The Man Causes Global Varming Brigade are frantic. PT.I.

The  Millenarianists   Boosters are beside themselves with worry. The devastating shredding of their claims has seen them break down into hysteria. These last two weeks they have been  bleating loudly, ” We are all doomed if we don’t cut production of Co2.”

The shredding of their claims reduces to, the claim doesn’t rest on science at all. Just consider the number of scientists,  many of them distinguished, who have demolished particular claims from science. Much of the exposure of the nonsense on which the claims rest has been forthright demonstration the ’science’ on which the claim rests is nothing less than fraudulent, as McKitrick’s and McIntyre’s exposure of the sheer fraudulent abuse of mathematics by Mann  shows. Other roads into showing up the sheer rubbish of the claim are, of course, exposing the errors in temperature data sets, the false notion of a global temperature, the false notion of a global climate. Quite apart from climate is not fixed, reflected in the large variations in climate over time, and that they occur swiftly – periods of a century are very swift alterations in climate. As well as showing out other nonsense such as the claim glaciers are shrinking.

What is common to the ‘ evidence’ used by boosters is this: even if they were fact, true, it is so, that does not entail what they claim, they prove their claim. Facts explain nothing in themselves. They are evidence of something but what? What are they signs of? What has generated phenomena? What are the principles/laws which yield interactions, events, formation of this or that?  What , cutting through the debate over evidence, is precisely the purported explanation of what is, after all, asserted to be a physical phenomenon: Man producing Co2 is heating up the planet? What actually is the scientific hypothesis , true or false, which explains what is claimed?

There are two legs to it:

1. Man is the master puppeteer of the universe, a variation on creationism, contained in, man can direct physical events, climate. This is a staggering bit of nonsense in itself, involving a crude linear, mechanistic notion of causality in the face of what has been disclosed in physics.

2. The boosters claim man generated Co2 through production and consumption of fuel causes global warming. What about non-human emitted Co2? Living plants,as opposed to the decaying matter of dead plants only,  for example, emits far greater volumes of Co2 during the night than man does round the clock Perhaps the boosters, to avoid the great catastrophe, should be pushing for the eradication of all plants.

Jokes aside, what the boosters evade is, if their claim is to warrant more than cursory attention, the first thing they needed to secure was an hypothesis which would secure, if true, the crux of their otherwise straw-house, an explanation of Co2 which satisfies : it is true not chemically of Co2 but what the buttress is, it is true of the physical properties of Co2, and that this truth entails what they claim can occur physically. Ipso facto, stressing man generated Co2 is nonsense, since what is in question is Co2 itself.

So, to reduce the claim further:

a. Co2 has properties which yield the effects claimed by the boosters.

b. Any increase in Co2,  will  compound that effect. The Planet will warm up as Co2 in the  atmosphere is increased.

A. is straightforward to deal with. B., however, passes to physics and the boosters have to ignore physics, which is precisely one of the many criticisms delivered by physics, it is just rubbish, it requires ingnoring the laws of physics, summed up in, non-linear, multi-valency, as one physicist explained on Climate Audit earlier this year.  Not being a physicist, I’m not about to enter into that , which is better to admit to than to do as the boosters do, pretend the physicists are wrong, mistaken, down the garden path and thus earn the old Greco-Roman quip – ” No science, no brains”.

I will deal with a., what theory exists to justify the  boosters proceeding as far as they have? What hypothesis has been put which might substantiate the claim?

Well, an hypothesis, has been put, except that it ws automatically elevated to established theory: Co2 behaves as a greenhouse works, due to its properties.

The strength of any analogy, simile, and metaphor for the illumination of something else is whether there is sufficient in content, linguistically, to make it a reasonable to better fit. Well, as Louis Hissink tidily explained, the greenhouse image is so loose it is in complete error.

Here, I won’t expand on what the good humoured gent, Louis Hissink has neatly summed up,  keeping in view Co2 is Carbon in its gas phase:

Hydrogen (H2) is a gas that when present as 100% as a gas phase is rather explosive when ignited with a electric spark. Yet when H2 is in the air we breathe it does not explode at all nor do we assume that a single molecule of H2 is ‘exploding’. This is because H2 is absent in the air as a discrete gas phase with unique properties which identify it as H2. As air does not spontaneously explode when an electric spark passes through it, we assume that h2 has become somewhat inactive in a physical sense. And if it is “exploding” at the atomic level (combining with O2 to form water) then how would we know anyway?

CO2 as a 100% phase has also unique properties that are well documented and not denied. It has a high specific heat too. But like H2 when present in minute quantities in air, its physical properties as a gas phase also become irrelevant.

It is the the physical properties of air that are important in climate studies, not its chemical composition. This suggests that CO2 as 0.04% by volume has no effect on air’s thermal properties.


Another problem with global warming is the assumption of CO2 as an independent physical phase in the atmosphere that affects its thermal balance, (the basis for the assumption that CO2 is a problem in the first place).

The earth’s atmosphere is comprised of three principal phases – a gas comprised chemically of N2, O2 and here 0.04% by volume CO2, a liquid phase of water as suspended droplets, and a solid phase of airborne particulates or aerosols.

Physically the gas phase is air and the thermal properties of air important, not that of CO2. CO2 as a physical phase does not exist in the atmosphere since no where are any two CO2 molecules in contact with each other to allow the assumption that CO2 is a physically independent object and thus capable of being treated as an independent factor.

Louis has drawn attention to another curious finding, with a neat graph to illuminate it:

2006 is the year of the planet and the IUGS has released a short handout “Earth and Life – origins and diversity” which includes the image below.

Note the rising increase in atmospheric oxygen and decreasing CO2 over geological time and that to make CO2, carbon has to bond with 2 oxygen atoms, so the plots of O2 and CO2 are interesting enough in themselves. (I expect the Adhominator and his mentor, Professor John Quiggin, will offer specious rebuttals).

Note that the mass species extinctions have no obvious relationship to CO2.

Thus, has Louis stated why the buttress of the claim is worse than nonsense, it is rubbish.

What one wishes to zero on in is very intersting.  The volume of Co2 in the atmosphere is as, for generalised points, as good as zero. Yet, the real work of Co2, due to its physical properties, is tremendous, extensive, and diffuse. It is essential for plants and animals and man because it is essential for building tissue. All are built out of carbon, the brain is built out of carbon. Without Co2,the planet would be just another lifeless entity in the universe. Neither is that all.

Co2 dissolves in water, and so it is washed into earth when it rains but, there is something more intriguing. It is essential to the formation of dolomites. How dolomite forms is still a mystery but Co2 constitutes a tad over 45 % of the mineral:

CaO (Calcium oxide) 30.41%

MgO (Magnesium oxide) 21.86%

CO2 (Carbon dioxide) 47.73%

Dolomite is mined for magnesium, concrete, road laying material, and other  products, so its properties make it a very versatile, economically, mineral.

Why how dolomite is formed is a mystery is contained in this observation that it is not formed on the earth’s surface, as opposed to other types of deposits, which their formation, unlike of dolomite, is readily observed.

On its structure, it is layered, first magnesium, than a carbonate layer, then calcite, and repeated. Why the layering is still only a matter  for conjecture.

For a list of only some more minerals, for which Co2 is a component, from a handy reference site to minerals go here.

The objection is not simply the booster’s claim is nonsense. Nonsense explains nothing at all about Co2, it only illuminates their beliefs. The boosters’ claim, it works in the atmosphere in the manner of a greenhouse is not only false as to its physical properties, but at bottom, amounts to a deliberate lie about the actual work Co2 does. The claim isn’t an over simplification of the presence of Co2 in the atmosphere, it is a very crass, vulgar bit of story telling which bears no relation to the many, complex exchanges of Co2.

The boosters’ claims rests on a primary error, their claims rest on nothing less than a-scientific rubbish. Their claim rests on the physical properties of Co2 and yet, in this the buttress of their claim, they are deliberately telling falsehoods. This immoral deception, is not science, it is the replacement of science with primitive belief in magic and primitive mechanistic causality. The boosters, even if some have been good scientists in the past, are not scientists, they are charlatans resorting to story-telling  even about the crucial pin of their claims, Co2.  Before any other error they have made, their false claim about the properties of Co2 sees their claims collapse into a heap without any further ado.

I quoted Louis Hissink for the very good reason, there have been those who sought to rebut what is a crucial point, engaging in worse than mild ad homine reflection against him during their hysterical flights. It has not registered at all with them, Hissink’s neat statement on Co2  alone is in fact far more devastating to the boosters claims than they have comprehended. The nonsense they they have written as refutation marks how deaf they are. Theirs is an a-scientific claim, it is void of theory, it explains nothing about Co2 and the real work it does. This besides, the volume of it present in the atmosphere is trivial, negligible, it might as well be zero for generalised discussion.

There are yet further obstacles to the boosters claim, and they are also of demolitiion force. Louis brought to general attention:

1. Mars, with an atmosphere of 95% Co2, is freezing cold.

  This news was met, again, with the usual quibbling responses, which conveniently ignored the entailment: if Co2 does as the boosters’ claim, Mars shoud be hot.

2. Nicholas Gruen wrote on Venus as evidence of Global Varming,

Hissink delievered the rejoinder, and it is a crushing one.

Indeed, Gruen’s article is just one more example of how many millions of reams of nonsense is put out as science. Just one more instance typical of the science of the boosters, pluck another fiction out of the air and hope no-one will notice. 

Telling stories is not science; this is the infant school level lesson the Ministah of dah Environment, Senator Campbell, is yet, it seems, to learn; the poor man – so vertically challenged that he doesn’t realise he’s yet to make it out of first grade. The question is: are the boosters naive, ignorant, stupid, or liars?

That they bungle rather thoroughly their statements on Co2, the buttress, the leg, the pin, the crutch of their claims is telling. Since Co2 is their buttress, that it is just a heap of rubble they shovel over into the same heap, the conclusion follows, why bother exposing other errors in their claims and ‘experiments’ when the core claim is false. No further argument is required, the claim is false, the boosters have not even demonstrated their starting point and pin.

It is not up to those who rebut the claims to demonstrate why the claims are false, it is up to those making the claims to demonstrate whether their claim is true. This they have not done. They meet objections only with ad hominem attacks, and adjust their claims adhoc in reaction to evidence against them, a bit of rubber band stretching. That is not science, that is charlatanism.

They  work from within the safety of venal politicians and bureaucrats handing over to them stolen property, and a compliant media given to the superstitious rubbish of, Man is the Master Puppeteer of the Universe.  They attack scientists of repute. Their authority rests on the authority of the collectivist herd – ‘consensus’. There is no ‘consensus in science’, only truths raised and advanced by individuals. Truth is the last thing to disturb the conceited boosters of ‘Man is wot does us in Doc.’

What, returning to the question, is the hypothesis, not theory but  hypothesis, have the boosters put for testing about Co2, to warrant the general claim man produced Co2 will heat up the the planet? Where is their hypothesis about the properties of Co2 which states, thus is a property of Co2? They have given no such hypothesis and if they were to propose one, it would fail since it would fly in the face of what is established. Needless to say, no successful hypothesis, then none can be raised to theory. There is no explanation that runs as they assert.

So, since there can be no such theory, the notion that nonetheless, they can  leap to the generalised claim, man producing Co2 will heat the planet, and change the climate, is silly.There is no foundation to take that step at all. To repeat, we are discussing what is the buttress, the bedrock, the pin of their major claim. They can’t wriggle out of it, it hinges on what can be truthfully accounted for of Co2. This, all before, there is no theory of weather and so, needless to say, climate.

It is a pretty dismal effort on the part of the boosters when their simplest, yet foundational claim (about Co2) is nothing more than a heap of rubbish lit by a fuse of nonsense.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: