Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam; Exposing Climate Sophistry

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam is a favorite tactic of the climate alarmists. As long as people don’t have the ability to differentiate between sound scientific arguments and pure nonsense, the climate change gravy train will keep rolling. This Blog post will dismantle the common arguments of the climate alarmists. Note, the video clips all start at different times to highlight the comments.

In the above clip, David Appell outlines the Climate Alarmist’s claims.

  1. Extreme weather
  2. Man is totally responsible for the warming
  3. Climate change is happening
  4. We can solve this problem
  5. Africa harmed most what do we owe the poor

Each one of those claims is pure nonsense.

  1. The weather has not been becoming more extreme, and if it is, it is due to the warming oceans. CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns don’t warm water. Source
  2. Man is not totally responsible for the warming, CO2 and temperatures are simply not related, nor is outgoing LWIR. Source
  3. Climate change is happening, and climate change is the norm. Never in the history of the earth has the climate not been in flux. Source
  4. There is no way for man to stop climate change any more than they have the ability to alter the seasons and night and day. Controlling CO2 will do nothing to slow the change of the climate. Source
  5. Africa and the poor stand to benefit most from CO2 and its production. CO2 increases crop yields and lower the cost of food. Buring fossil fuels is the lowest cost way to greatly increase the standard of living of the poor. Source

In the above clip, David defends Jim Hansen claiming he was not wrong. Hansen was totally wrong, here is the source reviewing his predictions. David however also mentioned the physics and science of the Greenhouse Gas Effect. The Greenhouse Gas Effect is the radiative transfer and conversion of energy and has both a warming and cooling effect. In the dense atmosphere where the thermalization of LWIR can result in conduction and convection, the effect is to warm the atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere, where the air is thin, the Greenhouse Gas Effect acts to rapidly remove energy from the atmosphere. The main impact of CO2 is in the thin stratosphere, and its effect is to COOL the atmosphere. Source

CO2 has no impact on the temperature of the lower troposphere. Source

David also seems to be unaware that as CO2 INCREASED so did outgoing longwave radiation. Source The following are the relevant charts. No matter how you look at the following charts, the case isn’t made for CO2 trapping heat. If it did, the OLR chart would be all red bars of increasing length as you go from left to right.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

David then bizarrely went into chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs were claimed to increase the ozone hole and banned in 1987, which later hit a record size in 2006.  The ozone hole is over the South Pole. There has been no warming in Antarctica for over 50 years. Source

The banning of CFCs did nothing to stop the increase on the Ozone Hole or change in temperatures in Antarctica, in fact, it looks like banning CFCs may have resulted in the warming using the climate alarmists logic.

History of the IPCC Models is awful. Source

David in the above clip addresses the “Pause” and claims it was due to a measuring error in ocean temperatures. That alone should give any real scientist “pause” to accept the basis of the science. Strangely, CO2 has increased throughout the 20th Century and David mentions that there have been 7 pauses. CO2 can’t cause pauses, it can only trap more and more heat according to the climate alarmists. David can’t explain how CO2 can cause a pause. If the data is unreliable, the conclusions are unreliable, GIGO. How do we know they won’t “adjust” the data to show actual cooling? If you are “adjusting” data it means you are 1) introducing an error into the data and 2) it proves you don’t believe the raw data is accurate.


For some reason, only the most recent “pause” was due to the measuring methodology. Anyway, I accept that the oceans are warming. The oceans are warmed by incoming visible radiation, not outgoing LWIR. Source

The warming oceans are the greatest arguments against CO2. Source

In this clip, Chuck highlights how David relies upon the highly flawed ground and ocean measurements. David even admitted that there are measuring problems which resulted in the “pause.”

David when mentioned that 0.18 is substantial warming when in reality it is well within the norm of the natural variation. Satelite temperatures were actually below the 30 years mean as recently as 2012. If this event was held a few months in the future, it is likely that they would be talking about falling temperatures over the past 30 years. Lastly, the variations are due to ocean cycles and have nothing to do with CO2. CO2 simply can’t explain the variation in temperatures.


Most interesting about that clip, however, is that David mentions that temperatures increase more over land than oceans. CO2 is 409 ppm over both land and oceans, so CO2 can’t be the cause of that temperature differential. The increased warming over the land has to be due to the Urban Heat Island or other effects. It can’t be due to CO2. BTW, the Astronaughts caused warming on the Moon, clearly demonstrating how small non-CO2 driven natural changes can cause warming. Source

When you control for both H2O and the Urban Heat Island Effect all the warming over the past 100 disappears. Source

The above clip address the Urban Heat Island Effect and measurement issues. It is important to note that all the sources I’m linking to were written well in advance of this show. The problems and concepts are well known to everyone, yet David just keeps spewing garbage that is known to be false. Here is a funny example of the problems with ground measurements being distorted by an Icecream Truck engine heat. Source

There are also plenty of other examples that David simply ignores, relying upon people not checking his facts. So far, I have plenty of posts do defend Chuck and none to defend David.

Ceteris Paribus and Global Warming; Ground Measurements are Garbage

Climate “Science” on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming

Michael Mann Used Well Known Deceitful Statistics to Create the Hockey Stick

In the above clip, Chuck mentions the outgoing LWIR and the Stratospheric Hotspot as requirements for CO2 to be the driver. These following two posts support Chuck’s claim.

CO2 Driven Greenhouse Gas Effect Can’t Explain Global Warming; Source NOAA

Climate “Science” on Trial; Evidence Shows CO2 COOLS the Atmosphere

Here is the actual NOAA graphic of OLR. It is clearly unrelated to CO2 and highly correlated to the El Nino and La Nina ocean cycles.


David in this clip refutes the above NOAA OLR chart, claiming that the CO2 wavelengths are actually trapping the heat. Given that if the total outgoing INCREASES, even if CO2 traps some heat, the total outgoing still INCREASES. You can’t blame the warming on the Greenhouse Gas Effect is outgoing OLR it INCREASING!!! The warming has to be due to more energy being added to the system, ie more incoming visible radiation.

Anyway, as mentioned above, the Greenhouse Gas Effect of CO2 occurs in the upper Tropo lower Stratosphere, and its effect is to COOL the atmosphere by speeding the LWIR out of the atmosphere. Here is the graphic to refute David’s claims. CO2 absorbs the wavenumbers between 600 and 700. CO2 has no impact on the lower atmosphere at all due to the overwhelming dominance of H20 which also absorbs wavenumbers between 600 and 700. What slight warming can be attributed to CO2 is up over 3km where H20 is absent and the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18 microns prevents the atmosphere from falling below -80 degrees C. CO2 puts in a temperature floor, it doesn’t cause warming.


Here is the data that actually supports Chuck’s comment. An increase in CO2 has corresponded with an increase in OLR. Those are simply the facts, and consistent with the physics of the atmosphere. CO2 cools the atmosphere, here is the data. David can quote as many studies as he wants, simply look at the data. OLR isn’t closely related to CO2.


David seems to rely on studies when all you have to do is look at the data.

David in this video claims that the Medieval Warming Period was not global. If that is the case, clearly something other that CO2 can cause major climate disruptions. Those same undefined issues could be causing the warming today. So much for settled science. Anyway, the Ice Core Data I’ve looked at shows the Medieval Warming in the S Hemi, as well as many other sources as well.

More evidence that the Medieval Warming Period was global, not regional

The data source most associated with the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age or lack thereof, the Hockeystick, is a complete joke.

The Winning Strategy to Defeating Climate Sophist Michael Mann

David clearly states that because there are no naturally known factors that could be causing the warming, and in fact, we should be cooling due to a quiet sun. I just wrote a post addressing this concept explaining how a quiet sun can still result in warming. His statement that there are no known natural reasons ignores that the atmosphere is much more transparent than in the past. Source

David’s comments are simply not supported by the facts. Much more visible radiation has been reaching the oceans, even as it has fallen asleep.


Closing Arguments:

Evidence of warming isn’t evidence CO2 and Man are causing it. CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas that cools the atmosphere through radiation more easily passing out of the atmosphere than towards the surface. That is what is supported by the evidence and data. We have plenty of well-supported posts that support Chuck and none that support David.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment


8 thoughts on “Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam; Exposing Climate Sophistry”

  1. Fascinating.

    David Appell seems like he has the potential to be a nice person, in total contrast to his blog comment presence. (But then some might say that about me, at times, though I am working on it.)

    Also, he is obviously WAY out of his depth here.

    Finally, gotta hand it to him to come to a debate and appear in public, though, especially as wrong as he is.

    No recriminations. He lost fair and square, and that’s sufficient.

    Thanks for the video


    1. Thanks for the comment. I tried to just keep the critique to the data and facts. I don’t know either of the people in the video, but the data and statements they provided was a golden opportunity to actually critique the arguments of the skeptics and alarmists. Rarely do you find an alarmist to actually go on the record, and actually provide anything other than consensus, settled science, and ad hominem attacks.


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