by Bill Roatan

CO2 molecules are roughly 1 out of every 2500 other air molecules. If all that CO2 were a blanket atop the atmosphere, then there would be a case to be made that CO2 has a greenhouse effect on the planet. As it is, CO2 is a heavy molecule and Brownian motion alone says that it will always be mixed in the atmosphere.

If a molecule of CO2 accepts heat, it is surrounded by 2500 other molecules that will take it away and those molecules will radiate the heat back into space since they are not greenhouse gas villains. Common sense says that if I heat up a ball bearing and throw it among 2500 other ball bearings, that the heat will travel from the hot to the cold. CO2 is no different.

It is the minuscule concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that makes the greenhouse gas argument a bit ridiculous. If there were a much higher concentration like the 9000 ppm millions of years ago, then it might have a measurable effect. There were animals back then that survived that concentration so claiming 400 ppm will lead to a runaway heating is just alarmism.

If one can logically come up with a rebuttal, I’d like to hear it. Appeals to authority will hold no weight as the climate scientists and the entire IPCC concept has been shown to be a fraud in numerous ways, not the least of which are the statements made by their own officials.

If there were only one CO2 molecule in the entire atmosphere, it would be ridiculous to claim that the greenhouse effect it creates has any measurable effect on the climate. If, on the other hand, CO2 comprised 100% of the atmosphere, it would be ridiculous to claim there was no greenhouse effect.

So, somewhere in between these two limits is where the effect of having CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact. It is a matter of CO2 concentration. No one has shown that the current concentration of CO2 is detrimental via experiment. The earth is not a black body and the dynamics the earth encounters were never included in any early experiments.

The models used by the climate frauds have never shown even the slightest correlation to historic records when they’ve tried to model what was already known and these people have an advantage over Tyndall and others from over a century ago in that they have computers and advanced knowledge the old timers never had.

I’m not denying the greenhouse effect. I’m denying that the modelers know how to use it in their projections and all they’re doing is alarmism due to sloppy science. They are also purposely fear mongering for a political agenda and they’ve been caught cooking the books on more than one occasion. They are simply not to be trusted.

The contention that a trace amount of CO2 gas at a .0004 level is responsible for what we currently record simply isn’t credible, especially when water vapor, an admittedly much more potent greenhouse gas is exonerated as a primary or even significant cause. It is TPTsB’s insistence of blaming CO2 and all the control and spending they insist on while simultaneously ignoring clouds that have been shown to be induced by cosmic radiation via Svensmark that simply smells like a giant swindle.

Purposely ignoring a far more potent GHG, water vapor, that is largely beyond our control, while concentrating enormous effort in demonizing the infinitesimal CO2 concentration and providing research funding almost exclusively for any and all that can help the scam along is, to me, a clear sign of a conclusion demanding that evidence be manufactured to support it and the climate scientist frauds have been paid handsomely to oblige.

One of the real head scratchers for me has been the hydrogen fuel nonsense as a panacea to replace fossil fuels. Any conversion of hydrogen via any oxidative process will produce H2O in the form of a vapor in a vehicle. I can just picture enormous clouds over cities produced by hydrogen use to produce more warming according to the current paradigm. What a farce.

That greenhouse gases exist, it has been known for a long time and that CO2 is one of them, that is not in contention. What is in doubt is that CO2 is the primary factor in any warming whether we currently experience, or not. There is absolutely no experimental evidence for the currently pushed view and I doubt one could be even honestly attempted given the chaotic and complex nature of the atmosphere, our incredibly limited understanding of it and, so far, the inability of the modelers to even come close to reproducing past events via computer simulation.

Climate science is in such a primitive state that any enunciation from that quarter isn’t worthy of serious consideration.

As I’ve stated above, very few people deny climate change both up and down in temperature. It’s the warming zealots that like to throw around the canard that people deny warming. What many deny is that CO2 is the recent cause.

The geologic record is full of temperature swings. To lay some specific and frightening significance to the last few decades in terms of warming is offset by the previous few decades of the “experts” worried about cooling. I think their limited time line granularity of view is a mistake.

As far as correlations are concerned, one does not make a strong case either way. Geology says we are at the end of an interglacial and actually overdue for a cold spell that has previously lasted on the order of 90,000 years. Here we have records in ice and elsewhere for a cyclical pattern that can’t be denied and that pattern precedes the appearance of humans on the planet. Yes, warming without humans, what a novel idea.

The fact that weak sun spot activity is historically correlated with multiple instances of severe cold spells, that there’s theory that states warming is the precursor to rapid cooling and we’re headed into a predicted low sun spot cycle points at a cooling world.