PARTITION I OF II

It's time to drive a stake through the
heart of this climate change alarmism, to
kill off this dangerous monster forever.
We can do a good job just in this little
post.

Everything here is from just common sense
or good references.

Overview

There is:

>ALARMIST CLAIM: Extra CO2 from current
human activities will soon cause
significant extra warming and, thus,
climate change, a climate crisis, etc.

In one word, this claim is nonsense.

In simple terms:

(A) There is no serious evidence that CO2
from human activities at anything like
probable concentrations will have any
significant effect on the temperature or
climate of the earth.

(B) The warming of maybe 0.9 F since year
1900 cannot have been caused by CO2.

(C) Human life was long burdened with
nonsense from bad information,
superstition, ignorance, and fear, but
slowly science provided high quality
information and means to reject the
nonsense. The ALARMIST CLAIM is taking us
back to the nonsense.

(D) Proposed efforts to respond to the
ALARMIST CLAIM by reducing CO2 are from
massively wasteful, strongly destructive,
a shot in the gut of standards of living,
economic contraction, and maybe to
disasterous world wide economic depression
and global nuclear WWIII.

There is some very good news:

>To respond to the ALARMIST CLAIM, there
is NOTHING to do. NOTHING.

In music, the easiest note to play is just
the rest -- make no sound. For responding
to the ALARMIST CLAIM, the situation is
similar: Do NOTHING and because there is
nothing good to do.

The rest of this note is in three parts:

(I) Debunking

(II) Additional Points

(III) Alarmist Threats

(I) Debunking

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is
a long logical path from there to any
claims of a significant effect.

We can debunk the ALARMIST CLAIM in just
two easy steps, (I.1) from the historical
data and (I.2) from the physics, next:

(I.1) Data from History

There is NOTHING in the climate history
from the present back to about 1 million
years ago that supports the ALARMIST
CLAIM; there is NOTHING in that history
that can support a claim that anything
like realistic concentrations of CO2 from
human activities will have any significant
effect on temperatures. NOTHING. Here we
give details in (i) -- (iii):

(i) For the ice core records going back ~1
million years, yes, both temperatures and
CO2 concentrations went both up and down.

BUT, if we just look carefully at the big
graph of that ice core record in Al Gore's
movie (I assume the graph is essentially
correct) and other graphs of that ice core
data elsewhere, with high irony that graph
totally destroys the ALARMIST CLAIM and
Gore's claim from that graph: Gore badly
misread the graph. The main point is that
in the graph there is an 800 year delay;
CO2 concentrations changed 800 years AFTER
the temperature changes, from whatever
cause.

Specifically: (a) When temperatures
started increasing, from whatever cause,
CO2 concentrations were LOW, not high.
(b) About 800 years later CO2
concentrations were HIGH, from increased
biological activity from the higher
temperatures. (c) When temperatures
started to fall, from whatever cause, CO2
concentrations were still HIGH, not low.
(d) The HIGH CO2 concentrations did not
keep the temperatures from falling. (e)
Once the temperatures fell, about 800
years later so did CO2 concentrations.
Net, CO2 did not cause the higher
temperatures or keep the higher
temperatures from falling.

(ii) In the last 2000 years we had the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice
Age, and there is not even a suggestion
that CO2 concentration changes caused
either.

(iii) Starting in the 1940s and through
about 1970, we actually had some
significant cooling, but in those years
CO2 from human activities -- WWII, pulling
out of the Great Depression, and the
economic boom after WWII -- increased.
So, with the additional CO2 from human
activities, we got COOLING, not warming.

Net, there is NO data from the historical
record that supports the claim that higher
concentrations of CO2 will cause higher
temperatures.

(I.2) Theory from Physics

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The
absorption spectrum is at

https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Spec=C124389&Index=0&...

So, CO2 absorbs in three narrow bands, one
for each of bending, stretching, and
twisting of the molecule, out in the
infrared.

No, Tom Friedman of the NYT: CO2 does not
absorb sunlight, and anyone can confirm
this by looking at a source of CO2, e.g.,
exhaling or the bubbles from soda pop, and
simply observing that the CO2 is not
visible and does not cast a shadow.

Since the historical record can't support
the ALARMIST CLAIM, to support the claim
we would have to rely on the theory from
physics, the absorption spectrum of CO2,
and computation.

Well, the computations were done by dozens
of teams, and the results are summarized
in

http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg

Net, as in this graph, nearly all the
results predicted rapid, significant
increases in temperatures soon. Well, the
time of predicted increases came and went
years ago with no sign of anything like
the predicted increases.

In science, when predictions are made and
found to be false, we junk the science.

No doubt, the failures in that graph are
some of the worst in all the history of
science. GOOD science, e.g., the hunt for
and finding the Higgs boson at the LHC
(Large Hadron Collider), the observations
that confirmed the predictions of black
holes, many other confirmed predictions of
special and general relativity, the
A-bomb, the H-bomb, the design of the
Hubble telescope, to the quantum mechanics
in semi-conductors that are the core of
current digital electronics, the science
was just rock solid.

We are just awash in super solid science,
and the global warming computations in
that graph are just a humiliation as
anything scientific and just sick.

In summary of (I.1) -- (I.2):

> For the ALARMIST CLAIM, there is no
scientific support.

(II) Additional Points

There is the video documentary The Great
Global Warming Swindle at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

(II.1) Big Changes Since 2000 Years Ago

That documentary argues that the Medieval
Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were
caused by variations in the rates of sun
spots. More sun spots increase the solar
wind which, from more links in a causal
chain, in the end slows cloud formation
and has a net warming effect.

Similarly, fewer sun spots can cause
cooling.

(II.2) Warming Since Year 1900

In the video we can see the remarks of MIT
Professor R. Lindzen that from "good
theoretical reasons" any warming we might
be getting now, e.g., maybe an increase in
temperature of 0.9 F from year 1900 to the
present, cannot be from CO2.

(II.3) Too Many Climate Scientists

Professor Lindzen also explains that there
was suddenly an increase in funding for
climate science from a hundred or so
million dollars a year to over one billion
dollars a year, funding that didn't just
buy off the climate scientists but HIRED
climate alarmists pretending to be climate
scientists, maybe 10 times more alarmists
than real scientists.