How To Win A Climate Change Argument
Most people have limited knowledge of science so any attempt to use science to convince them of the folly of man made climate change will be futile.
The perpetuators of this fraud have been using false science since its resurrection to frighten and intimidate the public by exploiting their ignorance with scientific lies.
With no ability to determine the validity of the arguments most people use consensus or volume of arguments to determine what to believe. The promoters of this fraud, by using money to control the media, limit the public to hear only one side of the debate.
Too many universities and fake scientists with degrees, but no intelligence, have sold out for money and chosen financial success over scientific integrity.
Science is about discovering the truth about reality and this has given it an aura of authority. When this credibility is used to promote lies it is difficult to convince people that they are being fooled. It is like a crook masquerading as a priest.
The way to expose the fraud is not by using science, but by using the reality that people know to be true to revealing the fallacy of the arguments being used.
This is how Knut Angstrom got Svvante Arrhenius to admit his theory was wrong and withdraw it back in the eighteen hundreds.
Angstrom’s argument was that there is very little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but a lot of water and any effect produced by the CO2 would be unnoticeable because of the water.
This argument is still as valid today as it was back then, even though the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased and this evidence is easily understood by the average person with little knowledge of science.
The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 420 ppm with four percent being the result of man’s activity.
If we were to use money as a model for the atmosphere and used a thousand dollars to represent the entire atmosphere the value of the CO2 would be 42 cents with man’s contribution being 1.7 cents.
Water covers 70 percent of the Earth’s surface and is abundant on the land. Using our monetary model it would be represented by multiple millions of dollars.
While CO2 has a very limited ability to absorb infrared energy (heat) and no ability to reflect it, water is extremely good at absorbing and transmitting heat. Everyone is familiar with this reality when they sweat or go into a pool.
The water on the surface of the Earth is continually absorbing heat and evaporating. This heat is carried high into the atmosphere and when the water condenses into larger droplets the heat is released and radiated into space.
All the water on the surface of the Earth is actively cooling the surface, with the rate of cooling by evaporation changing as the temperature changes.
When it is hotter there is more evaporation and cooling and when these droplets become rain the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is removed from the atmosphere, due to the solubility of CO2 in water.
The contention that two cents worth of a gas, that is poor at modifying the flow of energy, could overcome the millions of dollars of water cooling the Earth and cause the Earth to become too warm is ridiculous nonsense that should be obvious to everyone…
Header image: Youtube
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
very old white guy
| #
anyone that believes CO2 is a problem and a climate driver needs their heads read.
Reply
Alan
| #
That argument is not going to convince anybody because if they have no understanding of science, it will still not make any sense. You are up against people like Attenborough who shouts alarm over everything and those who accept his argument will not even accept the empirical evidence that seas are not rising rapidly, that storms and wildfires are not increasing. There is also Al Gore and the ice core data, and you must correct all these issue before getting into science.
Your argument is basically that the greenhouse effect exists but not due to CO2. This is not true. All the atmosphere absorbs and emits radiation and the majority of that is nitrogen and oxygen. This is what quantum theory says – everything above absolute zero contains thermal energy and emits radiation. The nonsense we are fed is due to the use of infrared spectroscopy which does not detect the radiation from nitrogen and oxygen. Raman spectroscopy is needed to detect this radiation. This is how experiments to prove the greenhouse effect are faked, such as the one used by the BBC with a glass tube, a candle and an infrared camera specifically tuned to detect CO2.
There is a much simpler argument but one which will still not be believed. We have endless comparison between the earth and Venus to prove the greenhouse effect, but we have the moon nearby receiving the same radiation from the sun. The moon has no atmosphere, and the temperature can reach over 120C. This is the temperature of the earth without an atmosphere. Conclusion – the atmosphere keeps the earth cool!
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
My argument is far superior.
Direct replicable experiments such as the plate behind a plate in a vacuum and a greenhouse atop a flat plate and the CO2 surrounding a red hot filament all FAIL to increase temperatures by way of the RGHE effect.
This is direct indisputable proof that RGHE IS A LIE.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alan and Geraint,
The argument is for convincing the mass of people who don’t know science but believe the scam. Trying to use real science to convince these people is like speaking in Greek when they don’t know the language. These are the people who need to be convinced and not be victimized by the scam in order to end it.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers and PSI Commenters,
Do you see the difference between Alan’s comment and Geraint’s commen? I do not term their comments to be arguments. For both are referring to observations which I consider is the fundamental basis of what I term (define) to be SCIENCE.
I see that Alan refers to observations about NATURAL SYSTEMS and Geraint refers to observations about an artificial system he creates. About this difference I consider there can be no argument if one comprehends what is (has been) written. This word “comprehend” is a CRITICAL WORD, for if one does not COMPREHEND the words being written, the words have no meaning and the arguments are endless.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers and PSI Commenters,
To illustrate what I just wrote, consider the fact that R.C. Sutcliffe in his book, ‘Weather and Climate’ (1966), (pp 33,34 of 193 pages) wrote: “It would be difficult to overstress the importance of clouds as the necessary intermediary between invisible vapor and falling precipitation in the water cycle upon which all land-life depends, but their importance by no means ends here. Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapor before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a PROFOUND effect on our climate. This is obvious enough if we only think of the difference between a cloudy and a sunny day in summer and a clear frosty night in winter.”
The moon has no atmosphere, hence it has no clouds. Venus has an atmosphere and in the atmosphere there is a cloud deck which totally covers the planet’s surface. The earth has an atmosphere in which clouds are variable (clear, scattered cloudy, overcast).
Is it so hards to comprehend these observed differences and what Sutcliffe wrote?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers and PSI Commenters,
Relative to COMPREHENSION I have just discovered there is a problem which must be resolved if we are to comprehend what each of us write.
New Oxford American Dictionary. “Ponder verb [with object]
think about (something) carefully, especially before making a decision or reaching a conclusion”
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. “Ponder v.t. to weigh in the mind; to meditate; deliberate.
When I write or say—I think whatever—it means I do not claim to know anything. So maybe you can see my problem with the Oxford definition.
In a very brief article— (Mathematics and Science Learning: A New Conception LAUREN B. RESNICK. SCIENCE • 29 Apr 1983 • Vol 220, Issue 4596 • pp. 477-478 • DOI: 10.1126/science.220.4596.477 I had read “In another well-supported finding is that all students with surprisingly extensive theories about how the natural world works. They use these naive theories to explain real world events before they have had any science instruction. Then, even after instruction in new concepts and scientifically supported theories, they still resort to their prior theories to solve any problems that vary from their textbook examples. … Several studies show that successful problem solving requires a substantial amount of qualitative reasoning. Good problem-solvers do not rush in to apply a formula or an equation. Instead they try to understand the problem situation; they consider alternative representations and relations among the variables. Only when they are satisfied that they understand the situation and all the variables in it in a qualitative way do they start o apply the quantification that we often mistakenly identify as the essence of “real” science or mathematics.”
Ponder (Webster’s) this.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb and herd..
“If we were to use money as a model for the atmosphere and used a thousand dollars to represent the entire atmosphere the value of the CO2 would be 42 cents with man’s contribution being 1.7 cents.”
That should be 0.42cents and and 0.017 cents. Some one will correct or confirm .
You are still my mate .
Matt.
Reply
Heretic Jones
| #
Herb is correct. The model includes 100,000 pennies. In this case, 420 ppm would be 42 pennies, with 4% of that being 1.68 pennies.
Were the atmosphere to be 1000 pennies rather than dollars, your calculation of 0.42 and 0.017 would be correct.
Reply
MattH
| #
Thanks Heretic. Best I wait till I wake up properly and use a pen and paper before spouting arithmetic.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
My favorite example addresses the fact that the major claim of global warming by man is that the upper tropical troposphere is warming Earth’s surface. You are standing in a room, with the walls at room temperature (75 F) and you at 98.6 F. Are the walls heating you or you heating the walls by their emission of radiant energy, infrared? We also have the easy to understand fact that warm always warms cold, being the 2nd law of thermodynamics (easily explained to a non-science person). So, you heat the walls. In global warming by man, they have the upper tropical troposphere (at 1.4 F) heating the surface (at 53.9 F). Oops, global warming science makes no sense.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Charles,
The name of the law “thermodynamics” is misleading since the law deals with the flow of energy not temperature. It should be called the law of energydynamics since there is no transfer of mass, which is a component of kinetic energy (temperature)
In the troposphere the transfer of energy is primarily through convection or collisions between molecules. This transfer is governed by the law of conservation of momentum (M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V3 + M2V4. Mass is not a factor so an object with small mass but high velocity can add energy (heat) an object with greater mass but less velocity, even if the larger object has more kinetic energy. (See my article “How Cold Heats Hot”).
The thermometer is inaccurate at measuring the kinetic energy of molecules in a gas since as more energy is added fewer molecules (less mass) transfers energy to the thermometer. The bottom of the Grand Canyon is 10 degrees hotter than at the top, not because the molecules have more energy (hot air rises), but because more molecules are transferring energy to the thermometer. By looking at the composition of the molecules at different altitudes it shows the higher altitudes have more unstable molecules which only form because they cannot radiate and lose energy to form more stable molecules.
Herb
Reply
Jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just wrote: “In the troposphere the transfer of energy is primarily through convection or collisions between molecules.” And there is no radiation involved? So you do not believe that the surfaces of condensed matter (solid or liquid matter), whatever it is, do not emit radiation according to this matter’s surface temperatures???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
All objects absorb energy snd all objects with energy emit energy whether they are solids, liquids, or gas molecules. An object with more energy will radiate more energy than it absorbs but as it loses energy it radiates less energy so the rate of equalization decreases as energy equalizes. When objects collide there is an immediate equalization and both objects radiate the same energy. In the troposphere, there is a high density of molecules and many collisions and these collisions cause equalization before the slow process of radiation is complete.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I was planning to stop a bit making my comments. But I cannot let your statement–before the slow process of radiation is complete.– go unchallenged.
Ask a wildfire fire-fighter to explain to how fast the radiation of a very hot flame can cook their exposed flesh.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herrb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You don’t believe that the fire is heating the air like in an oven? Even the heating element is hidden and not able to radiate energy directly to the meat.
In your Asperger’s universe radiation may be a fast way to transfer energy to everyone (you) but in the real world everyone (but you) knows radiation is a continuing slowing method of heat transfer
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Do you not know that a wildfire has no atmospheric container to be heated by the radiation from from the red hot elements like an oven has???
I find it very difficult to respond to your comments because what you often write is so observably incorrect. The combustion of a wildfire is so rapid that oxygen becomes the limiting reagent (not the fuel) so the flames are the result of burning carbon monoxide and other not yet fully combusted organic matter. It takes seconds to burn all thin needles of a conifer tree which have heated by approaching flames.of nearby trees whose needles are already burning.
As these flames of the needles jump from tree to true only the live twigs and small branches catch fire because the local fire is over so quickly. But dry 2 X 4s or 6s of buildings burn much more slowly inside an enclosure more like an oven. Hopefully you will get the general idea and I will not go into more possible details.
Wildfires are real, not theoretical.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Charles and Herb,
For a long time instruments have been invented to quantitatively measure the variable we term TEMPERATURE. I read that Galileo maybe invented the first thermometer but it has a very limited range, so the mercury thermometer invented by Fahrenheit was the first. But I have read that Herb maintains that this and similar other thermometer based upon the expansion of a liquid with increasing temperature can not be used to measure the temperature of air (the atmosphere). And the most recent instrument invented is claimed to measure the temperature of a surface of condensed matter but not of a gas because a gas does not have a surface.
However, when I point my IR thermometer upwards at the atmosphere it registers a temperature as if it were measuring IR radiation being emitted by some surface of condensed matter. And during a partly clouded atmosphere I.can aim this new instrument at a patch of ‘clear’ atmosphere and then at a patch of ‘cloud’ and my experience is that the temperature of the clear atmosphere is always less than that of the cloud.
So based upon my understanding of what a cloud is I can understand that surfaces of cloud particles of condensed matter should be emitting IR radiation according to these particles’ surface temperatures. However, I also know how the blue color of the clear atmosphere has been explained by the phenomenon of radiation scattering by the tiny gaseous molecules of the atmosphere. Now, Richard Feynman considered the general observation that clouds appear to be white during the daytime. And he explained a scattering phenomenon was due to the water particles of a cloud being much larger than the tiny, tiny gas molecules generally supporting the cloud particles which were falling through the tiny, tiny molecules at a very slow rate. There are other details which need to be considered but Feynman’s theory of radiation scattering by atmospheric particles much larger atmospheric molecules generally explain what we observe with our eyes and measure with the IR Thermometer.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
It has been noted that a very small amount of a deadly poison can kill a person. Therefore, the fact that CO2 is a very small amount relatively…..despite some people gleefully pointing out that man is adding thousands or millions of tonnes to the atmosphere…does not mean CO2 cannot also be deadly in the atmospheric warming case. The CO2 level went up about 15% between 1940 and 1980 while the temp went down slightly….assuming he measurements were correct….so I demand that the warmists explain this….and explain climate cycles which clearly are not man made….and explain the last decade of no temp change. This century is probably the top of a warming cycle….cooler temps ahead…keep cool.
Reply
Ellie Mae
| #
I’ve been using the same analogy for quite a while now, but I like to break it down even further for my state, CA. If my math is correct, CA population represents .006 of the world’s population x 4% manmade CO2 = .00024 contributed by CA x 42 = .01 cents or .1ppm. It’s insane to retool all of society for this. Has John Kerry done this math?
Reply
Chris*
| #
Mars; The atmosphere is 94.5% CO2 . Day time temperature is 35C, night time temperature -80C. No O2, No H, No water equals no clouds. NASA has spent squillions trying to find water. CO2 does not hold heat.
Reply
Eric the Red
| #
Go into a greenhouse at the start of the day. Measure ground temperature inside the greenhouse. Wait for a few hours, measure the ground temp again. Probably a little higher.
Wait again, measure again. Ground temp never changes. It reaches a max, no matter how hot it is outside the greenhouse.
Substitute earth for greenhouse: you’ve just shown the ninnies what crap global warming is.
Reply
Saighdear
| #
“The moon has no atmosphere, and the temperature can reach over 120C. This is the temperature of the earth without an atmosphere. Conclusion – the atmosphere keeps the earth cool! ”
Simple and to the point – should shut many’s a mouth
Reply
Maurice Lavigne
| #
One of the lessons learned from the covid plandemic is that as long as the propagandist are shouting from the rooftops than the mass phsycosis will be maintained. To those of us who remain unaffected all we can do is ridicule the premise at every opportunity in a non confrontational manner, which means do not present or create arguments. For example, I would say to my neighbour that I wished global warming would show up to melt the 5 feet of snow on my roof. Usually all you get is a chuckle, and move on. I often make similar statements on social media when it’s minus 36. These sublime remarks are more potent than factual arguments. If the 20% of us that are unaffected do this, we can convert the 30-40% that are sitting on the fence. Forget about the rest, they all drank the coolaid.
Reply
Ненад
| #
Listen to what others say and believe what you see.
I welcome all comment authors!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi HehaA,
For some listening to what others say is difficult when they talk in scientificeze and they don’t understand the language.
Herb
Reply