If climate change is a hoax, why do so many scientists say it’s happening?
Of course you mean CO2-driven climate change, not mere climate change, which has been happening forever due to all kinds of natural forces.
It’s the claim that despite being a trace element in the atmosphere (0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}), CO2 single-handedly drives climate change, specifically, global warming.
Such scientists usually citing the loaded term ‘greenhouse gas,’ when the atmosphere has never been a greenhouse – it’s more like a great chimney that removes the heat deposited by the Sun and works whether there’s CO2 in the atmosphere or not.
Almost if not all of the scientists who promote the CO2 AGW theory including at the U.S. agencies NASA (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) in New York City and NOAA in Silver Spring, Maryland are owned by the U.N. and its IPCC colossus, which was founded by Canadian environmentalist Marxist Maurice Strong specifically to foist Marxist world govt. using the environment as the excuse. The IPCC is not a body of scientists but of politicians who tell scientists what conclusions to reach. The conspiracy traces back to the Malthusian Club of Rome. The NASA climate outfit was founded by James Hansen, a friend of Strong and Al Gore, who famously spooked Congress in 1988 with claims of a coming climate apocalypse despite almost no evidence, and set the issue on fire with the general public, allowing Gore to take it to the top with his climate alarmist moose hockey followed by a shared Nobel Prize with the IPCC, making Gore a millionaire and helping IPCC gain massive funding for its criminal enterprise with a thousand hydra heads. What a setup.
“The AGW climate scare of the last 30 years did not come to the forefront from individual scientists beginning to coalesce around the idea that rising levels of CO2 might pose a serious future climate threat to society. This threat was, by contrast, imposed upon the world from ‘above’ by the coming together of globally influential politicians, environmentalists, internationalists, etc. who knew little about climate but saw great political opportunities by using the rising CO2 levels as a scare tactic in order to exercise control over them. People respond best out of fear. But lasting response to fear must have a firm basis in truth. The AGW scare does not.” – Colo. State U. atmospheric scientist William M. Gray (1929-2016) The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory and Deep Ocean Circulation Changes as the Primary Climate Driver
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Wikipedia
UN IPCC is ‘a purely political body posing as a scientific institution’ – Book excerpt
Goddard Institute for Space Studies – Wikipedia
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Wikipedia
Al Gore’s Predictions Of Doom Scramble His Message
Gore Says His Global Warming Predictions Have Come True? Can He Prove It?
Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’
The Misanthropic Bankers Behind The Green New Deal
The Green New Deal: Less About Climate, More About Control
If Environmentalism is a Religion, Climate Change is Original Sin | PSI Intl
Follow the money behind climate alarmism and carbon tax proposals
Follow the (Climate Change) Money | PSI Intl
Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism’s Imminent Demise
Climate breakdown, capitalism and democracy
Frontal Assault on Our Standard of Living: Multi-billionaires Are Financing ‘Climate Protectors’!
People and Data Cherry-Picked For the IPCC Political Agenda
Why Is climate skpeticism more common among right-wing conservatives? | Opinion
The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish scientist Alexander King, but really by billionaire shadow dark lord of Mordor David Rockefeller. It has the goal of ending democracy as we know it in favor of a world govt. run by elitists like him that can reduce the human population to levels they alone set after they gain power through manufactured crises. In 1992 after their plans got going, the U.N. promulgated Agenda 21, a supposedly non-binding plan for the 21st century, which smart people see through as a plan for Marxist world govt. under guise of controlling runaway climate.
“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” – The First Global Revolution
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” – The First Global Revolution
https://ia800202.us.archive.org/…
The IPCC controls lifetime salaries, and has had decades to hone its act, and while the basic physics has always been against the theory, they try to steer you away from that with mountains of tampered temperature data and graphs that try to match the rise in atmospheric CO2 with an alleged rise in global avg. temps, although a few smart skeptics question if there is such a thing as a global temperature, and even NASA only claims 0.8C total rise since 1880, which is greater, er, less than the uncertainty in the data. Their real con game is to play Svengali and pretend to predict catastrophic temperature rises by 2100.
World of Change: Global Temperatures
The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part XXIV | PSI Intl
NASA Posts Climate Alarmist Graph On Facebook | PSI Intl
The colossus has long gained a stranglehold on academia and academic journals, no different than what Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia are doing now, shutting down any real debate on the issue and flooding the public space with pro-CO2 AGW material that’s often peer-reviewed (pal-reviewed) by their buddy club. Meanwhile hordes of Communist agitprop artists are busy flooding Quora and others of the remaining free forums with pro-CO2 AGW agitprop under control of their handlers, making it hard for the few independent voices like mine to gain an audience.
Science’s Untold Scandal: Professional Societies’ Sell Out on Climate Change | PSI Intl
Journal “Nature Communications” Climate Blacklist
Holtzbrinck & Bertelsmann: Agents of German Climate Imperialism | PSI Intl
Vilifying People Who Question Global Warming Is Anti-Science | PSI Intl
Blacklisting Climate Skeptics Will Not Work
Selling the truth for an image and a lifestyle | PSI Intl
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
A quote from the Daily Caller (Michael Mann And His Tree-Ring Circus | PSI Intl):
[[Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.]]
[[“Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons…]]
[[Lindzen compares global warming to past politicized scientific movements: the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union under Stalin. However, the MIT professor argues that global warming goes even beyond what these past movements in terms of twisting science.]]
[[“Global Warming has become a religion,” writes Lindzen. “A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”]]
But the truth is out there if you systematically ignore the IPCC colossus and search for independent voices, which include many scientists who have spent decades searching for the truth and totally dispute the IPCC line.
The colossus likes to claim you’re nuts for believing there’s a conspiracy, as if you’re dumber than a box of rocks. They rely on you having a closed mind and swallowing their lies while blocking out critics. If you’re smart and brave enough to think for yourself, here’s some starting places:
Fake news: an open letter to the Editor of the Washington Post
The National Climate Assessment Disagrees With NYT That Heatwaves Are Getting Worse
You Don’t Need A Science Degree To Know That Global Warming ‘Science’ Is Fake | PSI Intl
Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA
Climate scientists fiddling the data again and again and again and again
Tony Heller’s Climate Forecast From Three Years Ago | PSI Intl
Climate Alarmists Panicked Over “Climate Review Panel”
Dozens Of Scientists, Orgs Rally Behind Trump’s Planned Climate Change Panel
Four (More) Cases Where Climate Scientists Have ‘Warmed’ The Earth
On the gargantuan lie of climate change science
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules The Climate | PSI Intl
CO2 Data Manipulation | PSI Intl
Another Experiment Proving CO2 is Innocent of Climate Change | PSI Intl
Journalism’s Contribution to the Rise of Climate Alarm
TL Winslow’s answer to Why do people believe in climate change?
I’ve disproved the CO2 AGW theory for anybody who knows some physics. Why are you holding out when it’s free?
TLW’s Two Cents Worth on Climate Change
Here’s my free list of climate change blogs on all sides, the best place to start navigating the vast subject on your own:
Where do I find all these neat articles? From my own free blog on climate change, the freest on the Net, keeping anybody up on the daily action.
The Antarctic Volcanoes Project Blog
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Pierre D. Bernier
| #
I don’t know why this stupidity has gone on for so long. Any scientist having done a minimum of spectrophotometry knows that the energy absorbrd by any product is fast released in all directions. None is kept. Those scientists who claim AGW is real are a disgrace to science, or they don’t know the first thing about spectrophotometry. In any way they are a disgrace.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Excellent article TL.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
As Detective Columbo might say:
“Before I go, I’m confused and thought you might help me clarify a few things?”
1) How does a gas with a lower ‘Specific Heat’ than its surrounding gases absorb more heat (energy) than them?
2) If the sun shining on half of the Earth all day is approximately 480 Watts, which would translate into a surface heat of 30 deg C, is not accepted by AGW ‘scientists’, then why is the highest temperature of the oceans between 26-30 deg C?
Thank you for any insight.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
1) Because gases with lower specific heat capacities take less energy to raise temperature by 1°C.
Actually, per mole, CO2 had a higher heat capacity than O2 or N2.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Thank you, Zoe.
A ‘Short Stop’ in baseball catches balls quickly, then throws them quickly to another player. Imagine CO2 as a ‘Short Stop’. Does the ‘energy’ in the atmosphere change because the ‘Short Stop’ throws the energy balls around faster?
Or, are you suggesting that if we put chips of aluminum (high thermal conductivity) into a pot of steel chips (lower thermal conductivity) over a hot flame, then the steel will melt faster?
I’m open to ideas.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
I like analogies, so let’s discuss camels.
Dry air has a ‘Specific Heat’ of 0.718 (metric units). Dry air is a camel with one hump.
CO2 has a specific heat of 0.656. CO2 is a small camel with almost one hump.
Water vapor (H2O) has nearly twice the ‘Specific Heat’ of dry air (N2 + O2), at 1.406. Water vapor is a camel with two humps.
Which camel can carry more stuff over the desert?
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
P.S. – There is another camel named oxygen. Oxygen (O2) has a specific heat nearly identical to CO2, being 0.657.
Thus, when oxygen and fossil fuels combine to make CO2, the resultant ‘specific heat’ (ability to capture heat in the atmosphere) is identical.
When Walt Disney created the Universe, he was way ahead of us mere mortals…
Zoe Phin
| #
Per mole, CO2 has a significantly higher heat capacity than O2 or N2. Almost 50% Higher.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/shegas.html
Kevin Doyle
| #
Please clarify?
When folks state that CO2 is 400 ppm (parts per million) volumetrically, then why do you suggest gas content of atmosphere is Molar quantitity?
Mole of stuff does not = volume of stuff.
Philosophical question: A theory is presented which, if true, means all mankind will suffer. Some folks poke holes in said theory. Proponents of theory never bother to question theory. Is this really a discussion based upon science?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
The mole is important because it’s based on number of particles. When we burn “fossil” fuels we bind a carbon atom to an oxygen molecule. We do not bind a volume to a volume, or a mass to a mass.
In the famous co2 bottle experiment, co2 heats up more because it has a lower heat capacity for the same volume as oxygen.
But, if we swapped every oxygen molecule with CO2 as industry does, then the bottle will be colder than pure O2, and the pseudo-greenhouse effect argument would be destroyed.
The mole is simply closer to the reality of what industry does.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Zoe,
Can you or anyone else explain why the ocean in the tropics (between 30 deg North and South) is between 25-30 deg C?
The solar constant at twelve hours per day would yield this result.
Basic thermodynamics: Seawater needs 800 times the amount of energy to heat a liter than to heat a liter of air. Warm air doesn’t heat water. Water heats or cools air.
Ever live in the Tropics? Or near the coast?
Experiment: Try heating your tea kettle with a hair dryer. Record how many days/months it will take to boil?
Scientific integrity means being honest about reality which disrupts our ideas…
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
I will go through my oven and pan of water to try to explain.
You have an oven heated to100 C and pan of boiling water at 100 C. The thermometers in both the oven and the water are receiving the same amount of energy from the mediums they are measuring. In the water there are 1 million times the molecules transferring kinetic energy to the thermometer than there are transferring kinetic energy to the thermometer in the oven. The mass transferring energy to the thermometer in the water is about 500,000 times the mass transferring kinetic energy to the thermometer in the oven. Since If both the thermometers receive the same kinetic energy the velocity of the air molecule must be 500,000 ^-2 of the water molecules. This means that even though the air in the oven and the water have the same temperature the kinetic energy of the air molecules are greater than the kinetic energy of the water molecules and will transfer energy to the water molecules but at a slow rate. Temperature does not give an accurate measurement of kinetic energy but measures the total kinetic energy being transferred to the thermometer.
Here is a questioner you. A scuba diving shop has a powerful compressor that fills a large high pressure tank with compressed air. At night the temperature of the tank and the air molecules in it equalize with the ambient temperature. The unfilled scuba tanks and the air in them also equalize with the surrounding air. In the morning a scuba tank is connected with the large tank and air expands into it as the air flows from high pressure to low pressure. In order to fill the tank to proper pressure it must be submerged in a cooling bath to remove the heat from the tank that is produced by the filling process. The question is if the kinetic energy of the air in the large tank and scuba tank are the same and the gas is expanding what causes the scuba tank to heat up?
Herb
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Kevin,
Geothermal energy exceeds solar energy. If you look at the “official” NASA energy budget, you will see that the sun, on average, delivers 163.3 W/m^2, while the surface emits a total of 398.2+18.4+86.4=503 W/m^2. This means that geothermal energy is 503-163.3=339.7 W/m^2.
In fact, what the energy budget claims is “backradiation from GHGs”, is just a geothermal flipperoo.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
If it is geothermal energy is heating the surface of the Earth why is there permafrost where a buried layer of soil remains frozen as the soil above it thaws? Why has the Earth gone through periods where much of it was covered with glaciers? Did someone turn down the thermometer at the Earth’s core? Your theory is delusional.just as your theory of gravity. The reason a hot air balloon rises is because it becomes less dense than the air around it not because of gravity. If it was from a reduction in gravity the hot air ballon would continue to rise into space as the force of gravity decreased with its altitude.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb,
“The reason a hot air balloon rises is because it becomes less dense than the air around it not because of gravity.”
An object at rest stays at rest, unless acted upon by a FORCE.
You said density didn’t matter because gravity acts upon all masses equally. Now you’ve adopted my way of thinking without acknowledging you were wrong.
“why is there permafrost”
Permafrost is not 0 kelvin. On average geothermal delivers 10°C worth of energy. But that’s a global AVERAGE, not a uniform thing.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
No gravity attracts all objects equally regardless of their mass or density. It is hard to imagine you do not understand this basic law of physics when Wikipedia and every physicist will tell you the same thing. You are a fool who cannot accept your errors which is why everyone who has a discussion with you learns you are an imbecile.
Why would heat radiated from the center of the Earth through the same mantle produce different amounts of heat to the crust and the surface? The second law of thermodynamics (another law you don’t understand) says that cooler objects do not heat hotter objects. If the Earth’s surface is 15 C (average) from the sun how is the 10 C adding heat?
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb,
“No gravity attracts all objects equally regardless of their mass or density.”
Is incompatible with your previous statement:
“The reason a hot air balloon rises is because it becomes less dense than the air around it not because of gravity.”
Make up your mind, idiot. If gravity doesn’t prefer denser air then the hot air balloon doesn’t rise.
“The second law of thermodynamics (another law you don’t understand) says that cooler objects do not heat hotter objects. If the Earth’s surface is 15 C (average) from the sun how is the 10 C adding heat?”
During daylight, the sun heats the earth. But during night time …
It’s all explained in MY beautiful diagram, here:
https://i.ibb.co/3SxnWgk/sunearthequationstd.png
How else do you explain why data from 7 SURFRAD sites shows that Upwelling IR greatly exceeds Solar Input?
https://pastebin.com/J92eULqa
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
The density of the air in the atmosphere is not due to gravity but the kinetic energy of the gas molecules. As elevation increases the density of the air decreases. When a balloon rises to where its density is equal to the density of the air around it it stops rising. According to your belief a helium ballon will keep rising into outer space. They put enough helium into weather balloons to reach the altitude desired. By measuring the weight of the balloon and its volume (A helium balloon keeps expanding as it rises which is why they are only partially filled.) they can determine what altitude it will reach.
You’ve made the completely idiotic statement that the sun doesn’t heat the Earth at night. The sun continuously heats the Earth. You deal with averages which combine the day and night then switch to a particular time of day when it suits you and says it is less than the average. Your statements are like ” Permafrost is not 0 Kelvin” which is totally irrelevant and stupid.
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb,
“The density of the air in the atmosphere is not due to gravity”
Strawman. You’re pathetic.
“When a balloon rises to where its density is equal to the density of the air around it it stops rising.”
No kidding. But according to you, it can’t rise at all. As you claim:
“gravity attracts all objects equally regardless of their mass or density”
“You’ve made the completely idiotic statement that the sun doesn’t heat the Earth at night. The sun continuously heats the Earth.”
LMAO!
I like how you completely ignore the SURFRAD data I’ve analyzed.
You’re pathetic, Herb, and you continue to debase yourself.
Kevin Doyle
| #
Zoe,
I believe the politicians at NASA have published something totally unreal. The solar panel on my boat captures on the best day around 200 watts/sq-meter.
If solar insolation is 163.3 watt/sq-m, then my panels are 123% efficient. Amazing! My solar panels can create energy!
In reality, the flat disc insolation of Earth is about 960 watts/sg-m, which averaged over the sunny half of the globe = 480 watt/sq-m.
480 watts/sq-m would yield a surface temperature of around 30 C.
Oddly, the temperature in the tropical oceans is between 26-30 C. Large amounts of water take a long time to heat up, and a long time to cool, under ambient conditions.
Interesting coincidence.
If there were a real ‘Greenhouse Effect’ in our atmosphere (reflecting radiation back to Earth), then wouldn’t one assume the oceans might be warmer?
Food for thought…
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Kevin,
163.3 W/m^2 is the global average for day and night.
Your 200 W/m^2 rating is for mid-latitude ~14 hour daily sunshine.
Not the same thing.
“Interesting coincidence”
Indeed. 480 W/m^2 is the average for the dayside hemisphere, but your comparing that to TROPICAL ocean water, not all day-side ocean water. So it is a coincidence.
The contribution of geothermal is enormous. Please see my last reply to Herb, for data.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Herb,
Is this comic relief?
Mechanical energy is done by the air compressor (via electricity) to compress the gas. It doesn’t expand when you are filling a dive tank, rather it compresses. This is why they call it compressed air.
PV = nRT
Increasing pressure in a fixed volume increases temperature.
Reply
Herb' Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
No Kevin, mechanical work is done when the compressor fills the storage tank. The heat from that compression is lost at night to the atmosphere. When the air in the storage tank is released into the scuba tank the volume is expanding by the volume of the scuba tank.
Actually the universal gas law PV=nrt is not an equation. It is stating the the pressure/volume of a gas is function of the number of gas molecules, the gas constant for that gas, and the kinetic energy of the gas molecules. You can use it to find the kinetic energy of the gas molecules but not the temperature of the gas as a whole.
Herb
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Kevin
Don’t listen to Herb, he’s the resident crank. He doesn’t understand the difference between kinetic energy and internal energy. This lack of knowledge makes him feel he has discovered something profound.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Kevin,
Detective Columbo asks his questions to learn what the answers might be. Most of the time he asks these questions to the one whom he suspects is the guilty party but as the time of the questions, he does not yet have any evidence that proves the party to be guilty. You ask both Zoe and Herb your ‘Columbo’ questions. What do you suspect they might be guilty of doing?
Just a question as I join your ‘Columbo’ game.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply