The climate change conspiracy theory is still nonsense

By Jonathon Moseley

Seriously, there is no climate crisis. Readers of WND have known this for at least 20 years, like a great many other things.

Yet Democrats aim to make themselves even more unpopular by spending $439 billion over several years on climate change and renewable energy plans that haven’t worked since the 1970s under Jimmy Carter. (The U.S. Department of Defense requested $495.6 billion for Fiscal Year 2015). Democrats have forgotten about Solyndra.

How many different ways can we explain that humans are incapable of and are not affecting the climate of the Earth? It starts with a failure to understand that the Earth is gigantic, not small.

So let’s throw another log on the bonfire. The climate change conspiracy theory violates the rules of logic and engages in a classic, well-known logical fallacy. (Of course in popular shorthand we are talking about man-made climate change.)

At its core, the hypothesis of man-made climate change is this:

A happened. Then B happened. Therefore, A caused B.

This is not science. This is not even rational. This is nonsense.

This is a recognized logical fallacy called “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc” or “After this, therefore because of this.” That is, if carbon dioxide increased in the Earth’s atmosphere, and then the Earth’s global temperature really did increase, that would tell us nothing. This would tell us that CO2 increased, then temperature increased. A happened before B happened. That does not rationally suggest that increases in CO2 cause increases in global temperature.

This also referred to as a Post hoc logical fallacy. Specifically, “assuming that since A happened before B, A must have caused B. Example: After eating a cheeseburger, I wrecked my car. The cheeseburger must have made me wreck my car (no clear connection between A and B).”

Even the left-wing Huffington Post, trying to defend Obamacare at the time, admitted that:

“Just because something happens after something else has happened does not mean that second thing had anything to do with the first thing. Things happen all the time. Constantly, all around us, things are happening, and they may or may not have any cause and effect relationship. Things may be linked, or said to be causal, when in fact they have no relationship at all.”

If we knew that the carbon dioxide content of Earth’s global, planet-wide atmosphere had increased, and if we knew that then the Earth’s global, planet-wide temperature increased, what would that tell us? Absolutely nothing. A friendly co-worker used to love to quote his Jewish grandmother: “So if you knew, what would you know?”

As even the left-wing Buzzfeed News has noted for fun, (a) Increased consumption of ice cream apparently causes more murders. (b) A decrease in the number of pirates corresponds with global warming. So is global warming caused by a lack of pirates? (c) Use of Internet Explorer appears to reduce the murder rate. (d) Highway deaths seemingly fall when the USA imports more lemons from Mexico. (e) Greece’s debt crisis was apparently caused by the expansion of Facebook.

According to “Spurious Correlations” compiled by Tyler Vigen, (a) More movies starring Nicholas Cage cause more drownings in swimming pools. (b) Divorces in Maine fall when more people consume margarine. (c) Fewer people drowning after falling off a fishing boat reduces the marriage rate in Kentucky.

Much attention has been spent on whether we have any reliable data of Earth’s temperature. Measurements in a particular city don’t count. It has to be the entire planet, because the hypothesis is that human activity is affecting the planetary, global temperature. Otherwise, it’s just weather because air masses move freely and continually across the Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area. Remember the polar vortex? Warm air pushes up into the Arctic region, and that pushes frigid air southward. But there is no net change in Earth’s temperature.

Actual science requires hard-core (not fuzzy) repeatable and repeated empirical experiments. I often taunt the climate alarmists: “You don’t got none of those experiment thingies, do you?”

But we haven’t even gotten to the scientific experiment problem. There has never been an experiment exploring whether the temperature of the planet is affected by the quantity of carbon dioxide in the air. Certainly we have never taken two identical planets, removed the CO2 from one, and then observed any difference in temperature.

Climate alarmists will counter that CO2 trapped in intense concentrations will absorb heat. Well, yes, everything absorbs heat. Put your hand in the sunshine. Put a copper penny on the sidewalk in summer. This week I tried to change my tire, and the asphalt of the parking lot was scalding hot under my knees.

But the hypothesis to be tested is that the entire planet gets hotter, not a small closed container in a laboratory. CO2 is only 0.04% of the air. An experiment in a lab requires almost pure 100% CO2 in a container to isolate its behavior. The only “experiment” ever performed is on the wrong question, irrelevant in many respects.

Does that make a difference? It does because (a) the atmosphere is in constant motion; (b) the atmosphere moves vertically in convection cells driven by heat (“hot air rises”); and (c) the myth of climate change presupposes a false assumption of a “blanket” of carbon dioxide. But a blanket would stay in place at the Earth’s surface.

Moreover, a CO2 molecule that absorbs heat energy (absorbs infrared electromagnetic radiation also thought of as a “photon” at IR frequencies) does not stay heated (excited, in scientific terms). Like all molecules, when a CO2 molecule is energized (raised to a higher state of excitation) or made hotter, the molecule burps that energy back out again. It does not stay hot. The orbiting electrons return to their prior, lower state and re-emit the energy.

In simple language, when CO2 absorbs energy, it gets hotter, then spits that energy back out again, and returns to its previous state of lower temperature.

And how long does the CO2 molecule remain heated? After about 1 nanosecond, or 1 billionth of a second, the energy is shot back out again.

Climate alarmism assumes that when CO2 absorbs heat, it holds that heat for a very long time. That’s not true. If a photon of infrared heat energy bounced around among 100,000 CO2 molecules on its way from the surface, it would take around 0.0001 seconds to exit the Earth’s atmosphere and head out into space.

An enormous number of writers on these pages have exhaustively exposed the falsehoods of global warming or climate change for a couple of decades. Yet the myth seems unaffected by facts, truth, or logic.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


Leave a Comment