “heavier than air,” means. That doesn’t mean it’ll “puddle” around our feet, though. Winds and the heat of the surface of the earth will tend to agitate all gases, causing some mixing, but CO2 will generally be low in the atmosphere.
Without doubt, the relative concentration of CO2 is higher near the surface and decreases relative to other gases as you ascend.
It’s funny how the Climatards ignore simple evidence — like a helium balloon.
So what if it is lower, though?
That means CO2 cannot act as a “cap” on the atmosphere.
A note about CO2 production: A hot-air balloon of course only uses… air, but heated warmer than its surroundings. The decreased density of the hot air is enough to send it shooting up into the sky, though. Most CO2 is going to be emitted warm, or hot, because it is the by-product of respiration or of burning or hot volcanoes — that means it will likely rise at first, up into the atmosphere, then tumble back down.
For experimental evidence, simply fill a CO2 balloon, and observe that it will stay down near ground, though it will drift around with the wind, of course. I wonder why this constant belittling, arguing, cursing, etc., when most people can conduct such an experiment for themselves.
Also: the carbon dioxide-filled balloon will not get any warmer than a pure air balloon!
In fact, someone already did an experiment to test this. It was to test of whether CO2 “held in heat,” like the Climatards say. CO2 has a slightly lower specific heat, (a measure of how much energy it takes to change the temperature of a substance), so it cools off more rapidly, when removed from a heat source, as he demonstrated. Of course this is not addressed in the AGW screed.
The Shady Opposition
What Climatards don’t understand, is that first, the simple explanation has to be met and validly countered, before any delusions, expressed as “complicated theories,” like the “re-radiation” nonsense, are used.
No matter the proof, they will cling to their BS, with ridiculous, grasping excuses and explanations, or make ad hominem attacks, like, you “don’t understand science,” your “level of understanding is less than sophomoric,” you are “making a fool of yourself,” you are “amateurish.” They’ll tell you to go “read the literature,” and “read a physics textbook” to “understand the science behind AGW,” things they themselves never accomplish.
The head Climatard at one site, the blog owner, got very agitated when someone in the comment section mentioned volcanoes. He started screeching, so to speak, not to talk to him about volcanoes, they weren’t causing any CO2, when of course they do release massive amounts of the gas.
The Climatards have a whole bag of tricks, blatant and subtle, like talking about the “delicate balance” of CO2, a sort of visualization hypnosis trick to fool your mind into creating a tangible representation, which of course means belief. Tricks should discredit the writer in the eyes of the reader, and we can see how they work, but can also see how difficult it is to counteract them when they take hold in the poor gullible souls who are manipulated by them.
On the other hand, most people who can reason in the first place, aren’t going to believe in AGW, and logic isn’t going to help the illogical believers.
So pay attention here: The argument in this article is definitive. That is, it proves the argument for man-made Global Warming, Climate Change, AGW, or whatever name they’re calling it today, is completely wrong. To prove otherwise, one would have to contradict then disprove the clear and understandable points raised here.
There’s an old saying, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” But, what if you’re standing on the wrong side? Before you commit, you need tools for truth.
Well, we have such things as “Logic,” but it, like “Science,” is presented as something “hard.” And there are many sources that teach logical fallacies, but somehow they’re tailored to make logic seem “difficult,” too.
A huge problem we face in this existence is overcoming human gullibility — and ego.
Perhaps the worst thing mainstream science has done, among its numerous sins, is to make things seem intractable to the average “layman”/non-scientist. But one reason for science is to make the complex, simple, not vice-versa. Now, a scientist may be smarter than you, he may be dumber, but he still has the same foibles, flawed thinking, and makes mistakes, like you and I. He can’t work miracles. Much of “science” is faked anyway. The scientists will give “solutions,” that aren’t, like the “rainbow explanation.”
Most Scientific Studies Today Are ‘Fake Science’
SCIENCE SHOCK: Almost all medical studies are “bogus” … reproducibility approaches ZERO
Over 100 published science journal articles just gibberish
False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research
Some Online Journals Will Publish Fake Science, For A Fee
Retracted Scientific Studies: A Growing List
At college/university, they’ll blow up if you dare stray outside the dogma — so it’s hard to even initiate any good research contrary to the AGW “accepted science.”
No complicated argument will refute physical facts like the fact that lighter-than-air balloons go upwards, for example. Or that carbon dioxide behaves just like any other gas. That other gases absorb and re-radiate, like all elements do. There’s nothing special about CO2. No one told us that it was magic gas when I was in chemistry class. (Insert joke here about marijuana smoke.)
It is important to understand that the simple and commonplace trumps all complex arguments. Trying to create an argument about CO2 “re-radiating” heat back to earth is not even a bad explanation, it is an insult, a taunt. It’s a way of AGW scientists, and their benefactors, calling people stupid, and proving it to themselves when they see the people are not able to discern absurdity.
Not all the scientists are on board with the AGW farce, of course — there are tens of thousands that oppose it.
Just the fact that there is a controversy should shut down AGW right there.
Odd, though, that the opposition hasn’t managed to come up with a sound, presentable, concise argument to shut down the Climatards. Is it false opposition? Or do they want to leave an opening to waffle — to cover their bases, in case they want in on that sweet, sweet grant money at a later date?
Figure It Out for Yourself
We’re dealing with common observations and simple uncontested facts here:
- density and stratification
- CO2 no “different” than other gases in its general physical properties; that is, not magic gas
- microscopic quantities can’t have macroscopic physical effects
That last point has not yet been addressed. The quantity of CO2 in the environment is microscopic, only measured in hundreds of molecules per million in the atmosphere. Around 320 PPM. (PPM = parts per million.) Such a quantity of gas can’t affect physical quantities like temperature. Even if it were a “magic gas,” it couldn’t have an appreciable effect on temperature in the macroscopic world.
They — AGW scientists/”Warmists” — treat CO2 as if it were alone, without other gases interacting with it and transferring heat. These interactions — molecules contacting and bouncing back — tend to make all the gases one uniform temperature.
There’s something else: The Earth, itself produces heat. As you probably have heard, as you descend into the ground, the environment becomes progressively hotter. So hot that deep miners require air conditioning to carry on. This heat is probably produced by the radioactive decay of elements. Have the Climatards done extensive investigations into variations in this parameter?
Note: Some Jabroni replied to say that, yes, they had done just that. No proof or link to any study though, of course. We’re dealing with real scum in this fight.
Someone, in frustration, used the term, “not even wrong,” to describe something so outrageous, you can’t just call it a mistake, but instead a complete and utter confused failure. Well, that’s the case with AGW.
It’s Never Going to End
Government is in the process of burying you, bit-by-bit, taking rights, bite-by-bite.
And the “news,” is a noose, around your neck. It will continue to parrot the most egregious lies.
Even if the ridicule and discrediting of AGW is successful, down to the level of the common man, “they’ll” just come up with some new absurd justification for more taxation and control.
Government doesn’t care about “climate change.”
But Climatards, want to believe:
- they can get on their high horse
- they can use it as an excuse to bully and attack others
Someone said the unexamined life isn’t worth living. Climatards have a low state of self-awareness, and almost no sense of irony or hypocrisy. Navel-gazers they may be, but they certainly don’t examine their own inconsistencies and what their motivations are.
They’ve been working on this one for a long time: “Aliens from outer space.” That was one thing government “think tanks” concocted so we’ll have to stay home and pay taxes. It’s a plan to fake an alien invasion, something hinted at, way back when, by president Reagan. Maybe they’ll come up with a “Die-off,” caused by some new mystery viruses and diseases unless we stay home and pay taxes.
You know I like to help them out, how about these:
- There is some danger coming up from inside the earth due to man drilling and mining, so to stop the thing coming, it makes it necessary to stay home and pay taxes.
- Gravity: It’s getting stronger, and going to pull the moon into the earth, because of too much building and flying around, so to keep the moon where it is, we have to stay home and pay taxes.
- The sun is going to go out unless we stay home and pay taxes.
Oops, forgot. Stay home, pay taxes and obey. I thought the government was servant of the public. Maybe it didn’t get the memo.
As the blog Science Musings, proved Evolution to be a fraud, this one proves that there is no AGW, man-made climate change.
As you know, climate is change. Unfortunately, the records don’t go back far enough to really get a handle on the trend! That is, anything we come up with in that regard isn’t likely to be statistically significant. However, we do have written descriptions of past centuries, and know that in 10th century England, they didn’t need fireplaces, grew grapes, and so on. That is, it was much warmer back then. So we are likely experiencing a cold spell at this time period (which may be why the fraudsters were pushing the idea of a “global ice-age,” back in the 1970s).
Nevertheless, despite all the facts, a Climatard has a number of tools at his disposal to “refute” them. That consists of the gamut of logical fallacies, including:
“That’s not true!”
“That’s not an official position!”
“That’s been refuted!” I particularly love this one. You’ll see it used all the time.
Yet there’s no backlash or punishment for their blatant lies. What’s odd is we find them contradicted by simple observation. For example, the claim that, “AGW is causing rising sea levels,” yet the shoreline, in every coastal city I’ve been in, is just exactly where it always has been, which means it’s the same everywhere. Yet they still claim “rising sea levels,” and if you call them on it, they’ll just lie and say they have risen.
Often, AGW proponents will claim that skeptics aren’t doing “proper” experiments to refute AGW claims. If so, explain those improprieties, and show exactly what is considered “proper.” Prove it up or shut up, Climatards!
Skeptics don’t have to continually devise new experiments and proofs contradicting AGW; the onus is on the person making the positive assertion, that man is adversely affecting the climate. It’s similar to the issues with the moon landing. There are plenty of reasons to question that — and the responsibility is on NASA to explain anomalies in their claims.
What’s the Agenda?
That’s the question everyone needs to ask when any frenzy gets underway, instead of default laziness and acceptance of royal proclamations by the scientific “elite.”
But Know This
We all can agree: Pollution is no good; work to eliminate that, not CO2, a substance essential to life.
Thank you. This was a great “read”. I have been following the nonsensical AGW issue for years now. How amazing that the Climatards (good descriptive word and not as insulting as “ignorant fool”) were able to come up with Climate Change which is a term we all can agree is descriptive. Catastrophic, of course, is another matter. I do hope that the Canadian judge makes a good decision for Dr. Ball, and that justice prevails for Mark Steyn as well. The hill to truth gets steeper and steeper, however. All the science textbooks in the schools from the earliest grades up have been rewritten. We have adults now like Ivanka Trump who only knows the science she learned in school. Despite the fact that the unnoticeable warming trend has paused for nearly 20 years now. (disregarding the last brief El Nino) the faux scientists are still the primary influence for the MSM, the schools, most government, the general public.
Thanks Barbara. Playing with language and corrupting education are a couple of their most potent tricks.
Sad to say, I don’t hold out much hope for justice prevailing in Canuckleheadistan.
Note: Barbara is referring to the trial described here:
Your approach is mild and reasonable but beware Mark’s hyperbole. I was amused by his ranting tone which reminds me very much of Trump’s method of shaking the complacent left, and infuriating the press who follow their words slavishly, out of their self-defined position of superiority.
However, if you really want the inside track on why many, many scientists are skeptical about the effects of mankind’s existence on climate change you should go to cool websites like Watts Up With That, Judith Curry’s Climate Etc, Roy Spencer’s blog, and (my favourite of the moment for rationality) euanmearns.com.
But don’t just get lulled into complacency by Mark’s anti-scientific robust humour, which nevertheless has its place in the great fight against left wing extremist environmentalism.
P.S. Mark, if you really do believe any of your outrageous scientific claims I am happy to correspond with you politely via email.
David, I sometimes wonder if I’m not explaining myself well when someone picks a certain point, and runs with it, drawing conclusions that are inexplicable. I’d like to know what “outrageous scientific claims” I’m supposedly making. In fact this article is laid out to provide a specific series of points for the naysayer to refute, if those points are wrong.
Well, despite that, I’m still willing to clarify. The purpose of the article is to be utterly PRO-scientific. Anti-scientific ESTABLISHMENT, maybe, where it is wrong. But the master key to science is LOGIC.
Logic is sorely lacking in the “left wing extremist” arguments. Here, we’re trying to build a framework of logic, as articles accumulate, over time, in the “Science” category. (It would be informative for you to read the article “Science Musings” on this site.)
Despite the poor logic of the arguments, the game being played by the “left wing” is far superior to that of its opposition. Fear tactics, deception, bombast and tireless repetition of canards work well. And the reliance on confusion strategies is also key.
You provided a list of websites above, and people can go there, and to other sites, and spend endless hours researching, debating and soul-searching, but ultimately, they’re going to have to get grounded and realize they’re being played — by being tricked into endless hours of research, debate, soul-searching…
Here, we’re suggesting avoidance of fruitless endeavors. Simply concentrate on the facts, and the “warmist” extremists’ deceptions all disappear.
For example, concentrate on the advertised consequences of AGW. As I’ve mentioned before, the ocean is claimed to be rising. So why aren’t there markers in place, showing high and low water points, on piers in coastal towns, to prove this assertion one way or another?
As always, if you have criticisms of specific “claims,” made herein, lay them out SPECIFICALLY, otherwise it’s just blowing smoke.
Mark, I have just read your comment on “watts up with that” about the Al Gore experiment. I agree entirely with your comment that CO2 in the atmosphere will also block incoming long wave radiation, and importantly it does not get hotter than the surface because of this and radiate the heat to the earth’s surface to cause additional heating.
There was an experiment on BBC TV in a recent series about weather forecasting called “Storm Troupers” in which Prof Andrea Sella, a chemist at Imperial College London performed a simple experiment to demonstrate the claimed heat trapping effect of CO2. He had a light to represent the sun and a piece of gun cotton to represent the earth’s surface. He held the gun cotton in the light been and it bust into flame indicating that light contained heat. But it involved a piece of trickery. It needed a magnifying glass to focus the light. Without it the experiment would have failed. He then placed a glass tube containing CO2 in the beam and this time the gun cotton did not burst into flame. Proof he said that CO2 traps heat. It did not show this. It demonstrated that CO2 scattered the light around the laboratory and the magnifying glass could not collect it to perform the trick. No attempt was made to measure the temperature of the CO2 and show that heat had been trapped. Of course if it had been trapped then to prove global warming it would have to radiate the heat to the gun cotton and set it alight. Unfortunately, there isn’t a video of this on the internet. There is a similar experiment, also performed on the BBC, by Dr Iain Stewart, involving a candle a glass tube containing firstly air and the CO2 and a thermal camera, which is available on the internet. This was more trickery worthy of a magic act. The thermal camera does not detect the temperature of the air, but did detect the CO2 but we were told nothing of the temperatures. You can find an article by Dr Jonathan P. Hare on the internet explaining how he set up the experiment to show the effect.
You can add my favorite – Why does the moon appear bigger (significantly) close to the horizon?
Highly energetic article, I loved that a lot. Will there be a part 2?