A DIY Guide to Demystifying “Greenhouse Gas” Claims…The Science That Cuts Corners

From the NoTricksZone

By Fred F. Mueller

Do you feel helpless when trying to assess the veracity of “climate doom is looming” claims we are constantly bombarded with?

For ordinary citizens not having acquired at least a Ph.d. degree in atmospheric physics or comparable climate-relevant sciences, it seems nearly impossible to tell right from wrong when it comes to assess such claims. Do so-called greenhouse gases really reflect infrared energy back to earth in such quantities that this affects earth’s temperature?

Don’t give up trying to understand the relevant basics: there are rather simple ways to get an idea about what this is all about. Even without a scientific background, most people have at least a good common sense. And that’s all it takes to get a grasp of how vigorously and chaotically enormous energy fluxes slosh up and down, back and forth between earth’s surface and the skies.

Fig. 1. The setting sun illuminating a fairly thin veil of clouds from below – thus injecting energy into the space between the earths’s surface and cloud cover.

Part 1 – some basics

Let’s first clarify where the heat that allows us to live rather comfortably in our habitats is coming from and where it goes to. Despite the enormous energy content of the molten core of our planet, the bulk of our energy comes from the sun, which sends us energy mainly using three forms of electromagnetic radiation: visible, ultraviolet and infrared light.

At the top of the atmosphere, every square meter oriented towards the sun thus receives a fairly constant power influx of 1361 to 1362 W/m2. Although not being a real constant, this value is often referred to as the solar constant.

The alleged greenhouse effect

The notion of a “greenhouse effect” in our atmosphere has been used and misused incredibly often, resulting in an incredible mess of erroneous perceptions not only among the public, but even in the scientific world. A striking example for an obvious misrepresentation can be seen in the lead-in picture of the Wikipedia chapter on the topic, Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. The lead-in picture of the Wikipedia chapter about the “greenhouse effect” (Author: Efbrazil 2), CC 4.0)

This graphic highlights the extent to which Wikipedia gives the impression of having fallen prey to climate activism. The complex reality of transfers and transformations of energy on our planet involving soils, waters, gases, clouds, aerosols, heat storage, conduction and convection, chemical reactions and phase transformations, as well as a host of additional factors are simply swept under the carpet, attributing all their combined effects solely to the odious “greenhouse gases”.

This Wikipedia chapter is a saddening example for the downfall of an allegedly scientific encyclopedia actually spreading rather crude ideology under the guise of educating the public. The related chapter comprises more than 7,000 words and tries to underscore its claim of being “scientific” by a list of 80 citations including papers about the atmospheric conditions on far-away cosmic bodies such as Titan and Venus. But this cannot excuse the use of such a grossly misleading graphic as the lead-in picture for the abstract. Such tricks commonly used in tabloids or yellow journals. Wikipedia touts itself to be an encyclopedia addressing not only scientists but also laymen and the general public and should therefore care all the more not to disseminate content that may be misunderstood by people lacking a scientific background.

Fig. 3. This more detailed representation of the energy fluxes on earth elaborated by NASA is still misleading with respect to some decisive facts (Picture by NASA 3), public domain) Note: This graphic and the corresponding link have been withdrawn after completion of the article. In a subsequent part, the replacement graphic and its amendments will be treated in detail. Nevertheless, this graphic and its errors have been displayed for a prolonged time, thus warranting a suited discussion.

Although the more detailed Fig. 3 elaborated by NASA gives a better impression of the many different factors influencing energy transfer fluxes between earth’s surface and space, it still misleads in a subtle way that makes it unfit to convey a correct understanding of the vital facts. Let’s look at the main inconsistencies.

Mean values intended to mask natural variations

One of the favourite tricks of climate prophets of doom is to suggest that all major factors influencing our climate are more or less constant, with the sole exception of “greenhouse gases”. They intend to exploit the fact that the CO2-level of the atmosphere is rising while at least for the past some 150 years, meteorologists have also seen a moderate rise of the temperature levels they monitor on their stations. Though both trends are far from being in lockstep, this coincidence of trends has been declared to be the proof for a causality, although no clear mechanism or quantitative deduction could hitherto be established. Despite many striking discrepancies e.g. with respect to the natural cycles of CO2 or the absorption and sequestration of CO2 in our oceans, the perceived rise in temperatures has been almost exclusively attributed to CO2.

Misusing water vapor

Another diversion has been to declare that water vapor is simply reinforcing the leading role of CO2. This might be viewed as a real masterpiece of twisting reality since water vapor has not only a much higher efficiency with respect to absorbing (and re-emitting) infrared radiation (see Fig.4.), but is also exceeds the content of CO2 in the atmosphere by factors between 25 (= median concentration value at sea level) and up to 100!

Fig. 4. Comparing the spectral IR radiance of a surface with 14 °C with the overlapped absorption bands of CO2 (brownish) and water vapor (bluish) shows the highly superior absorption capacity of water vapor for the IR emission of soil or water at 14 °C – (which is the “mean” temperature on earth’s surface). Please mind the different scales of the x axes: linear for the spectral radiance, logarithmic for the absorption. (Graphics: SpectralCalc 4) (above), NASA, Robert Rohde 5) Public domain (below)).

 Notwithstanding these inconsistencies, the climate science community has in its vast majority adopted this approach. This might be attributable to the fact that the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere is subjected to wild temporal and local variations between nearly zero – e.g. at high altitudes and very low temperatures – and sometimes up to 4% at sea level.

Cutting corners

Additionally, especially when transforming to clouds, water vapor tends to condense or freeze out of the atmosphere in ways that have up to now resisted any realistic attempt to describe them mathematically. Trying to establish realistic three-dimensional models of water vapor distribution over a certain location at a given moment and to calculate the resulting effects on absorption and re-emission of IR radiation thus remain a much more arduous task than using a single value for all and every condition, as can conveniently be done when attributing the whole “greenhouse effect” solely to CO2. And voilà, truckloads of complicated research work may simply be skipped. This approach also greatly reduces the scale of expenditures in data acquisition, manpower, computer time – and in waiting time before reaping academic awards. After all, the beacon for all climate science, the IPCC, is doing it too, e.g. by simply omitting water vapor from its account of “greenhouse gases”, see Fig. 5.

Pic.5. Contribution to observed climate change from 12 different drivers, as taken from the Summary for Policymakers of the sixth IPCC assessment report, adapted from figure SPM.2c (Graphic: Erik Fisk, CC 4.0 6))

The numerous advantages of such a cutting of (scientific) corners might be one of the main driving forces for the deplorable tendency towards the “single number fallacy” explained by Kip Hansen 7) as being “the belief that complex, complicated and even chaotic subjects and their data can be reduced to a significant and truthful single number.”

Unfortunately for us, that’s exactly what the official climate science is doing. Under the headline “One number to track human impact on climate”, NOAA scientists released the first AGGI 8) (aggregated greenhouse gas index) in 2006 as “a way to help policymakers, educators, and the public understand the cumulative impact of greenhouse gases on climate over time”.

The minuscule driving forces of “greenhouse gases”

When trying to assess the real impact of “greenhouse gases” on earths energy balance, the first step should be to assess the driving force they are alleged to exert on the input and output of energy fluxes. Corresponding parameters can be found in a table within the Wikipedia chapter about Greenhouse gases 9). They reveal that in the view of the leading climate scientists, just four gases have a relevant influence on the budget of energy exchange between incoming and outgoing radiation energy since the alleged start of “human- induced climate change” in 1750. These are:

Carbon dioxide with                          + 2.05    W/m2
Methane with                                      + 0.49    W/m2
Nitrous oxide with                             + 0.17    W/m2
Tropospheric ozone                           + 0.4      W/m2
Total GHG contribution             +3.11     W/m2

This figure is extraordinarily small when comparing it with the enormous temporal and local variability of energy fluxes within our planet’s ocean/atmosphere/soil system within short time periods, and amounts to just a low single digit percentage of the daily variations. This will be treated in more detail in the following chapter.

Peculiarly enormous greenhouse effect range 

On a side note, it is interesting to see that the IPCC gives an enormous range for the greenhouse effect (TCR, Transient Climate Response or “climate sensitivity” 10)) of CO2, which is estimated to range “likely” between 1.5 and 4.5°C. The figure represents the alleged rise of earth’s mean temperature in °C for every doubling of the CO2 level of the atmosphere. Given this extraordinarily broad range of ± 50%, one might be surprised that IPCC, NOAA and Wikipedia authors advance temperature rise values for greenhouse gases calculated with up to three “significant” digits. This too might be attributable to the feeling of certainty about climate relevant figures instilled into the public by the “one number fits it all” mentality prevalent in our current climate science community.


  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
  3. http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/pdf/Energy_Budget_Litho_10year.pdf (Note: This link seems to have been deactivated very recently.)
  4. https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
  5. File:CO2 H2O absorption atmospheric gases unique pattern energy wavelengths of energy transparent to others.png – Wikimedia Commons
  6. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg
  7. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/03/unknown-uncertain-or-both/
  8. https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2877/Greenhouse-gas-pollution-trapped-49-more-heat-in-2021-than-in-1990-NOAA-finds
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
  10. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-climate/climate-sensitivity-explained
4.7 27 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 14, 2023 6:22 pm

Still too cold.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Scissor
January 14, 2023 6:27 pm

Is Gretta keeping “it” (her head ?) in the ground ?


Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
January 14, 2023 6:39 pm

Perhaps clouds would be more appropriate, but at least she has sense to wear mittens. Almost all of the activists are donning clothing of synthetic fabrics and materials.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Scissor
January 14, 2023 8:01 pm

It looks more like a sock.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 15, 2023 12:33 am

Well she is a sock puppet

Dan Pangburn
January 14, 2023 6:25 pm

The only gas that has a significant effect on climate is water vapor. The human contribution to water vapor increase has been small and is self-limiting. Radiation from water vapor molecules (they are IR active) is omnidirectional but because of the steep population gradient of water vapor molecules, the prevailing direction of radiation flux is towards space. Energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is redirected wrt wave number via gaseous conduction to replenish the energy radiated to space. More description is at  https://energyredirect3.blogspot.com

Richard Greene
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
January 15, 2023 12:55 am

Water vapor is not a direct cause of climate change and humans do not determine the average level of water vapor in the troposphere, which is an effect of the average temperature of the troposphere. This relationship is governed by the The Clausius–Clapeyron Equation, which you may want to study.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 15, 2023 5:44 am

Atmospheric water vapor increased between 2000-2021 according to CERES. Probably in response to increases solar radiation reaching the surface.

Dan Pangburn
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 15, 2023 12:42 pm

If you study closely the link that you referred to you should realize that it is an approximation that was useful prior to modern computers. The correct Clausius-Clapeyron relation is true only at saturation and relates the enthalpy change with the volume change at phase change. The stated “saturation vapor pressure increases by 7% for every 1 K increase in temperature” is also an approximation. It should be the slope of the saturation curve divided by the pressure. This depends on temperature and varies from about 5.5% in the tropics to 12% where it’s cold e.g. at the poles and at high altitude.
The following graphs which are accurate measurements are Figure 4 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com. Accurate curve fits for water and ice are derived at https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/57/6/jamc-d-17-0334.1.xml

ICE & WATER SAT p vs T.jpg
Richard Greene
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
January 16, 2023 12:29 am

There are no accurate measurements of the global average percentage of water vapor in the troposphere.

Dan Pangburn
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 16, 2023 7:00 pm

The Deep State is erasing history but some of us know the truth. Reported accuracy was about 1mm RMS or 3 % https://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product/

Robert B
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 16, 2023 7:49 pm

“Water vapor is not a direct cause of climate change and humans do not determine the average level of water vapor in the troposphere”

That wasn’t the argument that he was making. I’d call it a straw man argument but even what you summed his argument up as is not rebutted by linking to the CC equation.

The absolute humidity is only determined by the temperature at 100% relative humidity. Even well below 100% relative humidity, the absorption of IR by water vapour is much more than CO2. How does the CC equation prove this wrong?

Tom Halla
January 14, 2023 6:43 pm

Considering water vapor v CO2, I am reminded of the parable of the drunk, the streetlight, and the lost keys. But it is so much easier to look for them there!

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 14, 2023 6:47 pm

I like the one about the climate ‘scientist’ who uses statistics the same way that a drunk uses a street lamp. For support, rather than illumination.

John in Oz
January 14, 2023 7:18 pm


every square meter oriented towards the sun thus receives a fairly constant power influx of 1361 to 1362 W/m2″

why does fig. 3 use 340.4W/sq.m as incoming solar radiation?

Is the difference due to the Earth not being flat (sorry those who believe otherwise) so the 340.4 is the average when allowing for curvature?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  John in Oz
January 14, 2023 7:39 pm

They use 340 as the average value for radiation striking the surface taking in the dark side of Earth and the cosine rule. They divide 1361 by 4 to come up with that number.
It’s not correct, for a start, doing that. The sun is larger than Earth and there is an ‘overlap’ of sunlight at the poles.
Who am I to argue with ‘expert’ climate scientists.

Last edited 21 days ago by Alexy Scherbakoff
Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 14, 2023 10:32 pm

The sun’s diameter is 865K miles. The distance from the sun to the Earth is 93M miles, 100 times as much, a very very fine angle. The “overlap” you worry about is irrelevant unless you want to pretend to be scientific.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
January 14, 2023 10:54 pm

It’s a simple calculation. Just work it out before you express an opinion.
Not zero when you calculate the meridian. I can’t remember exactly. I couldn’t be bothered proving something to you. Who cares about 5-10 watts per square metre.
Prove me wrong instead of insulting me.

Last edited 21 days ago by Alexy Scherbakoff
Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 15, 2023 12:04 am

I don’t need to work it out to any precision when it’s less than 1/100. You were not technically wrong, just raising an insignificant issue. And my insult is no worse than yours.

Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
January 15, 2023 12:35 am

Calm down ladies, put your handbags down, kiss & make up.
We are all friends fiends here !!!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 15, 2023 6:25 am

Some real problems with these averages of insolation as the author states.

One only has to look at the various climate zones to understand that different amounts of insolation strike the earth at different points north and south of the equator. This causes temperatures to vary by the 4th root of insolation. Think something like a cosine function.

The sun’s insolation also isn’t “average” through the “daytime”. It varies by something that looks like a sine wave. That means only for a brief moment when the sun is at zenith does any given point receive maximum insolation. Again, temperature varies by the 4th root of insolation.

If that darned 4th exponent wasn’t there, averages might be better.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 16, 2023 4:36 am

Consider also that IR “radiation” follows the inverse square law. Somehow this never gets included when adding the w/m^2 values. If the earth radiates 100 w/m^2 straight up then it’s considered to be 100 w/m2 the whole way up!

Tell me IR radiation doesn’t follow the inverse square law.

Robert B
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 16, 2023 8:08 pm

The Earth is 6000 km in diameter so 20km up is still pretty close to being illuminated by a very large plane and not a point source. So while the illumination from the point directly below drops by inverse square of the distance, it’s made up by illumination from other points on the plane.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Robert B
January 17, 2023 4:48 am

Have you actually done that integral? It winds up with at least a sin^2(x) in it. I haven’t had time to actually calculate it all out but I am working on it in my spare time.

Why haven’t the climate scientists already worked it out? Or have they and then just ignored it?

Even at 20km the earth is not a large plane. The curvature of the earth increases the actual path length over a large plane as the radius of interest expands.

It’s not a simple integral to work out and its been a while since I’ve done 3D vector integrals in polar coordinates. But I have started.

Show me where this has been done in climate science.

Robert B
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 16, 2023 8:02 pm

I’ll ask this question again. What is the relative mean temperature of a true black body orb and a sphere of an infinite number of independent one sided black bodies?

It is not something that is necessary to calculate, as neither the Earth nor Moon are like either. I just expected that a climate scientist would have done something like it.

My back of envelope gave me 2 square root of 2 or almost 3 times higher for the former if everything else was equal.

Like I said, just an interesting question that leads to another, why start with what Earth’s mean temperature would be if it was a blackbody with no atmosphere?

Last edited 19 days ago by Robert B
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 15, 2023 7:11 am

It also ignores the ±10% yearly orbital variation.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 15, 2023 8:21 am

I agree it is incorrect but for a different reason. I object to averaging in a physical impossibility to arrive at 340.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  mkelly
January 15, 2023 2:52 pm

A daily average is derived from a yearly average divided by 365. What could possibly be wrong with that?

January 14, 2023 7:41 pm

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  JCM
January 14, 2023 8:13 pm

It’s a bit scary sometimes. Zero doubt about what they are promoting.

January 14, 2023 7:41 pm

The “greenhouse effect” is unrelated to Earth’s energy balance.

Ice on land, water and in the atmosphere controls the energy balance. This is why the temperature is so stable despite a huge range in solar forcing over orbital time scales because ice forming is a temperature controlled process. The summer solar input to the Northern Hemisphere will increase by 20W/m2 over the next 10,000 years. It has already increased 1W/m^2 in the last 1000 years and is already giving a hint of how that will change the energy balance.

Northern ocean surface warming in summer leading to more atmospheric water ahead of the autumn cooling over land. Hence more snowfall in mid to high northern latitudes. Snow extent has been trending up in the NH for the entire period of global records. Both Greenland and Iceland are gaining permanent ice cover and Greenland is gaining elevation.

The northern oceans have only started to warm. They are less than 10% to their ultimate temperature rise.

There is no “global” warming. Greenland plateau is the poster child of warming but all that is occurring in winter and that only occurs due to more advection and increased snowfall. January temperature up almost 10C from -30C to -20C in the past 70 years. By contrast, Antarctic plateau and Southern Ocean both have long standing cooling trends.

Earth is in almost identical solar forcing to 399k years ago when that interglacial terminated. If there was no screwed, myopic view on the fantasy power of CO2, a lot more people would appreciate that the current interglacial is on the cusp of terminating.

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  RickWill
January 15, 2023 12:25 am

because ice forming is a temperature controlled process.

Not only is ice forming a temperature controlled process at the surface of the Earth, it is also a temperature controlled process at the Top of the Troposphere. The freezing point of supercooled water defines the elevation level of cirrus cloud formation. This then feeds back into the energy balance process, because solid particles are vasty more efficient emitters of thermal radiant energy to space than polyatomic atmospheric gases are. In addition high elevation ice crystal clouds also constrain the planetary Bond albedo. This albedo constraint is a clear example of a negative feed back that stabilises the energy flow through the climate system.

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
January 15, 2023 1:33 am

You are correct and puts more words into my opening sentence where I included the ice in the atmosphere for the reason you provide:

Ice on land, water and in the atmosphere controls the energy balance.

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  RickWill
January 15, 2023 1:05 pm

Apologies Richard, I missed seeing that.
I was more focused on the brilliant concept in the title of your paper.

Oceans Store Heat and Land Stores Ice.

A colleague in my network wants to contact you, How can he do this?

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
January 15, 2023 1:26 pm

You can get email address in two ways – ask Charles the moderator or go to this link:

Richard Greene
Reply to  RickWill
January 15, 2023 12:57 am

“There is no “global” warming.”

There is always global warming or global cooling.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 15, 2023 1:29 am

There is always global warming or global cooling.

Nope. There are some places warming at certain times, there are some places cooling at certain times. There are some places with no warming or cooling over sustained trends. There is no “global” cooling or warming.

Right now the surface average temperature has an increasing trend. Most of the temperature rise is occurring on land north of 40N in winter as evidenced by the increasing abundance of snow due to increasing advection of ocean heat over land in winter resulting in ice precipitating.

Ron Long
Reply to  RickWill
January 15, 2023 2:17 am

Rick, while I like some of your comments in this sequence, most geologists utilize the sea level as an overall global temperature indicator. This only works if there are continental land masses in polar regions, as sea ice is in equilibrium with sea level. Due to continental drift the prior sea level changes need to be factored against continental positions. This is the Sequence Stratigraphy part of geology, recognized by Exxon geologists and geophysicists.

Reply to  Ron Long
January 15, 2023 3:40 pm

The sea level reconstruction I charted in the attachment and the paper in the link only goes back 430k years. There has not been any significant continental drift in that time.

The last major change in land masses was the appearance of the Panama Isthmus. This closed off the interconnection of the tropical Atlantic and the tropical Pacific. The result of that was intensifying the Gulf Stream and causing deeper glaciation due to better transfer of tropical warm water in the Atlantic to the high northern latitudes – multiples of precession cycles rather than the single precession cycle prior to the closure.

Recovery from glaciation is caused by glacier calving. Once the process starts, it sets up a positive feedback as the rising sea level level inundates more glaciers. The accelerated calving cools the ocean surface and shuts down the water cycle. This cooling of the oceans is global because it also impacts on Antarctica. One of the best examples of this process is the Big Baffin Bay berg that broke free from its ice flow after the sea level had risen about 20m then foundered at the month of Davis Strait to block warm water flow into the Bay.

it has been proposed that Baffin Bay was blocked at its southern end by an ice shelf extension of the Hudson Strait ice stream that grounded across Davis Strait to reach southern Greenland, thus sealing Baffin Bay from the Labrador Sea (Hulbe et al., 1997; Álvarez-Solas et al., 2010; Marcott et al., 2011). 

Richard Greene
Reply to  RickWill
January 15, 2023 2:19 am

“Right now the surface average temperature has an increasing trend.”

Wrong again
UAH data from satellites reflect a steady global average temperature for over 8 years so far = not an increasing trend.

Warming = global average temperature increasing
Cooling = global average temperature decreasing

Our planet is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so is always warming or cooling, on average.

Specific locations and regions can be affected by local and regional climate changes. The global average includes the net result of all causes of climate change.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 15, 2023 6:53 am

I think Rick was speaking of a longer time frame than 8 years. But who do we believe? The following is from a recent article by Kip Hanson.

The New York Times’ authors, Henry Fountain and Mira Rojanasakul, simply do not mention the positive story that the last eight years have a trend of minus 0.87°C/century.”

So is 8 years steady or negative!

Richard Greene
Reply to  mkelly
January 16, 2023 12:32 am

Either one is not a rising trend
Close enough to a flat trend to call the trend “flat” for the past 8+ years.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 15, 2023 6:58 am

Our planet is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so is always warming or cooling, on average.

The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period had physical impacts on the earth’s environment which were experienced by humans living at the earth’s surface over periods spanning hundreds of years.

Suppose for purposes of discussion the UAH and HADCrut temperature indices had been available to these humans during the entire spans of those two warm periods,

What kinds of geospacial temperature patterns would have been seen over time among both sets of data over the several hundred years in which each of those two warm periods were active?

Richard Greene
Reply to  Beta Blocker
January 16, 2023 12:39 am

There have been warmer and colder centuries but we can not prove that with averages of local temperature proxies.

The resulting peaks and troughs are too small relative the likely margin of errors in the estimates.

The Holocene Climate Optimum from 5000 to 9000 years ago was probably warm enough to use averages of local climate proxies to claim the period was slightly warmer than the past 10 years.

We have no accurate global average temperature data before the use of satellite data in 1979.

I have no idea what satellite or surface temperature data would have told us about past centuries. There are anecdotes telling us of warmer and cooler periods. And three weather stations in Central England since the mid-1600s.

The climate varies — that’s all we really know. And the climate does not get much better than it is today. We should be celebrating the current climate.

Last edited 20 days ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 15, 2023 4:22 pm

UAH data from satellites reflect a steady global average temperature for over 8 years so far = not an increasing trend.

2022 is warmer than 2021. So the trend is up.

The average surface temperature has been increasing since about 1600, some 1500 years after the northern hemisphere summers began to get higher solar intensity from its most recent minimum around J0000.

The Northern Hemisphere has a shorter response time than the Southern Hemisphere to long-term solar trends due to greater proportion of land. So it is warming on average now while only the higher latitudes in the SH have cooling trends.

The UAH trend over its short 40 year record is close to what is expected as a trend given the changing solar intensity. That trend will persist until the permafrost moves southward again. That is unlikely to occur this century.

Richard Greene
Reply to  RickWill
January 16, 2023 12:44 am

NASA claims TOA solar energy is slightly lower in the satellite age. … And there is no correlation between sunspot counts and the Central England temperatures since the 1690s. So claims that temperature variations are caused by changes in TOA solar radiation are not supported by data.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 16, 2023 1:53 am

NASA are the main promoters of the GHE. They have no clue about changing solar intensity. It is constantly changing across the globe. Currently increasing summer solar intensity in the NH and reducing summer solar intensity in the SH.

Sunspots are a function of planetary gravitational forces on the sun. The same forces show up on all good temperature records. Attached shows how the planets muscling the sun about causes solar intensity changes in the Nino34 region. No sunspots required as they are driven by the same gravitational forces. It is the movement of the sun about the solar system barycentre that causes one of the changes in solar intensity on Earth due to changes in the distance between Earth and sun due to movement of the sun from the centre. These changes have a significant influence on Earth’s weather but the precessional changes in solar intensity are orders of magnitude higher but longer time scales.

Warming of the NH has only just started. Cooling of the SH is only showing up in the high southern latititudes.

Screen Shot 2023-01-16 at 4.01.36 pm.png
Alexy Scherbakoff
January 14, 2023 8:20 pm

The colourful images fit nicely together with unicorns and rainbows, just right for children or people of equivalent intelligence and understanding. The rainbow is particularly poignant these days.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 15, 2023 6:54 am

You forgot to include my photo, Alexy, so here you are.

Reply to  Oldseadog
January 15, 2023 8:26 am

Behold the power of CO2 radiation.

Henry Pool
January 14, 2023 9:41 pm

Interesting post.
Can I re- blog this on my website?

The effect by CO2 by my calculations is probably nil.
Methane has no absorption beyond 9 um.
The total effect of more ozon should be negative because of its absorption in the UV region.

I am inviting comments on my report, here.


Scarecrow Repair
January 14, 2023 10:27 pm

I confess to a shortcut around having to analyze much of the results: the climate catastrophists simply lie too much, have made too many failed predictions, browbeat skeptics, and spend way too much time and energy analyzing nonsense like how many more daffodils per hectare there will be if the climate warms 1.5° over the next century.

People who do that are covering up, dishonest people trying to distract the public.

Although some of their claims are so ludicrous that they help cement their reputations and the worthlessness of their cause, like claiming sea level has risen at different rates along the same coast just a couple of hundred kilometers apart.

Philip Mulholland
January 14, 2023 11:35 pm

the “one number fits it all” mentality prevalent in our current climate science community.

“One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them”.

Last edited 21 days ago by Philip Mulholland
January 14, 2023 11:58 pm

…ordinary citizens not having acquired at least a Ph.d. degree in atmospheric physics or comparable climate-relevant sciences, it seems nearly impossible to tell right from wrong…

Being so ornary and unpihagedy’d, I probably feel insulted?
When a man walks up to you, and tells you something’s going to happen, and it does not, you may stop believing him. After three such failed predictions, you would treat him as either a joke or a threat. I don’t need a professor to tell me that, little kids understand it.
Besides, using science to convince one of them po’ scienficcylliterates? You kidding, right?
Point out the lies and failures, and laugh your head off. Point and ridicule. Even kids understand THAT.
“The Devil cannot stand being laughed at.” (Twain?)

Reply to  cilo
January 15, 2023 12:38 am

After three such failed predictions, you would treat him as either a joke or a threat.

Or the village idiot

Richard Greene
January 15, 2023 12:46 am

Incompetent authors like this one are the reason Climate Realists are ridiculed as science deniers by the Climate Howlers. The sum of this incompetent article is that virtually 100% of consensus climate science is wrong. Consensus climate science is often called AGW. There is also consensus non-climate science, called CAGW. CAGW does not exist — it is just a prediction that has been wrong since the 1979 Charney Report. A more sophisticated author could differentiate between AGW and CAGW: AGW can exist while CAGW does not exist. That argument is too sophisticated for the author of this article.

The author is not sophisticated enough to realize that changes in atmospheric water vapor are not a direct cause of climate change. They are a feedback to OTHER causes of climate change that alter the average temperature of the troposphere. That’s why water vapor is not listed as a direct cause of climate change in the list. An argument too sophisticated for the author.

In addition, there are multiple errors in the last paragraph.

The author uses the term Transient Climate Sensitivity, and obviously does not know what it means. He then quotes the ECS range from the 1979 Charney Report of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. He did not realize that the IPCC revised those numbers several years ago to 2.0 to 4.5 degrees C. He also does not realize the range includes a large, imagined water vapor positive feedback that happens over 200 to 400 years. The TCS that he started to talk about, before getting confused, is for the next 70 years and is roughly half the ECS range. Even lower if using the RCP 4.5, rather than the RCP 8.5, which the author never mentions, and probably didn’t know what RCP means.

The author attacks the ECS range after confusing it with a TCS range. And he attacks the +/- 50% range as a weakness. In fact, the huge +/- 50% range is one of the rare statements by consensus climate science that is honest. That huge range says: “We’re just guessing ECS — we really don’t know”. A wild guess of ECS with a wide range is better than a wild guess of ECS with a narrow range. I would prefer the correct answer: “We don’t know what ECS is”. The author, after criticizing the old 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. range, never reveals the correct answer is “We don’t know the ECS of CO2”. It is always easier for an author to be critical, than to be correct.

Reading this article, a reader could get the false impression there islittle or no greenhouse effect and CO2 is not a greenhouse gas at the current level. That impression could be created because the author is a fool,

Last edited 21 days ago by Richard Greene
E. Schaffer
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 15, 2023 10:18 am

Regrettably true. And the most painful thing is the people here don’t realize the difference. If you say the science is wrong, you’ll applauded (that is here, but banned in other places). No need for any reasonable arguments.

If you follow the science to the point where it is indeed wrong, then you are already suspicius. I mean why not reject everything outright and without reason? LOL! And that jeopardizes the discussion. We could easily get over AGW once we concentrate on the real issues.

Richard Greene
Reply to  E. Schaffer
January 16, 2023 12:57 am

I’m going to war with conservatives this year when they claim or imply there is no AGW or even no greenhouse effect. This is not making any friends but the “everything leftists say about climate science is wrong crowd” are actual science deniers. I’ve been trying to refute CAGW scaremongering for 25 years. Currently I post links to the best articles i read i on climate and energy every day. I’ve had over 371,000 page views and hope I’ve changed some minds. But the number of AGW deniers among conservatives seems to be increasing.

The only messages I try to convey about AGW and CAGW are these:

There are both manade and natural causes of climate change

No one can determine the exact effect of each variable

Climate change is the net result of many different variables

We know for sure than climate change in out lifetimes has been harmless — beneficial for people in colder nations

And our plants benefit from more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The climate emergency is not based on data or observations — it is merely an always wrong prediction of climate doom, that began with the 1979 Charney Report

The climate emergency has been “coming” for 43 years but never shows up. It obviously got lost in New Jersey, which I have done several times myself.

We should be celebrating the current climate — a warming trend during an interglacial is GREAT NEWS.

The climate doesn’t get much better than this on our planet (although C3 plants would prefer a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere)

Peta of Newark
January 15, 2023 1:50 am

Oh dear, everything is still all wrong.

Question:Where or what is this ‘greenhouse’

There are 4 significant candidates:

El SolOuter spaceEarth’s surface (incl the waters) to ‘some’ or ‘a’ depth ##Earth’s atmosphere## I’d assert that the depth will vary – lets say 10 metres for the rocky part and 100 metres for the watery part

So, which one is The Greenhouse?
OK, you say ‘The Atmosphere’ yes/no?

Question 2: “What is a greenhouse
I’m going out on a limb here and I’d say that a greenhouse is a protected or sheltered space where organisms (in the broadest and widest sense possible) live, breed, eat, grow and go about their business

Thus, question for the atmospherisists:”How many and what sort of organisms go about their entire existence (it has to be all the things listed or they cease to exist) within The Atmosphere?

Out on a limb again:”I would assert that no organisms live, eat feed, breed or do anything in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is an empty, dead and lifeless place.
Thus:“The Atmosphere is not a greenhouse

OK. There seems to ‘life’ of some sort, so where does it do all the things it needs to in order to live. Where does ‘life’ get its food, make its homes, find its mates?

The Greenhouse is Number 3 on my list above.

The Mental Picture: The Earth’s surface and waters, to various depth, is The Greenhouse, outer space is The Big Bad Outside and,
to complete the greenhouse analogy:“The atmosphere is the ‘glass’ of the greenhouse.
i.e. The atmosphere is the protective shield, a dead, inhospitable and lifeless one that shelters ‘life’ from the ‘Big Bad Cold Outside’

OK, the GHGE.This asserts and seemingly records that ‘the shield’ is getting warmer.
All other things being equal, this means that it’s getting energy from somewhere

There are 2 possible somewhere. The 2nd Law says that ‘somewhere’ has to be warmer than the sheild so that rules out outer space- laeving either El Sol or the soil/dirt/rocks/water as the source.

So has El Sol done anything that would make the shield warmer. Has the shield altered in its interaction with El Sol.
Well yes it has, and CO2 is a possible reason.
Because, (the Working Principle of the OCO2 Sputnik) CO2 absorbs solar raditions at 400Celsius and 800Celsius. Thus, extra CO2 would make the shield warmer (##2)
These are wavelengths that would have a heating effect.
(Work it out if you like, but Sol’s surface is radiating about 500kW per square metre at 800Celsius – roughly that turns into about 12Watts per sqm by time it gets here)

But because OCO2 Sputnik seeming does see something as those radiation come in and are reflected back out, notta lot of that 12W is actually heating the shield.

So, is the shield getting its extra energy from the ground somewhere somehow.
The GHGE says ‘yes it is’ – that The Heat Is Trapped

Appeal to the 2nd Law:” If the sheild is warmer than it previously was and, by definition is flat slap bang up against an insanly cold and (nearly) infinite thing like Outer Space – why does it not accelerate its energy flow into that cold thing?
Forget about ‘trapped heat for an instant, How could it possibly NOT be dumping extra energy into that cold thing?

Well, CO2 to the rescue again, it actually could be dumping less energy.
The ONLY way it can be doing that is because it has to radiate that energy (no conduction or convection) and BINGO – CO2 has vanishingly low emissivity.
(To all intents =Zero, as recorded by Hottel, subsequently Leckner, in the 1950’s)
So yes, extra CO2 will reduce energy flow from the shield into outer space and thus will have a higher temperature
Considering the immense emissivity (near unity) of water, its immense quantity relative to the change in CO2, how big would that effect be?

Now conclusion ##2:

If the glass of a greenhouse is getting warmerThe thing outside (El Sol) providing all the energy is staying (has stayed) constantExtra shield absorption of incoming energy is minimalReduced emissivity is so small it’s hardly calculableThus the shield must be getting its extra energy from ‘the greenhouse’ (as defined above)How do those things not point to a Cooling Earth? – or especially, a cooling greenhouse?
Consider that, 99.99999999999999999% (I’d need to hold down the 9 key for an hour to get close to the right number) of ‘Live Organisms’ live in the greenhouse AND that they are intensely temperature-sensitive little flowers – and that all other organisms depend on them – had we better not look out and after them?

Hell is a cold place

Last edited 21 days ago by Peta of Newark
Eric Vieira
January 15, 2023 2:27 am

There’s a general mantra of wanting to “demystify = correctly explain” all the atmospheric processes to the general public. I would prefer a much more efficient way to address the problem: get CO2 Water, Methane and Nitrogen gases out of the equation. Then the whole idea of the need to change our energy systems to renewables, or to ditch agriculture or meat production is moot. That’s exactly what Wijngaarden and Happer have done by explaining that the absorption is saturated, at least for the two principal GHG’s CO2 and Water. The others are negligible concentration wise, or due to overlapping absorption bands with the two main GHG’s. If one doubles the concentration of CO2 this doesn’t lead to a doubling of CO2’s effect (which is often erroneously fed to the public), but a very benign total increase of 3 W/m2, which is around one percent of the total energy budget, and gets lost in the “noise” of a myriad of other fluctuations (cloud cover, orbital effects, PDO’s, and many others). And this is solid physics which doesn’t need additional understanding. The “nail” in the coffin of renewables is right there, and this should be mentioned more often. Maybe by explaining what a sigmoid absorption curve is, and that currently the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is at the “top part” of it. A massive increase in concentration only leads to a tiny increase of absorption.

Last edited 21 days ago by Eric Vieira
Richard M
Reply to  Eric Vieira
January 15, 2023 6:11 am

Keep in mind that the 3 w/m2 is the output of a radiation model and does not consider full atmospheric effects which are most likely reducing it. No matter what it is, boundary layer effects attenuate it almost completely.

David Dibbell
January 15, 2023 5:25 am

“The numerous advantages of such a cutting of (scientific) corners might be one of the main driving forces for the deplorable tendency towards the “single number fallacy” explained by Kip Hansen 7) as being “the belief that complex, complicated and even chaotic subjects and their data can be reduced to a significant and truthful single number.””

This is another reason for continuing to post this link to the NOAA GOES East visualizations of radiance data for Band 16, which NOAA calls the “CO2 Band.” “Watch” from space, and see that it is not the output of a passive radiative “trap.” It is a huge array of variable emitter elements. The radiance at a brightness temperature of 30C on the color scale (yellow) is 10 times the radiance at -90C (white.) The end result involves a composite of extremes, implying that the dynamic and “even chaotic” motions of the atmosphere are exerting control of the variable longwave emission in high resolution. The further implication is that it is all highly self-regulating. The formation and dissipation of clouds has a lot to do with it.

Science. Accessible to all with a mouseclick or a touch on one’s favorite device.


January 15, 2023 6:12 am

Wikipedia is controlled by Leftist trolls. I only trust them on completely non-controversial subjects.

No science, there… just “”SCIENCE”, the word used to browbeat dissenting voices.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Kpar
January 15, 2023 8:19 am

Wikipedia will always provide the latest leftist biased consensus science, so it is a good place to find out what the consensus is. You can also look up the cast of the old Leave it To Beaver TV show there.

Steve Case
January 15, 2023 6:26 am

At the top of the atmosphere, every square meter oriented towards the sun thus receives a fairly constant power influx of 1361 to 1362 W/m2

Given this extraordinarily broad range of ± 50%, one might be surprised that IPCC, NOAA and Wikipedia authors advance temperature rise values for greenhouse gases calculated with up to three “significant” digits. 

Yes, and if you do a search of all those energy budget diagrams you begin to realize that climate science is claiming that they can measure all of the various fluxes with in the climate system

     Reflected by clouds, Reflected by aerosols, Reflected by atmospheric gases,
     Reflected by surface, Absorbed by the surface, Absorbed by the atmosphere,
     Thermals, Evaporation, Transpiration, Latent heat, Emitted by clouds, Emitted
     by atmosphere, Atmospheric Window, AND Back radiation!

to those 3 “significant digits” and arrive at an imbalance of a small fraction of a W/m².

Reply to  Steve Case
January 15, 2023 7:14 am

Using radiometric quantities with uncertainties of at least several W/m2.

Reply to  Steve Case
January 16, 2023 7:49 am

It’s even worse than that. When they say “1361 W/m^2 at the top of atmosphere”, they are making their usual mistake of confusing radiant energy with power. Those Watts depend on the target temperature, which is different between the top of atmosphere (for the sake of argument, pretty close to the 3K background temperature of outer space) vs. the surface (around 288 K average). To be fair, when the source temperature is around 6000 K, the difference between 3 and 288 is pretty small, but not negligible, and without having actually calculated it, I bet it exceeds their error margin by quite a bit.

Of course all the “downwelling LW IR” arrows in Watts are fake too, for the same reason.

January 15, 2023 6:40 am

One doesn’t need to have a PhD to understand the basic thermodynamic principle that refutes the GHG theory — a simple experimental model will suffice to illustrate the ridiculousness of the theory:

Place an ice cube in a glass of room temperature water and watch how the ice cube causes the water to warm further… oops, how come it doesn’t? maybe, because net heat cannot flow from the colder ice(aka the atmosphere) to the warmer water(aka the earth’s surface)

The same thermodynamic principle needs to be recognized and applied to the climate — regardless as to how sophisticated a radiative heat transfer model is, it does not describe the reality of climate behavior

— it is like doing an experiment in a sealed container with CO2 in it and shining an IR source into it while observing a temperature rise, and then defining earth’s climate behavior as such./s

Richard Greene
Reply to  vinceram
January 15, 2023 8:21 am

You might want to take a thermodynamics course some day. I did, when earning my BS degree. Your comment is BS.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 16, 2023 7:11 am

So you believe net heat transfer can occur from a colder region into a warmer region without the application of work? interesting.. and you think I need to learn basic thermo? wow..

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 16, 2023 8:03 am

That’s pretty lazy of you, Richard. Which part of his comment do you think is BS, and why? He didn’t state his position too precisely, but the gist is correct. A more precise statement would be “there are no downwelling infrared Watts at night” (most of the time, under normal outdoor circumstances, in the absence of human intervention, etc.). Do you agree with that, or disagree, and why?

January 15, 2023 7:01 am

Ignored in the usual one-dimensional energy balance diagrams:

– The solar irradiance varies by about ±10% over the course of a year as the earth orbits the sun.

– Any lateral movements of energy in the atmosphere by convection and air currents.

– That the uncertainties of radiometric quantities are at ten times larger, on the order of 5 W/m2, than the gas “forcings” and the differences away from zero of the energy balance.

Walter Sobchak
January 15, 2023 7:02 am

Here is the part that makes me nuts. Describing the energy flow through the atmosphere without including the oceans is like describing the tail of an elephant without describing its body.

The atmosphere and the hydrosphere are closely coupled components of a single system. But, the enthalpy (heat content) of the oceans is about 1000 times that of the air.

It is the oceans that keep the climate stable. The oceans are heated by the sun not the air. Remember air is more or less transparent. The oceans are dark when viewed from above because they absorb most of the sunlight falling on them. They warm air at night and cool it during the day.

If the earth were just rock like the moon, there would be wild swings of temperature between day and night, that would exceed those found in desert areas now.

Barnes Moore
January 15, 2023 7:07 am

I think Willis summed it up nicely:

The climate is arguably the most complex system that humans have tried to model. It has no less than six major subsystems—the hydrosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and electrosphere. None of these subsystems is well understood on its own, and we have only spotty, gap-filled rough measurements of each of them. Each of them has its own internal cycles, mechanisms, phenomena, resonances, and feedbacks. Each one of the subsystems interacts with every one of the others. There are important phenomena occurring at all time scales from nanoseconds to millions of years, and at all spatial scales from nanometers to planet-wide. Finally, there are both internal and external forcings of unknown extent and effect. For example, how does the solar wind affect the biosphere? Not only that, but we’ve only been at the project for a few decades. Our models are … well … to be generous I’d call them Tinkertoy representations of real-world complexity.”

E. Schaffer
Reply to  Barnes Moore
January 15, 2023 10:08 am

It is only complex if you don’t understand it. Actually it is pretty simple.

E. Schaffer
January 15, 2023 9:14 am

Another “the science is wrong” article based on not understanding what the science is actually about. Let alone it would address the real issues.

No one forgot about WV!!! There is only just a distinction between forcings and feedbacks. CO2, methane and so on are considered forcings, which is why they are listed as forcings. WV on the other side is considered a feedback, so that you will not find it among forcings.

Also this idea we have heard many times over, of WV being the important GHG and CO2 the minor one, is a common misunderstanding in the “critical arena”. Actually it is the opposite.

Stephen Philbrick
January 15, 2023 11:59 am

Full disclosure — I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia for many years, now semiretired. Early in my career, I was active in climate related articles. It’s not exactly a secret that many Wikipedia editors contributing to climate articles have “drunk the Kool-Aid” and with rare exceptions, I agree with Fred’s observation that “…Wikipedia gives the impression of having fallen prey to climate activism.” I worked hard, with limited success, to counter some of the excesses. I have largely given up.

That said, while one should never, ever, simply accept Wikipedia without question, I’ll also suggests that the outright dismissal by some is an overreaction.

The opening of the article by Fred Mueller, starting with the ambitious title, promised a lot. I read it with great interest, but don’t feel it lived up to its promise.

I am totally on board with the statement, “The notion of a “greenhouse effect” in our atmosphere has been used and misused incredibly often, resulting in an incredible mess of erroneous perceptions not only among the public, but even in the scientific world.” We’ve already attempts by the media to talk about the greenhouse effect that range from incomplete to laughable, even outright misleading. Fred promises us “A striking example for an obvious misrepresentation can be seen in the lead-in picture of the Wikipedia chapter on the topic, Fig. 2.”

I’m not going argue that the graphic is perfectly fine. There are some problems. But there’s a gulf between nitpicking details and “obvious misrepresentation”, so I read on hoping to learn what Fred found so objectionable.

My first pass reading of the article didn’t immediately identify anything that would qualify as a misrepresentation. I was expecting something along the line of “the graphic suggests X, but that’s highly misleading”. I didn’t see anything like that.

After rereading it seems that the main complaint is the following sentence:

“The complex reality of transfers and transformations of energy on our planet involving soils, waters, gases, clouds, aerosols, heat storage, conduction and convection, chemical reactions and phase transformations, as well as a host of additional factors are simply swept under the carpet, attributing all their combined effects solely to the odious “greenhouse gases”.”

I am in complete agreement that a thorough understanding of energy flows requires an understanding of all of those factors. Perhaps I missed Fred’s point. Is he suggesting that because the graphic doesn’t show clouds that it’s incomplete? I’m struggling to understand the point. The first graphic in an article is understandably important but no one ever suggests that the introductory graphic must completely represent every aspect of everything related to the article title. Clouds are not in the graphic but they are in the article. Moreover, this is an article about the greenhouse effect. As the hatnote (the very first sentence in italics) points out, if you are interested in the “general heating or cooling of Earth’s surface, see Earth’s energy budget”. This article doesn’t even purport to cover all aspects; it point you to another article if you are interested.

I’d be happy to share my observations of the shortcomings of the graphic, but my concerns fall more into the nitpicking category. I’d like to know what about this graphic qualifies as “obvious misrepresentation”.

Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
January 16, 2023 9:40 am

Well, I can’t speak for Fred, but my candidate for “obvious misrepresentation” in that graphic would be “GHGs reflect heat radiated by Earth, and prevent it from escaping to space”. Since GHGs both absorb and emit longwave IR, wouldn’t they be one of the main mechanisms for allowing that frequency of energy to escape to space?

David H
January 15, 2023 1:04 pm

As someone with an engineering and computer background, I enjoy reading the discussions concerning the fallacies of the “climate” debate. Unfortunately the general public will never take the time to read them. If an article is longer that two paragraphs, doesn’t contain a picture of a celebrity or a sports figure and also contains a simple mathematical equation it won’t be read. The NYPost is the template for this type of reader engagement.

My personal opinion is; to turn the tide we should begin to use a KISS (keep it simple stupid) paradigm. The reason the “ban the gas stove” initiative failed so spectacularly was that every middle/upper class person saw the restaurant grade gas stove as an aspirational or status item.

If 30 second tik-tok/youtube/twitter videos could begin to be posted which illustrate the REAL WORLD, results of the “just end oil”and “Nut50” obsession, this would quickly result in the loss of popular support among the influencer/aspirational class for this supposed “green new world.” It would fall out of fashion and fade into obscurity in a couple of years. A few examples;

No petroleum products = No make-up, lipstick or contact lenses.
No Plastics = No Botox injections or cosmetic surgery.
No synthetic fabrics = No Paris or New York fashions.
Off shore wind turbines = Dead whales and no lobster.
Enormous solar farms = Dead cute bunnies or prairie dogs.
New England wind turbines = No artisanal cheese and boutique antique stores…because you killed the picturesque little towns and farms.

They should be as ubiquitous as cat videos or the new black.

“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy.”

George Orwell

Richard Greene
Reply to  David H
January 16, 2023 1:09 am

I believe it is important to differentiate between real science / AGW and fake science / CAGW. But that is too complicated for most people.

The obvious method of refuting CAGW is to tell people what CAGW is — 50 years of always wrong predictions of climate doom. Then read a long list of failed predictions of environmental doom (100% were wrong). The goal is to ridicule the authorities who con people influenced by the appeal to authority logical fallacy on the subject of climate change.

Another approach is to discuss climate change that people have ACTUALLY experienced in their lifetimes. No science is required. Most people will not have even noticed the climate changing. Some might observe their winters are not as cold as they were in the 1970s. No one will claim they were harmed by ACTUAL changes in the local climate where they live and work.

January 16, 2023 1:42 am

CO2 and warming are good for the planet. There isnt even any point discussing anything else, how much the data has been manipulated, how much CO2 overlaps with WV, etc etc etc.

The Holocene Climactic Optimum was 2-3 C warmer! The Sahara was green! Civilization flourished!

2-3 C MORE warming is NOT scary, it is to be welcomed!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights