Discussing Flaws With Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Climate Change – 2021

(I present for your consideration, this article (here (and credit source for imagery)), attacking Liberty Mutual Insurance for climate change – further proving the literal hysteria-induced nonsense that has been a consequence of a fraudulently ran AGW campaign, taking away the validity of scientific discussions and replacing them with an onslaught of idiot political garble that further lowers the overall intelligence of humanity into the cesspool of waste that has slowly been corrupting & eroding science and the public’s perception)

The climate is always changing. Climate is: “the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.” From the beginning of the Earth’s existence, an endless, 24/7 change in weather conditions has shaped, molded, and formed the planet we live on, making it into the habitable environment we have, today. While I cannot “prove” that statement, not only is it a generally accepted principle in science, the recent advancement of Geology as a science has helped contribute to a better understanding of our planet’s history and supports that claim (here). Without human beings or technology, the natural cycle of the planet has occurred on its own random schedule, forming the biosphere that is Earth. Yet, for the past 50 years, there has been a growing consensus about the impacts of human beings on climate known as anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW). I have written on climate change fallacies before (here), but I believe there is a need to expand what I have previously debated as the scientific world (or at least, those who subscribe to the Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC)) has caved to a corporate-agenda designed around pushing AGW for the purposes of profiteering. Sadly, while I work in the clean energy industry, helping site hundreds of green/renewable projects to strengthen environmental sustainability, even I understand the lies that are being perpetuated and it often makes me sad to continue trying to save a world ecologically, that is dooming itself intellectually.

Let me be clear (disclaimer): I will make no argument that there are not some very disturbing and unpleasant climate changes happening around the planet nor that there is not a concern about some consistent temperature increases at very large locations. NOR will I argue that CO2 does not contribute at least some atmospheric heat to the entire biological cycle that makes up our existence as every molecule on this planet (and in space) has been a vital part of the unique habitat in which we now reside (CO2). I am discussing the contribution, or lack thereof, of man-made CO2 and the fallacy of the overall excess doomsday “heating” being claimed along with AGW. Furthermore, nothing I write in here is an absolute. We are constantly learning. These are flaws ONLY from MY perspective. I will provide links to articles that both support and refute AGW. Yes, I work in engineering and science, but no one is perfect and the point of science is to discuss ideas and possibilities and be open to them so we learn and constantly adapt. The final decision is yours (at least until science can both operate without profiteering and actually prove the absolute truth). I will be cleaning this up and revising it with time.

The Claim

Man-made activities involving fossil fuels (oil, coal, etc.) release billions of tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. The CO2 has a unique property which allows it to absorb long-wave radiation and re-emit the radiation in a circumferential method. As solar radiation (short wave radiation) passes into the Earth, there is a finite amount of absorptive rate the Earth can sustain and the remainder of unused energy, having been reduced in Watts and thus converted into long-wave radiation, is partially reflected back out of the surface. It hits the CO2 waiting for it in the atmosphere (between 8,000 to 30,000 feet above sea level (ASL)), and a finite portion is captured and then recycled (or re-emitted) (approximately 1.8 W/m^2 – 2.4 W/m^2) back down to the Earth. This is called “radiative forcing” where the measured incoming solar energy is less than the outgoing energy, proving that some of the energy was absorbed by the system (Earth) (article). The reflected long-wave radiation then prevents the ground from cooling as it sustains the energy (which W/m^2 converts directly to Joules/second (J/s) and in thermodynamics, everything has a specific heat in Joules (energy) that it takes to heat up a specific quantity (usually 1 kg) by 1 degree Celsius). As the CO2 is constantly keeping the ground warm, including through the night, it eventually leads to averaged global warming as insufficient cooling takes place.

The justification for man-made CO2 as a mass-contributor to climate change is based on a presumptive quantification of CO2 through ice-cores and tree-ring evaluations dating back to 1850 (and earlier), and the start of industrialization (scientific article here). A global “average” temperature across a finite range of the Earth, and presumed prior to 1950, based on a “standardized” range spanning from 1961 to 1980, has been developed by NASA to show an anomaly from the standardized range and quantify this as a warming (the link to this full explanation by NASA/NOAA is here). As human beings continue to increase their contribution to CO2, increasing levels of radiation are reflected and thus, a greater concentration of heat and “trapped energy” continues to sustain an ever-warming biosphere.

Unfortunately, there are many thaws in the AGW argument, from my perspective. The resulting claim is both heat waves, and freezes – floods, and droughts. It has been speculated that the climate change will have catastrophic results on the planet, with apocalyptic to catastrophic predictions ranging from the 1950’s to (currently in 2021) 2080 (article). And, while I’ve discussed the vicious and atrocious behavior of AGW groups assaulting contradictions (here, and more, here), to which you can find a non-stop plethora of scientifically published articles with peer review which many people are beginning to understand the fallacy of these claims (article) and the failures in bias peer review, affecting the entire scientific community, but especially, science related to climate change.


Thermodynamics is one of the core principal studies in science which addresses the basic behavior of energy and molecules. Through thermodynamics we learn that there is no such thing as “cold”. There is only zero movement of molecules (not generating friction or heat) to the extreme agitation of molecules (with extreme movement, friction and thus, heat). Heat will always dissipate as rapidly as possible as it is the nature of all elements (as per the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy, discussed below), and as friction occurs, transferring the energy from one molecule to another, reducing the amount of movement in the “transferrer” to the “transferree”. The energy continues to transfer over and over again, passing between molecules (endothermic), constantly distributing (reducing) the kinetic energy / friction (and thus, the perceived “heat” – the 1st law of thermodynamics). As you may have also learned in school, energy is never truly gained or lost, it is only converted into other forms. In this case, as the energy transfers, it is “converted” into heat, which goes into the molecules in the surrounding air (exothermic) until it becomes infinitely small to the point of undetectable (or zero – the 3rd law of thermodynamics). A good explanation is here.

That said, when solar radiation (let’s say 150 W/m^2, or 150 J/s), is concentrated at a source like water (with a specific heat of 4182 J/(K kg) at 20 °C), a concentration of solar energy for about 27 seconds (4182/150) will heat 1 kg of water 1 degree Celsius. As we know, the sun covers the entire surface of the water it’s making contact with, providing far more than 150 J/s per kg, and is concentrated for 10 – 16 hours per day. So, why isn’t the ocean boiling? Well, in a manner of speaking, partially, it is (through evaporation). A large portion of the heat, as previously discussed, is transferred through to the molecules below and into the surrounding air because the amount of energy that can be absorbed by a molecule has a finite rate at which it can be absorbed and as per thermodynamic principles, there is only a finite amount of energy that can be stored. For example, even at the sun’s current rate of exposure, it rapidly cooks you (suntanning), and is why you can feel heat generating off your skin as the amount of energy absorbed by your molecules is more than they can handle and the nature of thermodynamics is to dissipate that heat as rapidly as possible (that is, by the way, a simplistic explanation). Of course, when you combine elements, the specific heat of the “system” is altered and impacts the rate of total system absorption (like an ocean of water and salt). For a more thorough explanation of how heat energy works, how mixed elements affect specific heat, and similar concepts, there is a very good explanation, here.

So, the energy reaching surface waters of the ocean (and land), are transferred into the ground and dissipate out into the air. The water at the surface levels of the ocean heats up so rapidly that it evaporates. Hydrogen and oxygen, in the form of clouds (called water vapor), blocks both incoming short-wave radiation and outgoing long-wave radiation. That is why it can get warmer when clouds are in the sky, but the longer they stay, the more inbound short-wave radiation (SWR) that is blocked and without that constant exposure to solar energy, the Earth gets very cold. Some of the SWR energy that reaches the ocean (and land) is not absorbed or converted (article), and is no longer as powerful as it was before (as some of the energy has been transferred away), lengthening the wavelength (into the infrared spectrum), transforming it into what we call, long-wave radiation (LWR). Part of that LWR is then released into the air. A characteristic of LWR (like any other electromagnetic wave), is that without collision (ignoring attenuation and Universal expansion), it can travel indefinitely.

When the LWR hits molecules that either reflect it or absorb and recycle it (like CO2 / greenhouse gases), a portion of it returns back to the Earth; a very small, portion. The current claim being made by pro AGW supporters is that CO2, at an atmospheric concentration of 365 – 400 ppm (or 0.0365 – 0.04%), absorbs LWR and a portion of it is returned to the Earth. Now, the 1.8 J/s of LWR that is recycled back down to the Earth is what supposedly keeps a concentration of energy focused on the surface molecules such that they maintain a constant state of higher energy and don’t ever truly stop releasing energy, and thus, continue producing heat. While 1.8 J/s can raise the temperature of 1 kg of water 1 degree Celsius with approximately 2,322 seconds (4180/1.8) of concentrated exposure in a vacuum, there are some rules of thermodynamics regarding the “excess” claimed man-made CO2 which do not work in this situation:

  1. The transfer of energy always suffers from some level of inefficiency (the energy is never transferred at 100% as some of it converts to heat), and you cannot get more energy out of a system than is put into it. Therefore, the argument that CO2 can, for thousands of years, maintain a consistent rate of transferring the same LWR back and forth with the surface of the Earth to the point that it increases heat (gaining energy) and that energy not be reduced to zero is not supported by the laws of thermodynamics. The CO2 is not a “contributor” of heat, and the LWR emitted is constantly being reduced as it is evenly emitted in a circumferential path and that small amount of energy would be rapidly dissipated. However, we are not discussing a violation of thermodynamics “necessarily” (a good article on this, here). So, to clarify: it could be argued that CO2 acts like a “roof” on a house, whereby insulating a roof helps reduce heat loss and thus, the internal temperature stays warmer, longer. This is true (and it has been scientifically validated that greenhouse gases like CO2 can provide a form of a proverbial ceiling by having its own ambient temperature, as shown here). However, we are talking about a home where the heat is turned off for 10 – 12 hours per day and rotates with each half of the house and during that time, the external temperature is near freezing and thus the energy transfer from inside of the house to the outside is increased dramatically (and that insulation only covers 0.0365% of the ceiling surface). While the insulation will slow down the heat loss, never turning up the heater past, say 10 degrees Celsius means that the ambient heat of the house will never exceed 10 degrees Celsius. The efficiency losses in the transfer of heat, atmospheric pressures, gravity, and other components are affecting the ability of the reflected LWR to maintain/sustain heat as it refers to increasing surface temperatures vs ambient air temperatures. (Another good discussion on this topic can be found, here). If your home’s heater does not supply a constant blast of 10 degrees Celsius, no amount insulation will keep your house warmer than it is outside… and the same for AGW. When the sun goes down, without solar energy, CO2 does not sustain a temperature beyond the equilibrium being reached with the Earth’s surface and the surrounding air.
  2. The amount of heat transferred from one substance to another is directly impacted by the amount of exposure. For example, the sun provides an almost complete and absolute coverage over 1 kg surface area of water while 0.0365% of recycled LGW from carbon dioxide would not be able to concentrate energy at more than a minuscule fraction of the surface area with which it comes into contact (see Image 6). This also requires that A) the surrounding molecules are not in greater concentration or lesser levels of energy/states of friction (which would cause the heat to dissipate more rapidly than the 1.8 Joules can offer for absorption), and B) that the coverage of the CO2 remains constant at a rate of approximately 38 minutes (2,322 seconds/60), undisturbed. Thus, without sufficient global coverage, CO2 cannot sustain enough of a temperature to impact the entire planet (and I have yet to see sufficient mathematical modeling that reflecting back 0.0365% of light extracted from a single source of 100% coverage (in a chaotic biosphere environment) to have a sufficient quantity of effectiveness on a thermal system as to affect temperature).
  3. The rate of warming is dependent on the thickness of the material being warmed. If 1.8 J were impacting a 1 kg area with the same surface dimensions of the electromagnetic wave and zero depth, then it would have the ability to heat the molecules with maximum efficiency (in a vacuum). However, if an element, like water (say the ocean), has any depth at all, the energy is being transferred to the surrounding molecules at massive speeds (possibly faster than LWR can be absorbed, depending on ambient temperature / energy levels) in order to maintain energy equilibrium and that is why, you most likely cannot heat a pot of water to boiling with a lighter and require a more significant heat source. That is why thicker clothing keeps you warm vs. thinner. Furthermore, when there is a mixture of elements, such as in the ocean when water is mixed with salt, the specific heat rises and it takes longer to warm.
  4. The rate of warming is dependent on the material. The faster and better an object can conduct energy, the more energy required to heat that material. For example, a tile floor, at the same exact temperature as carpeting, “feels” colder, although it is not. What is happening is that the increased conductivity of tile (based on electrons and molecular bonds … a whole different discussion), more rapidly transfers the energy out of your feet and transfers it to the surrounding tiles (and ground below). Thus, there is no universal equation that can be used for the entire Earth biosphere to fully evaluate CO2s impact on surface temperature (assuming that CO2 is responsible).
  5. The amount of infrared energy being emitted into space and solar energy entering the Earth is being measured by low-altitude satellites and in finite values. Of course, the instrumentation on satellites is fairly fine tuned and there is a limit to how much can be measured, but part of the problem with drawing global averaging estimations from a proverbial vacuum is that it is easy to miss an infinite number of additional factors.

Another example to consider is your home. Your windows are a source of heat loss at winter. Even though the sun may be beating down, if the outside air is only 5 deg Celsius and the inside air is 20 deg Celsius, energy is not transferring into the window from the outside, but in fact, it is transferring from the inside of your house to the outside air. This is called entropy. Energy will always move from a higher order (of randomness) to a lower order. While some AGW supporters have argued that the ocean is so warm that 1.8 Joules can sustain and even contribute to its heat, imagine the massive depths of the ocean, the amount of energy that would be dissipated on a non-stop basis, and the ineffectiveness of 1.8 J. To give you a comparison, the hottest I have seen a bic lighter reach (based on research and experimentation I have reviewed) is 18.54 J. According to one scientific study (here), it takes 50 seconds of sustained flame for a cigarette lighter to reach sufficient heat to cause a clinically visible skin burn. If CO2 cannot sustain a concentration of heat to overcome the constant of energy loss, then most likely, it cannot sustain or increase the surface heat of the Earth.

There is another ongoing argument about CO2’s ability to infinitely absorb and re-emit LWR. While I have found almost no contributions to this argument which have been quantified (and I would love if someone has a lab study on the long-term effects of radiation, constantly re-exciting a carbon molecule, and the strength of its bonds over time), I find it hard to believe that CO2 can overcome entropic conditions. All substances break down over time and ionizing radiation exposure can expedite that process (article). Although infrared is not considered ionizing radiation, constantly re-injecting energy into a single molecule over and over again, converting it into a higher state of energy, would, in all other cases and scenarios of materials strengths engineering, be considered a path toward breaking down the electromagnetic forces in the molecule (wearing it out). At this time, I cannot prove or disprove this matter, but present it for your consideration. In fact, there are aguments by pro AGW scientists that the laboratory radiation absorbtion of CO2 is not even an accurate conclusion (scientific article published here).

Atmospheric Conditions

Based on my research of the scientific literature, it is generally accepted that that CO2 does capture LWR and re-emits that radiation. In a 0.0365% concentration, this would indicate that the CO2 contributes some small portion of energy back to the Earth (albeit insufficient to increase or sustain surface heat vs ambient warmth, and even then, not beyond any significant value). However, the atmosphere is not empty. The LWR emitted by CO2 will have to contend with other greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particles in the air that collide with the LWR on its journey, each transferring away a portion of the energy. Thus, 1.8 J, 2.4J, or even double that energy will never actually reach the surface. Furthermore, the atmosphere is not static or stable. A pro-AGW argument that I have read is that based on CO2’s natural distribution, the “excess” from man-made CO2 builds up layers closer to the Earth (article), thus increasing the surface to more rapid and constant exposure of recycled LWR. However, the more dense the molecular concentration (aka the more man-made CO2 pollution), the more chance of CO2 molecules transferring the energy to one another and round-and round, maintaining higher atmospheric temperatures, not ground temperatures, contributing even less to the surface and (based on the premise that it “could” heat the surface), would allow the ground to become cooler, not warmer. As gravity and air pressures are constantly changing, these impact energies, changing their shape and path, reducing their effectiveness of concentration (also increasing exposure to new molecules at lower energies which will constantly then cause energy to be transferred away … aka why windy days feel colder).

The next issue of contention is the CO2 “concentration” claims. As NASA is a primary source for AGW claims, NASA uses what I would deem only a minutely accurate method of spectrometer that that is dependent on resolution and temperature:

(Image 1: Article link here)

If you play the animation in Image 1 above, you see the constantly moving and shifting CO2. In the previous section on thermodynamics, we discussed the need to concentrate 1.8 W/m^2 on 1 kg of surface area for a considerable amount of time to sustain, increase, or contribute to the heat. As the emission of LWR has an approximate lifespan 0.0001 seconds, it takes 1000 times the amount of exposure to heat up an object and even sustain the existing heat (or prevent energy loss). However, the constantly shifting weather patterns, which move seasonally and remain concentrated in the northern hemisphere would indicate that CO2 has very little opportunity for concentrated exposure and very little opportunity to be sustained long enough for any significant contribution to the Earth’s surface temperature. In fact, one could argue that the sudden loss of CO2, during the winter when there is less sun might indicate that the CO2 annually escapes into the upper atmosphere (and eventually space), pushed outward by gravity, acting like all other gases in a pressurized biosphere (with a virtual “boundary” that eventually allows molecules to escape – in which atmospheric heat has been detected far beyond the range of our moon, article here). Furthermore, one only has but to read NASA’s website to see that this representation of CO2 is a model and discounts cloud cover or the contribution of water vapor and potential other sources that interfered with measurements (article):

The recently launched satellite will collect a million measurements over the sunlit hemisphere each day. While fewer than 20% of these measurements are expected to be sufficiently cloud-free to yield precise estimates of CO2, OCO-2 will still yield over a million useful measurements each week.

The problem with satellite spectrometry is that the further away an object, the more inaccurate the results. In fact, NASA had to coordinate its efforts with ground stations (article) and not only claimed they could measure the CO2 in the atmosphere, but the CO2 absorbed in plants and the ocean. This is not a function which the satellites can perform beyond the surface level of an object or with sufficient refraction (and is instead, a calculated estimation). Worse, spectrometers struggle with stray radiation that throws off their accuracy and raises huge concerns as to the accuracy of the measurements. However, assuming the satellites operated with some finite level of accuracy, when mixed with other studies and results, there is still supposedly a globally stated average of 0.0365% – 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere. However, this is not a constant coverage (even Image 1, from NASA, proves that). CO2 concentrations fluctuate globally and thus, there would be “cold” zones that rapidly draw energy from the hotter regions.

Another flaw with the impact that CO2 has on Earth is readily evident in NASA’s estimate global temperature maps:

(Image 2: Article Link here)

The first problem with Image 2 (above), is that this is not a representation of the actual temperature. This map starts in 1885, and although this may be shocking to some folks, we did not have satellites up into space for another 70 years. Core ice samples and tree rings were used, taken at random intervals, for pre 1950’s temperature estimations and were based on a very loose and unsubstantiated method of science. First, the accuracy of tree rings and water saturation is not yet fully established. Second, the measurement of CO2 in ice cores has not been proven to be accurate to the CO2 in the atmosphere in historical readings pre-dating satellite measurements. Using a baseline timeline to estimate actual temperatures is explained by NASA (here). Not only is this a very small fraction of time and incapable of representing a millennia of data, but intentionally misleads the public as to what is qualified sourcing data for estimations vs. actual measurements.

Using so-called anomalies based on a pre-existing assumption of CO2 and ignoring the entire natural CO2 output of the Earth and incoming solar radiation, is anything but scientific. Furthermore, reading NASA’s methodologies reveals that they are assuming global temperature changes based on 1200 km ASL, not ground level. You can follow the link (above) to NASA’s explanation and read for yourself how global temperatures were averaged, estimated, data was adjusted and smoothed (to rule out data contrary to the climate change claim), and polar ice cap temperatures were removed. None of that sounds like it qualifies under the pretense of “global” average climate. AGW supporters will argue that it does and present the corresponding 2-dimensional charts that track along with claimed increases in CO2, but that, too, is a temperature difference randomly based on a sampling starting in the year 2000, (as a baseline). One must understand that to convert a 3-dimensional biosphere of volumetric data over, minute by minute, over an entire year, into a 2-dimensional chart, will have significant issues, including not properly capturing wet vs. dry climates and the fluctuations between thermal temperatures at night and day.

How that baseline is applied to fit a confirmation bias is very troubling:

(Image 3: Article source)

One of the problems with the 3D (Image 2, or its corresponding 2D chart, Image 5) temperature difference heat map (which 99% of the people I’ve run into on social media believe that those represent actual temperature), is that it misrepresents actual temperature and energy while at the same time confounding how energy is transferred. For example, the hot temperatures in South America have a significant difference than those of Africa’s Sahara desert: As the rain forests retain a tremendous amount of moisture, as previously discussed, LWR has to overcome a specific heat mixture of water, plants, and Earth to provide heat (increasing the heating requirements).

Air cooling is also being ignored by AGW supporters. As Ice and water evaporate, they cool the air. The faster they evaporate, the faster they cool the ambient air (absorbing the energy out of the surrounding molecules) and the more they create thick, dense water vapor clouds which block out the sun. As far as natural cycles are concerned, this is the correct response to a rise in global temperature: as the Earth warms, it begins the process to cool. And, as has historically been discovered, the cooling continues until an ice age forms and the whole process begins again.

Data Integrity

In Image 3, we can see the 2-Dimensional graph fallacy. Observational thermal deviations (not actual temperatures) are correlated to a rise in combined CO2 from both natural and man-made sources while natural CO2 sources fall off (this is Michael E. Mann’s infamous, hockey stick diagram). The temperature data:

(Image 4: Source)

We cannot accept that the adjustments made to satellite data correctly matched with ground surface stations (Image 4), for the mean surface temperature across the entire planet are necessarily correct simply because they match the Michael Mann CO2 hockey stick. First, there are not ground stations across the entire planet. You would be surprised at the outstanding lack of measurement data that is available. Second, the global average, with such dramatic rises and drops, when it is not a temperature (note the graph’s title reading “temperatures”, but the data being measured as temperature “anomalies”), using a modern baseline with a narrow window of acceptance of what qualifies as a global average baseline, discounting massive areas of the planet, can produce a result that may fit a specific narrative, but does not stand to reason for more than 100,000 years of planetary climate behavior on a global scale. Furthermore, this particular reading stops at 2010 for the specific reason that the “anomaly” dips in 2012, frustrating the data against the climate change theory. What is even more disconcerting is that the “anomaly” charts have been adjusted to match the CO2 charts:

Image 4A: NASA Temp Anomaly vs. CO2 chart (source)
Image 4B: Global Warming Pause Chart (Source)
Image 4C: Hockey Stick Confirmation (Source)

While you can read information on how plenty of sources have cited NASA as being caught manipulating data (article), in Image 4a, the manipulation is evident. The temperature “anomaly” data matches the rise in CO2. For clarity, globally averaged atmospheric CO2 concentration IS NOT an equivalent to globally averaged temperature anomalies (or readings). As I’ve discussed in this article thus far, forgetting how increased CO2 concentrations would be equivalent to reduced surface temperatures, CO2 only reflects back a fractionally small amount of LWR. Even if we were to assume all AGW factors correct and the LWR reflected from CO2 maintained a global thermal constant, was able to overcome all the laws of thermodynamics (physics), and thus, contributed to the ground not being able to reduce its temperature to a finite zero, there is 100% no way, that constantly shifting CO2 “hot zones” (Image 1) could ever perfectly synchronize with a globally averaged temperature anomaly. Then we look at Image 4B and Image 4C. Image 4B is used to show a global warming pause where the data does not synchronize while Image 4C which attempts to confirm that the Weather average is precisely on with the CO2 average. The amount of CO2 it would actually take to increase the entire planet’s average temperature is not sufficiently reached at 400 ppm, but is also not a 1:1 with the rise in temp. This is how you easily spot a fake and identify that the data has been manipulated to fit a political narrative.

To make matters worse, AGW supporters follow a “confirmation” consensus bias:

(Image 5: Source)

The common theme in the IPCC AGW climate change theory to justify its correlation with man-made CO2 is to ensure that multiple sources provide nearly identical data. In Image 5, this appears to be the case. However, to be clear, the source data is not temperature data … it is anomalies that undergo a series of massive adjustments. According to NASA, “The above-mentioned agencies and others collect temperature data from thousands of weather stations worldwide, including over the ocean, in Antarctica and from satellites. However, instruments are not perfectly distributed around the globe, and some measurement sites have been deforested or urbanized since 1880, affecting temperatures nearby. Each agency uses algorithms to filter the effects of these changes out of the temperature record and interpolate where data is sparse, like over the vast southern ocean, when calculating global averages.” That is not to say that Image 5 is imperfect or perfect, but each of the data gathering methodologies use the same weather stations and near-identical formulas based on a preconception of CO2 contributions and anomalous readings, not raw readings, with a weighted bias toward the warming side and hemispherical sources, discounting much of the southern (and cooler) hemisphere (not to mention the polar ice caps. This is fine for fitting a confirmation bias, but not providing a “raw” look at what is really going on. This is not “individual” and separate conclusions, but just repetition of the first calculations.

Going back to image 3, we then have the problem of sourcing man-made CO2. Let’s start with a direct problem currently facing the global Paris accord:

“As climate negotiators consider rules for verifying commitments under the Paris Agreement, they will have to confront a difficult truth: There currently is no reliably accurate way to measure total global emissions or how much CO2 is coming from individual nations.”

Many pro-AGW folks will argue for industrialization as the source of Earth’s problem – but there is actually no physical gauging or tracking of any significance occurring. The current primary method used to track CO2 is based on atmospheric concentrations and a handful of gauges on land. This article is too short to begin to explain the vast complexities of why that is wrong. Needless to say, water vapor thermal readings cannot be separated from atmospheric or even land sources of heat anymore than heat can be definitively tied to CO2 or man-made CO2 can be separated from natural CO2 (even if we could measure the volumetric concentrations around the globe, 24/7). Of course, researchers affirm their belief that they are within a few percentage of perfection in their accuracy of determining the actual CO2 quantity. But, how does one affirm their readings are accurate within 1% of actual totals when A) there are no actual measurements by which to affirm or refute that conclusion and B) the measurements of temperature and other data are being adjusted to fit a curve rather than presented as raw data to affirm any potential accuracy to the truth?

Understand that the difference between estimated “natural” CO2 and man-made is CO2 is in the thousands of percentage points (link). In fact, based on an analysis of the various pro-AGW articles and research papers (with a good reference here), some have concluded that man-made contributions account for 2 – 3% of the total of 0.0365% atmospheric concentration. However, there are also several sources of contradictions to this. For example, the Guardian (not a scientific journal), attacks Judith Curry (here) saying she’s wrong for claiming that man-made CO2 is less than half of the contributing source to the atmosphere. Of course, they also state that she’s wrong for claiming that smoking and acid rain are bad. To me, this undermines the entire argument of folks like the Guardian. How do we distinguish what are man-made contributions and natural when there is clearly a massive gap in having anywhere near an actual estimate of man-made CO2? Part of our understanding of global climate change and CO2 concentrations come from ice core measurements. Many scientists, like Curry, believe that because ice core measurements have been at around 200 – 280 ppm, the present and assumed concentration of 365 – 400 ppm is the difference that is attributed to man-made sources and is thus affirmed with the modified temperature anomalous readings. However, there are also problems with this conclusion:

  1. To claim that man-made contributions double natural contributions (and are beginning to exceed natural sources), is to clearly misunderstand the massive amount of CO2 output that would be required to match nature.
  2. This assumes that natural CO2 sources have been consumed, in their vast majority, by all the natural sources (such as the ocean), to maximum concentration levels. But, there’s a problem with that argument: As previously discussed, when a substance (like water), is mixed with other molecules, the specific heat is changed. As much as it is an old wives tale to believe that salt makes water boil faster (when in fact, it increases the amount of time due to the change in specific heat), even if all of the world’s natural CO2 was consumed in the oceans to the ocean’s maximum capacity for CO2 absorbance, the addition of CO2 would also change the specific temperature of the ocean, further absorb the additional LWR deeper in the ocean depths and would counter a rise in surface temperature.

Basically, it comes down to this: without quantification of how much man-made CO2 is actually being generated, the use of mathematical subtraction as a science is not … science. It’s still simply a conjecture.


This brings us to the next dilemma: melting ice. One of the problems with pro-AGW believers is their unwillingness to accept alternate data. Beating the drum for flawed peer review, scientists only (and even then, only the ones that agree with their perspective), and other lame excuses, they are simply unwilling to listen to contradictions. For whatever reason, they need to have fear beat into peoples’ minds and this inability to think outside of the box stunts science and corrupts conclusions. For instance, tree ring and ice core data is ignored by most scientists as it is considered proxy data. This are non direct or gauged measurements (although translating gauged data into temperature anomalies by modifying the raw data is not much better). However, AGW supporters take the proxy data as a fact to make claims that “never before in history” has CO2 been as high as it is, now. There is literally no basis, whatsoever, to make that claim.

Pockets of trapped-in-ice atmosphere and tree ring moisture saturation is fraught with more error on estimating atmospheric conditions (especially where pressure zones over polar regions are currently also being ignored to avoid impacting a global temperature average), than this article can address. Frequently on-line, there are claims that 95% or greater of “all scientists” agree AGW is real. There has never been an actual consensus of “all scientists” taken. That claim is based on the fact that research papers, all relying on the same source data of presumed AGW, conclude AGW is real, and peer reviewers who support AGW provide reviews that confirm the AGW conclusion. This is literally a bastardization of the scientific method and abuse of peer review.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. … Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

-Michael Crichton

It is not wrong, per se, to make a connection between the industrial era and a rise in CO2 or a connection between CO2 and ambient temperature. However, there are a myriad of explanations which cannot be ruled out and when AGW supporters ignore other factors, it further signifies the flaws in their rationale. For example, to recognize the CO2 contained in ice cores in sufficient quantity to establish global measurements but to ignore that an already existing rise in temperature is melting ice and releasing all of that CO2 is ignoring that the rise in CO2 may be a consequence of climate change, not the cause. That is not to say that man-made CO2 doesn’t contribute. In some small percentage, of course it does. For instance, 8 billion people on the Earth is a lot of CO2 just from breathing. The amount of CO2 from the beverage industry is a big contributor. But, when the Paris Accord (the final result of the IPCC’s work), has to struggle with the truth about man-made CO2 sources and ignores the possibility of other sources, that means:

There is no climate “epidemic”. Rises in temperature may not be able to be curbed. And, even if we were to assume all excess CO2 (above the pre-industrial ice core readings) was man-made, and then magically stop it all, we are still faced with the fact that the global pre-industrial trend was already melting ice, already moving toward warmth, and (as most scientists seem to agree based on what I could find), we would eventually need to face the reality of possible geographical impacts. There is also no argument, discussion, or debate to be had on the effects of AGW on climate change until we can substantiate that: A) CO2 is coming from man-made sources, and B) that excess CO2 is the direct cause of temperature rises.

One of the AGW arguments (at least as they use on social media) is that the evidence of absence IS the justifiable absence of evidence, whereby no other argument (that they will consider) for the increase in CO2 or climate change plus the manipulated data that shows CO2 and temperature rising together, “must indicate the two are linked“. This observation fallacy falls flat as the opposite has as much potential to be true, whereby the lack of actual CO2 gauged measurement data and quantification of CO2 impacts on surface temperature is equally the evidence of absence. Another failure in AGW arguments is the “persistence” of CO2 in the atmosphere. During the COVID lockdown of 2020, manufacturing processes were slowed globally, but the concentration of CO2 continued to rise. The claim (as per an article, here), is that the damage is already done and CO2 will persist in the atmosphere for thousands of years. This argument fails for two reasons as 1) there is no substantiated proof that CO2 remains in the atmosphere as no CO2 can be “tagged” and tracked and is an absolute assumption (and only exists to support the AGW claim), and 2) defies the principles of atmospheric pressure, gravity and the physics of gases. Furthermore, if CO2 were unable to be reduced for thousands of years, there would be zero ability to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by merely taking on renewable energy and the current global warming trend (that started pre-industrialization) would continue, resulting in a global doomsday outcome (and the whole conversation is pointless).

While widely erroneous technologies are pursued (article) for public monitoring (not distinguishing anthropogenic from natural CO2), factory monitoring of CO2 output and sequestration still remains a difficult, if not impossible task. In contrast to this, CO2 sequestration technologies have been employed since the early 2000’s (article) that reduce CO2 output. However, you won’t see sequestration reflected in AGW charts (like Image 3) because it’s calculated and estimated, not measured. You’ll also notice in Image 3 large dips in the CO2 concentration – but this is just another effect of using thermal anomalies with assumed CO2 causality as the only method for quantifying AGW averaged results.

Image 6: Example of 1 cubic meter of air (with a cube boundary, left, and none on the right), and what the concentration of 0.0365% looks like (with CO2 molecules blown up 1000x simply to be able to see it as it is impossible to see them in this representation at their actual size). Shining a light through this, even if each individual molecule was a mirror, at the actual size of CO2, would have an essential net zero gain.

Another example of an ignored potential contributor to global warming is electromagnetic radiation from cellular communications. As much as CO2 and temperature have supposedly increased, so has the use of radio, satellite, and cellular communications. It was proven some time ago that electromagnetic waves in this spectrum could weaken the Van Allen Belts (here and source article here). Considering the global exposure to massive radio and cellular em-waves in use today, there is little to show that human beings have not weakened the radiation buffer over Earth and increased solar exposure. There is absolutely nothing to refute that the massive flux of outgoing radio-wave communications has not impacted the belts (contributing to polar shifts) and further allowing through more solar radiation. Before you go crazy with all your rebuttles and frustration: I am NOT saying this “is” happening. I am indicating that this is a very realistic scenario that has been ongoing for quite some time and coincides with temperature differences. When we discount possibilities and do not question science, accepting concepts like AGW blindly, then we ignore what could otherwise be very real threats to our planet and ourselves.

As previously noted, this article has not been written to determine whether or not AGW is true. It has been written to explore some of the fallacies and flaws in the AGW argument, as I see them. On social media, so many people stand on AGW as a real “doomsday” threat to humanity, suggesting irrational solutions in the clean energy industry that would result in massive fallout of increased CO2 pollution, mining reclamation, and worse. This is just another example as to why treating a science like AGW like a blind religion has massively dangerous consequences. As America has opted to elect a rather unscrupulous fellow to its Presidency starting in 2021, Earth may begin to see the very real dangers that the religious zealot treatment of AGW support has produced.


Moving Forward, the AGW debate approach must be completely revised:

  1. All raw, scientifically recorded / gauged data from NASA, NOAA, et. al, needs to be compiled without smoothing or modifications and presented on 3-dimensional planes to properly represent the planet and perform an accurate analysis of weather trends (with less averaging and appropriately weighted values for ambient air conditions). This leaves it open for everyone to interpret and analyze without bias.
  2. Source data for actual man-made CO2 contributions is needed. Not estimations or assumptions. Or, all Anthropogenic claims needs to be clarified as “assumptions”. That does not make them wrong, just not yet “science”.
  3. We need to end the “push” for clean energy at massive levels, risking horrific ecological impacts. As I work in the clean energy industry, I have a vested interest in reducing the carbon footprint of people – but not at the risk of harming the environment or creating a fake climate of fear. Spend the time and energy thinking of new solutions to old problems.
  4. Volumetric measurements of close-up CO2 are needed to confirm satellite data and more temperature and monitoring stations are needed on the ground.
  5. Volumetric measurements are needed of energized CO2 molecules, in supposed “hot zones”, to confirm their contribution to ambient warming.
  6. Dependence on a “few” glacier measurement stations when there are thousands of glaciers is not qualified data and needs to be revamped for a broader range of testing.
  7. The AGW social media world needs to end their fear campaign of doomsday predictions based on false data. Furthermore, the bullying and abuse of scientists who contradict their ideas needs to end so that productive conversations can occur.
  8. Manipulation of science by inclusion of 16 year old children as “spokespersons” needs to end as this only continues to undermine the very idea that AGW support is at all, serious.
  9. A large portion of the scientists for and against AGW have clearly demonstrated their bias and thus, it is time for non-scientists / non -PhD’s to also be welcomed into the conversation as it is vital to have fresh, young minds bringing out-of-the-box ideas to the table.
  10. The assault on researchers and others publishing counter-AGW scientific articles needs to end. Likewise, the “peer review” process needs to be seen for what it is and the false confirmation bias “consensus” talk needs to end (along with the use of misleading and disruptive lies like, “denier” language).

Summaries from this article:

  1. Is the climate changing? – Yes. The climate changes every minute of every day. It has for billions of years and will for (hopefully) a very long time, to come. Of recent, I, along with many others, would agree that some of the changes (like the droughts in the Pacific Northwest USA), have been worse than others.
  2. Does CO2 warm the planet? – No. CO2 is not a source of energy.
  3. Does CO2 trap heat in the surface of the planet? – Mostly, no. CO2 does not generate enough energy than that of the surface and lower states do not transfer into higher states (entropy), although there may be locations around the planet where the surface energy is that low.
  4. Is CO2 part of radiative forcing? – Yes and no. “Assuming” CO2 is doing what is claimed, it absorbs an incrementally small amount of the outgoing LWR and in its excited state, releases the energy in all directions, with only a small portion of that down toward Earth. The fact that this can cause an increase in ambient temperatures and contribute to an overall pattern of in-lower atmospheric higher temperatures than if CO2 was not present, would mean that it still prevented that radiation from going into space and thus, “technically” qualify as radiative forcing, except this does not signify that it contributes to the surface temperature of the Earth, only the volumetric atmosphere around it. Thus, radiative forcing, as the measure of a negative space, is not a good way to quantify or assure any scientific relevance to CO2’s impact on the climate.
  5. Can CO2 cause global warming? – Yes and no. “Assuming” CO2 is doing what is claimed, like insulation in the attic (albeit very, very poor), it slows down the release of heat but only to a very finite extent as heat dissipates in 360 degrees. Therefore, unless the incoming SWR is at a high enough temperature, CO2 cannot increase the temperature beyond this range (and as it is, would be “globally” averaged to a very small, finite amount, far less than 1 degree Celsius). Thus, the sun is still the cause of global warming and at best, CO2 contributes ambient warming and interacts with the atmosphere through conduction and convection, subject to all the laws of thermodynamics, gases, and principles associated with atmospheric pressure and gravity.
  6. Is Man-made CO2 a problem? – Yes and no. Human beings are very wasteful creatures and we do spend a horrible amount of resources on developing wasteful endeavors. The fact that there is profit in fossil fuels but not in cleaning up the environment (especially not without fearmongering and abusive government tactics), is evidence of humanity’s failure to treat Earth, well. Conversely, without any true or accurate measurement to quantify human activities, there is zero percent – literally NO way – of defining the contribution levels by humanity to the atmosphere and anything else is pure speculation (and has no place in science except as a conjectured theory needing proof).
  7. Does CO2 cause ambient temperature increases? – Unknown, but most likely. Until we get volumetric sensors covering the Earth and quantifying this, or much better and more refined satellite sensors, we cannot be 100% sure what is causing the temperature rises and shifts in climate that we are seeing. However, we can assert a theory that this is possible and use that as a basis for new research.
  8. Is supporting AGW dangerous? Yes and no. There is nothing wrong with supporting a concern over human-caused pollution and wanting to find new ways to reduce environmental impacts. In fact, it is probably one of the better courses of science to be undertaken (through whatever discipline best suits you). Supporting an agenda for wind and solar farms that would result in epic scale mining reclamation, CO2 output 10,000x greater than currently exists, and fearmongering/bankrupting people to do it is morally wrong when there is no “imminent threat”. It is no surprise that AGW support falls on the “leftist” side of the political spectrum as that is the same group that has believed in government controlling the will of the people for millennia.

To reiterate: CO2, like all the other gases in the atmosphere, definitely has an impact (temperature-wise) on our world, and on us. It is one of the least significant gasses, but has somehow managed to rise through the ranks. I am sure there are mistakes made in this article and that every pro-AGW supporter will find some argument to punch holes in everything I’ve said (even when there are no holes to be punched). But, I have given you links to articles that both support and refute AGW so you (the reader) can see what the arguments are for yourself. I have presented only about half of my arguments against AGW and attempted to properly word all of it for clarity (although I make no promises).

If I could offer you anything as a “take-away”, it would be to forget what you “support” and look to what you don’t; question everything. This broadens your horizons and opens you up to all new ideas and opportunities that you might have otherwise, missed. Questioning your own theory and disproving it not only makes you more skilled in defending your theory, but it can lead to out-of-the-box thinking that advances science and identifies real problems (so they don’t get missed due to “popular” science hysteria); even if the results of your work contradict what you previously believed (critical thinking and open minds are important). It’s not about proving you or I are right or wrong or defining absolutes (because what we know today, will change tomorrow). It’s about the challenge of discovery, being challenged, and the joy of overcoming your own limitations.

Thanks for reading, I hope someone was able to enjoy this. Cheers!

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
― Galileo Galilei

Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory—let the theory go.”
― Agatha Christie, The Mysterious Affair at Styles

Science, my boy, is made up of mistakes, but they are mistakes which it is useful to make, because they lead little by little to the truth.
― Jules Verne

As always, I encourage anyone who wants to comment, to do so. Please keep it respectful. I will delete the losers & haters. Otherwise, I leave it an open forum to you to debate, attack, disassemble, question, support, or even add your own thoughts to this discussion. And, if I have anything wrong – please feel free to correct it (and if it is a legitimate and worthwhile correction, I will actually edit the main article and give you credit). If you just want to be part of the climate brawl cultists (Gerry’s kids) of abusive, misleading, and pathetic losers who live only to hurt and troll people for Gerry’s own personal wealth / gain, or anything similar, save your time and move on as trolling and hatred is a waste of time. I will simply delete your reply, and if need be, report you to WordPress. Even if you are not a scientist, or peer reviewer – please feel free to comment. We will have a much better discussion when everyone is invited to participate!

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