By Gary Novak
The public was introduced to the subject by Al Gore, who has never studied an iota of science in his life. He assumed that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation which would otherwise go into space. Less heat going out supposedly meant more heat staying in. So CO2 was called a "heat trapping gas." The public assumed such logic must be correct and allowed Al Gore to teach it to the kids in the schools through his movie.
Radiation only moves 10 meters before being absorbed by CO2. Moving heat around is not increasing it. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases. It doesn't matter what the wavelength is; the heat leaves at a variety of wavelengths until the amount of heat leaving equals the amount entering, where it stabilizes-an effect called equilibrium.
As opponents raised questions, proponents said, we do not have time for the science, we must act before it is too late. As the questions increased, a corrective statement was added-"the science is settled." The science never was settled; the statement was only propaganda, but it was believed as it was repeated.
When looking for the settled science; it cannot be found. The origins of the recent science trace back to James Hansen et al, 1988, who published a fudge factor for calculating the amount of heat produced by carbon dioxide. A fudge factor is not science. There is no three component equation which will properly represent the complexities of climate. When trying to figure out where the fudge factor came from, it vaguely parallels a past assumed increase in temperature. So it says what happened in the past will continue to happen in the future, and the heat is all caused by carbon dioxide. Such assumptions are extremely nonscientific and self-contradictory. Much evidence indicates that other factors influenced the past, and secondary effects are built upon the fudge factor, even though such effects were supposed to be included in the past.
A second absurdity is added with the fudge factor by converting heat into temperature with a multiplying factor. The relationship between heat and temperature cannot be determined because of infinite complexities. The multiplying factor was reduced to one third, as realities on the ground forced proponents to whittle down their claims. How scientific is a number which has to be reduced to one third in response to criticism?
In addition to the absence of a scientific basis for the claims, a counter-logic totally disproves the whole concept. Whatever greenhouse gases did in the past, they can no longer do because of saturation. There is so little radiation available at the wavelength absorbed by CO2 that it all gets used up by the time it travels 10 meters. Increasing the amount of CO2 only reduces the distance, which is not an increase in temperature.
Proponents of global warming produced two absurd responses to saturation. First, they said the shoulders of the absorption peaks are not saturated, and they do the absorbing. But shoulder molecules are so few and scattered so thin that they cannot increase temperature. So the rationale shifted to high in the atmosphere with the claim that the heat "back radiates" to heat the surface of the earth. Calculations show that a huge temperature increase would be required to produce the back radiation, while none has been found.
In other words, the supposed settled science is nothing but a three component fudge factor, while saturation precludes the whole concept.
Climatology is so complex that it evades scientific study. Applying basic knowledge exposes the flasehood of claims. Yet a large segment of the public, including all governments, is so convinced that global warming is in the process of destroying human life that they will not allow criticism on the subject.
Critics are degraded and prevented from commenting in the media or on web sites which promote global warming. The claim is that the science is settled and there is no other side to the issue. All issues have two sides, but not global warming. Every event, weather related or not, is attributed to global warming caused by carbon dioxide by someone in the media. The claims keep increasing in absurdity, even after scientists claim otherwise. Opposing views last a few days or weeks before being replaced by more absurdities.
A total disconnect from objective reality is demonstrated with the global warming issue. There were two major stages to the disconnect. The first stage was a promotion of errors. The second stage was a war against the rationality which would correct the errors. The war against rationality takes the form of degrading critics and preventing criticism from occurring.
Since there never was anything resembling a science to the subject of global warming caused by greenhouse gases, the contrivance is a psycho-social phenomenon. It follows lines of power being picked up by governments and imposed onto society. But governments can only do what the public allows and demands. It is the journalists who shape social realities, but they to can only do what the public allows and demands, when the issue gets developed for several decades, as global warming has.
The basis of the psycho-social phenomenon is power mongering. The primary source of power is not the government but consensus. After proponents of global warming are exposed as wrong, their ultimate argument is that 97% of the scientists agree with them. The power of numbers replaces scientific standards. Scientists who disagree get kicked out of science.
Power mongering creates a conflict with reality. The negative results of the conflict are assumed to be caused by enemies who must be defeated. More power is needed to defeat enemies. Opposition is attacked to defeat the enemies. Incompetent persons are promoted by the stupidity and conflict with reality associated with power mongering. Rational persons become the enemies who must be defeated. Irrationality is supposedly the answer.
Irrational and incompetent persons monger power as a substitute for rationality and competence. They use power to get what they want and overwhelm opponents. Their war against objective reality causes them to assume that reality and results come out of a gnostic pit which can never be located or described. They assume other corrupt persons are the source of everything-that wishing everything into existence, faking everything they do and pretending reality is how real results are produced. It's an attempt to revert to a voodoo state, where five thousand years of human progress is replaced by witchcraft.
Is it possible for aggrieved nations to gain favorable international tribunal rulings against the US that force it to pay a price for its crimes?