To Win The Climate Debate The Right Question Must Be Asked; How is CO2 the Cause?


The recent event featuring Dr. Curry, Dr. Moore, Dr. Mann and Dr. Titley highlights the problems real climate scientists face. (Click Here) The general public aren’t climate scientists, most don’t have much of an understanding of science, most are not climate junkies that follow this issue, so they don’t have the background to understand good climate science from sophistry. The public can easily be fooled when you line up a group of people with Ph.Ds each giving completely different opinions. The public has been conditioned to simply trust people with Ph.Ds, they are supposed to be honest and experts, so if one Ph.D is a real scientist and the other Ph.D is a sophist and political activist, the truth is hard to reach and easy to obfuscate.

Michael Mann is an expert climate sophist (Click Here), and is very well versed in the tactic of the progressive political left. (Click Here) (Click Here) (Click Here) That is what makes him so effective, he masks his political activism behind the facade of being a Ph.D level scientist. He is the Academic equivalent of the FBI Agent Peter Strzok (Click Here). It is simply hard to get people to believe a scientist is so completely and absolutely corrupt, and unfortunately, we don’t have an IG report to prove this issue beyond a reasonable doubt. People don’t want to accept that their heroes are actually truly despicable people. (Click Here)

Michael Mann thrives in the shadows because no one has been able to effectively expose his fraud. Even the leaked Climategate emails with damning evidence like “Mike’s Nature Trick to…Hide the Decline” did little to slow his progress. In fact, he has been rewarded since those events. He literally gets rewards for bad scientific behavior. (Click Here) (Click Here)

Because the general public can easily be misled and confused with debates that put scientists and sophists on even footing, trying to debate the science in public isn’t likely to be too successful, and has allowed the extremely well funded and connected sophists to fight issue to a draw. The public simply doesn’t have the background, interest, and expertise to separate fact from fiction, and that plays into the hands of the sophists. Real climate scientists need to dumb down their arguments, they need to stop acting like they are lecturing to a science class and start acting like they are in a political campaign or expert witness in a trial where you need to convince an uninformed jury. It is worth noting that the recent climate debate wasn’t hosted by the University, but by a law firm. If law firms are allowed to claim Michael Mann is an “expert” witness, consumers and social risk to lose fortunes based on junk science.

How then do climate scientists do this? The answer is simple, ask the right questions. Focus on the issues that are easiest to understand and deliver the greatest bang for the bucks. Climate Science is a science, and the Green House Gas (GHG) Effect has a clearly defined mechanism, keep the discussion focused on how CO2 and the GHG Effect can cause the observation. The following is a case study on his this is done.

The introductory graphic is of Antarctica, and East Antarctica has been gaining ice mass and West Antarctica has been losing ice mass. (Click Here)

NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally says his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.

A dishonest climate sophist like Micheal Mann will almost certainly present a one-sided argument focusing on the loss of ice mass in West Antarctica and never mention the gains in East Antarctica. In the construction of the Hockey Stick, he simply didn’t use instrumental data prior to 1902 (Click Here). He also Cherry Picked the ideal time period of the past 1,000 years, and ignored the other 14,000 years of the Holocene. (Click Here) That is a very simple and effective tactic to mislead the public. West Antarctica Ice mass goes down, CO2 goes up. That is all a Climate sophist has to say and the media, environmental groups, Universities, and the Democratic Party will repeat it 1,000x for him.

Problem is it isn’t supported by the science behind CO2 and the GHG Effect.

First: CO2 evenly blankets the globe with 400 ppm. CO2 can’t cause temperature differentials over relatively close locations. CO2 in any model would be constant at any given time. CO2 is 400 ppm in East Antarctica and CO2 is 400 ppm in West Antarctica. Unless Michael Mann is forced to explain how 400 ppm CO2 can cause different effects in East and West Antarctica he can get away with his sophistry. The physics are the same regardless of there you are located.

Second, a great deal of continuous heat is required to melt ice. Ice won’t melt if temperatures are below 0.00°C. Antarctica, both East and West, has atmospheric temperatures well below 0.00°C most of, if not, all of the year. At the time of this writing, no place on Antarctica is above 0.00°C. (Click Here) CO2 warms the atmosphere, not the oceans, so the GHG Effect can’t be blamed for the loss of Antarctic ice mass. If you notice where the heat is concentrated around Antarctica is in the water, especially under the West Antarctica ice shelves. There are active volcanoes in that area. (Click Here) (Click Here) (Click Here). The oceans and geothermal activity is responsible for the loss of ice mass, not CO2. CO2 doesn’t cause volcanic eruptions nor does it warm water. (Click Here) (Click Here). If you can’t explain how CO2 is causing the oceans to warm, or volcanoes to erupt, you can’t claim CO2 is the cause of the ice loss. (Click Here) (Click Here)


Third, CO2 is 400 ppm at both the N and S Pole, yet only the N Pole is showing any warming. Are the physics of the CO2 molecule different at the N Pole than they are at the S Pole? Nope. What then is the difference? The N Pole floats on water. Warm water has been transferring heat to the N Pole. Once again, CO2 and its GHG Effect can’t and doesn’t warm water. (Click Here)

Forth, many glaciers are disappearing, and they are disappearing is areas with sub 0.00°C temperatures. Glaciers don’t melt in sub 0.00°C temperatures. Blow dry air on ice in a freezer and the ice will undergo a process called “sublimation” and essentially evaporate. That is what is causing the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier to disappear. The Mt Kilimanjaro glacier is at 19,340 ft, well above the freeze line, and Michael Mann and all the other climate sophists know that fact, yet they let the myth persist that it is melting due to global warming and CO2. They essentially lie through their silence. The myth supports their case, so they do nothing to correct the public’s ignorance.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Fifth, CO2 only defined mechanism by which to impact the climate is through the thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR, that is it. Thermalization can only cause warming, there is no mechanism defined by which the GHG Effect and thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR can cause cooling in the lower atmosphere. CO2, however, does, in fact, cause cooling in the stratosphere by speeding the transfer of energy to outer space. (Click Here) Simply by challenging Michael Mann and other climate sophists to always answer the question “how does the thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR in the atmosphere cause that effect” real climate scientists will be able to direct the conversation back to the real science and the real issue. The real issue isn’t if glaciers are melting and if the globe is warming, the real issues are is CO2 the cause and what can be done about it.

Climate sophistry isn’t limited to Michael Mann, it is pervasive in the field of Climate Activism. Just recently Dr. Myles Allen did a phenomenal job providing a case study in Climate Sophistry. A point by point rebuttal can be found in an earlier post. (Click Here) (Click Here) (Click Here). The fact that a Ph.D. would practice sophistry in a court of law pretty much proves they feel comfortable lying about this issue to forward their cause. The best analogy is the behavior of the FBI agents who believed Hillary was going to be president so they acted with impunity thinking they would be protected by her once she got elected. That approach was wrong for the FBI and it is wrong for Climate Sophists. While it is unlikely we will ever get an IG like report that exposes the systemic corrupting in the field of Climate Activism, real scientists can fight the good fight by presenting the arguments in  “plain English” so everyone can understand the issue, and to keep the Climate Sophists explaining how the thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR can cause the effect they are using to promote their myth and lies.

Just because glaciers are melting, the oceans and atmosphere are warming, doesn’t mean man-made CO2 is the cause. Keep the discussion on the how and why of how CO2 is the cause. If climate sophists are simply allowed to list the effects of warming, and not tie it to the cause being the thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR, they will be able to continue to mislead the public, judges, juries, and voters. If that happens, we all lose.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment.

7 thoughts on “To Win The Climate Debate The Right Question Must Be Asked; How is CO2 the Cause?”

  1. While I agree with this post in general, I disagree that “Real climate scientists need to dumb down their arguments.”

    Real climate scientists need to do real climate science, in their own culture and venues. That’s how science is done, and that’s how our knowledge of the Universe(s) advances. We need more real science, published and peer reviewed, to offset the overwhelming raft of dumb science writing.

    What is needed, rather than dumbed down science, is smarted up science writers, like you and, well, me!


    1. No argument there, I was referring to public debates. It doesn’t do anyone any good to speak over the audience’s heads and lose them. All good speakers know how best to communicate with their audience.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s