Response to Scott Adams; The CO2isLife Top 5 Skeptical Arguments

Top-5-Lists

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame recently sent out a request for the top 5 skeptical or pro-global warming arguments. His challenge can be seen here:

Scott Adams on Climate Change Persuasion; Cudos to Tony Heller

Tony Heller’s Top 5 List; The Five Top Arguments Against Climate Alarmism (Source)

mlo_full_record jpg

#1) The global community has spent literally trillions of dollars, both directly and indirectly through regulation and opportunity costs trying to reduce CO2 emissions. The benefits of those expenditures cannot even be measured. The trend of CO2 simply remains unaltered by climate change spending. That money is being spent on the highly speculative belief that man can actually alter atmospheric CO2, a level many believe is dictated by the oceans, and not man through a relationship called “Henry’s Law.” The point being, that even if global warming is a real threat, spending money on reducing carbon emissions doesn’t seem to deliver any benefits. Society would be better served spending money on climate change mitigation like reinforcing dams, desalination plants, forest management to prevent fires, and of course building schools, hospitals, roads, and critical infrastructure. (More)

Green New Deal Cost of Changing a Lightbulb? $1,973. No, that is not a Typo or very Bad Joke.

Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?

How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

EPA Climate Model Shows ‘Green New Deal’ Would Avert a ‘Barely Detectable’ Amount of Global Warming (Source)

The Benefits of CO2 (Source)

IPCC Demands $240/gal Gasoline Tax While France Burns

Democrats are Determined to Repeat the Failure of France and Europe and Destroy the Trump Economic Miracle

What has the World Gotten for its Climate Change Dollars? Absolutely Nothing

Bjorn Lomborg: UN climate officials admit ‘Paris agreement will leave 99% of the problem unsolved’ at ‘a very, very high cost’

The most amazing greening on Earth

A2

#2) Global temperature records are “adjusted” on a biblical scale, rendering them effectively useless in any real field of science. Conclusions based on garbage data are simply garbage. Fortunately, the physics of a CO2 molecule are constant, as is the concentration throughout the atmosphere. CO2 produced today has the same physical properties of CO2 produced 1,000s of years ago. CO2 is 410 ppm at the N Pole, S Pole, Equator, Surface, and 70 km up. In other words, the effect of CO2 is constant no matter where you are on earth, so you don’t need 1,000s of measurement units, you simply need 1 data set that has been measured and recorded in a constant fashion throughout time without any major changes to the surrounding environment. That location is Central England which is the longest continuous instrumental record of temperature. The Central England data set shows no relationship between CO2 and temperature since 1650, and current temperatures are at or below levels reached in the 1600s.

No real science would have 98% of the experts agree if they knew cherry picking and manipulating the data was required to support their position.

Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS

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

Understand the Oceans, Understand the Climate, NO CO2 Needed

CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does

Holocene-Cooling-Antarctica-Schneider-2006

#3) Atmospheric temperatures show warming due to many factors other than CO2. Water vapor is by far the most potent greenhouse gas and has been increasing due to the “greening” of the N. Hemisphere. The urban heat island effect can cause warming as hot roads and buildings replace cooling grasslands and forests. The sun cycles, cosmic rays, and clouds also alter the atmospheric temperatures. To adjust for those factors one needs to identify a location that controls for the urban heat island effect and water vapor. That “control” is Antarctica where there is no heat island effect, no water vapor, and CO2 that is identical to the rest of the globe. The temperatures in Antarctica show no warming what so ever since the 1800s when records began, and CO2 was around 40% lower.

No real science relies upon computer models and forecasts as “evidence.” The 98% of climate scientist have no explanation as to why higher CO2 had no impact on temperatures in Antarctica. They simply ignore inconvenient facts.

Isolating the Contribution of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature

Scientific Way to Discredit Use of Ground Measurements

Ceteris Paribus; Less is More, Use Only Data Sets That Don’t Require “Adjustments.”

Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact

How Does 140 Years of Stable Temperatures Prove Man Made CO2 is Melting the Greenland Glaciers?

HS1

#4) The Hockeystick chart, on which most of this Climate Change Hoax is based, is some of the most damning evidence against CO2 being the cause of warming. The Hockeystick chart shows two distinct “dog-legs.” The first dog-leg occurs in 1902 and coincides with the addition of instrumental records (we will ignore the obvious data manipulation of not including the instrumental record that exists prior to 1902) and the second dog-leg occurs when all proxies are dropped in 1980. The dog-legs occur along with the data composition adjustments. There is no physical explanation as to why temperatures would dog-leg without a corresponding dog-leg in CO2. The trend in temperatures makes dramatic trend changes, yet the trend in CO2 remained constant. Clearly, something other than the CO2 molecule must have caused the dog-legs. The physics of the CO2 molecule, and its absorption of long-wave infrared electromagnetic radiation, simply don’t support dog-legs in the temperature graphic.

No real science would reach a 98% consensus based upon such garbage data, and the malfeasance exposed in the Climategate emails. Anyway, consensus doesn’t prove anything, the evidence does. No matter how many experts agreed the earth was flat, it made no difference to reality. The very fact that Climate Science relies on computer models and consensus pretty much proves they are anti-science. Real science depends on credible evidence and data, experimentation, and reproducibility. Climate science has none of the hallmarks associated with real science.

Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Rules out CO2 as Cause of Global Warming

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam; Exposing Climate Sophistry

Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct

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

The Winning Strategy to Defeating Climate Sophist Michael Mann

Countering the Michael Mann Straw Man Arguments

co2_modtrans_img1

5) Real science doesn’t rely on absolute levels, they measure the marginal changes. Real science looks at the ΔY for a ΔX, or change in Y for a change in X. If one looks at the “adjustments” to the global temperatures, they are all done so in order to make temperatures more linear. By making them more linear, the models that relate CO2 to temperature produce better results. CO2 is linear, and it is pretty hard to manipulate that data because it is virtually constant around the globe. Temperatures are anything but linear, so to make the case that CO2 and Temperatures are related, the temperature data needs to be “adjusted” to make the data set more linear. The problem is, the absolute level of CO2 isn’t what matters. CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere, the amount of long-wave infrared electromagnetic radiation that the CO2 absorbs is what warms the atmosphere. The marginal absorption of long-wave infrared electromagnetic radiation by CO2 isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. What that means is that each additional CO2 molecule added to the atmosphere absorbs LESS long-wave infrared electromagnetic radiation. This is the law of diminishing marginal returns. CO2 is like taking aspirin. The first one reduces the pain by 90%, and next one 5%, and on and on until taking an additional aspirin will actually make you sick. The fact that the physics of the CO2 molecule doesn’t support a linear trend in temperatures, and yet all the temperature “adjustments” work to make the temperature more linear pretty much proves this is scientific fraud. The “adjustments” are made to accommodate the models, not the real physics of the CO2 molecule and the greenhouse gas effect.

4 Graphs That Demonstrate Why The IPCC Climate Models Will NEVER Be Accurate

Climate Crisis? Al Gore and Michael Mann Fail Science 101

Climate “Science” Pillars of Sand; Eroding the Foundation of the Hoax

Bonus Items:

1ab

6) Temperatures have been extremely volatile during the Holocene. There is nothing abnormal about the volatility over the past 150 years. Most of the volatility occurred with stable CO2, proving something other than CO2 causes extreme changes in climate. One can simply test the ice core data for the Null Hypothesis “Man is not causing climate change” and it will not be rejected using the scientific method.

IS GLOBAL WARMING THEORY SCIENTIFIC?

A Nobel Prize in Science Winning Climate Experiment; An Open Challenge to Settle the Science

WHY WON’T LIBERALS LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE?

Freeman Dyson on Climate Change; “Those People Don’t Look at the Observations, They are in a World of Their Own.”

112f0-600millyears

7) The geological record shows that CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm, and earth NEVER experienced catastrophic warming. The earth fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 ppm, or nearly 10x the level of today. CO2 and temperatures are simply not related on a geologic scale.

h2o-and-temperature-cross

8) Water vapor and atmospheric temperatures are almost indistinguishable. Where there is water vapor there is warmth. CO2 is constant throughout the atmosphere and cannot cause this type of temperature profile.

spencer-models-epic-fail2-628x353

9) If something is understood, it can be modeled. Climate models fail miserably and will continue to fail miserably because CO2 and Temperatures aren’t linearly related. As time passes, it is a 100% certainty that the difference between the measured UNADJUSTED temperatures and the predicted model results will INCREASE. Any real science with a 98% consensus would be able to model the system of which they claim to be experts.

Austria’s ZAMG Meteorology And Geodynamics Institute Concedes Climate Models Not Reliable (Source)

Computer Model Output Doesn’t Change the Physical Reality

Predictably, Climate Data Fails Audit

edc_thumb

10) Al Gore’s chart demonstrates that A) Temperatures LEAD CO2 by between 800 and 1,500 years and B) Change is the normal condition for the Climate. An unchanging climate doesn’t exist in the geological record. Mother Nature simply likes climatic variations, and trying to stop natural cycles is probably the most idiotic idea ever conceived by mankind.

Any real science knows that the cause always has to lead the effect. The 98% Consensus Climate Scientists effectively believe lung-cancer causes smoking.

97 Percent

11) Simply follow the money and where the power shifts.

The Ever Changing “Settled” Science; How Can a “Settled” Science need Continual Updating?

6 Charts That Prove Results Don’t Matter to Progressives

GE was once America’s most valuable company. Today it is fighting junk-bond status.

Communist China caught funding US environmental groups to undermine military

Chinese Communist Party Funds Washington Think Tanks

The Real Scandal is How Green Activists Distort the Scientific Truth

Please post this on Scott Adams’ Twitter and Blog

This is what happens with climate change, the promoters of the global warming hoax don’t refute the arguments of the skeptics, they attack the skeptic personally and professionally. Scott Adams approach helps to change all this. He is providing a positive and constructive way to address this extremely important public policy and spending issue.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Response to Scott Adams; The CO2isLife Top 5 Skeptical Arguments”

    1. How about Michael Chrichton’s State of Fear. Fiction, yes, but a great intro into the subject. This book is likely palatable to many as it is a decent suspense thriller, while opening up a window into politics, power and the environmentalist movement.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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