Exchange with a Climate Scientist

A friend recently befriended a legitimate Climate Scientist who possesses all of the academic credentials, field research assignments and paper publishing credentials of someone highly qualified.

Invited to respond.

My friend had begun conversations with the climate scientists and later, text exchanges, that raised the question of climate skepticism. The professor expressed his assertion that anyone who opposes the official narrative concerning Climate Change is a victim of disinformation.

Knowing that I have more than a casual interest in this topic, and have written the book “What to do about Climate Change” which does question the official narratives, she asked me to reply to her friend’s “GHGs 101” statement.

The exchange.

In a text exchange, the following lays out the dialogue.

Note a few comments in his message where I bold the statement and append it with a comment like [I disagree].

Your friend, the climate scientist, wrote the following in quotations.

“Let us start with what you agree with. Do you accept that CO2 warms the planet? (please go back and read my GHGs 101 before answering and consider that if it were not for them, this planet would not be habitable, and you would not be around to even answer the question)” .

“Greenhouse gasses (GHGs) have been around for the 4.6 Billion years of Earth's history (dubbed greenhouse gasses because they trap certain wavelengths of energy like the glass of a greenhouse - they are not associated with greenhouses in anyway). [Not true. Greenhouse farmers pump CO2 into their greenhouse to increase crop yield] They cycle naturally over long timescales of millions of years. But now we have come along and dug all this old carbon out of the ground (that would eventually be oxidized and enter that atmosphere, but not for several millions of years) and burned it and thrown it up into the atmosphere short-circuiting that natural cycle. There is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time humans (Homo Sapiens) have been around. That’s the case because of fossil-fuel burning. [I disagree],

Without greenhouse gasses, we would be much colder - the temperature of the Moon because less of the Sun's energy would be trapped with no atmosphere (no greenhouse gasses) – the Moon has no atmosphere. [True, but our discussion is about variations in levels of GHGs and the impact on Earth’s global temperature, not the Moon’s]

How these gasses work is not just known from Earth, but we have great examples in our neighbours Venus and Mars. [Completely irrelevant. Comparing Earth’s atmosphere to those planets’ is comparing apples to oranges - a very lame argument]

They both have dominantly CO2 atmospheres. Venus has a crazy thick atmosphere - about 92 times thicker than Earth. Because of this it also is crazy hot…+465°C. Without Greenhouse gasses Venus would be -43°C. You can calculate what the average temperature of any planet is just knowing the distance from the sun, the reflectivity of the planet's surface and the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. It's an easy calculation. We’ve done that calculation with Venus and Mars and then gone to both and measured the temperature with probes and confirmed the effect of GHGs. There is zero doubt about this. It is just physics. [It’s pseudoscience because his subject matter comparison is inappropriate]

So, if after my long introduction you accept that we know the effects of GHGs on planetary temperatures (e.g. global temperatures on Earth), the next step is to ask what happens when you add a lot more GHGs to the atmosphere? [My highly educated friend did not accept the premise he states because it is overly simplified ]

Simple answer, the temperature goes up and will keep going up as long as CO2 is going up. [True only to a limited degree, explained below] This is what has been happening with CO2 levels just since the 1950s. [What about the prior hundred years, and beyond the post 1950 periods when CO2 levels have always fluctuated?] These are measurements of atmosphere samples at the peak of Mauna Loa in Hawaii. The most iconic atmospheric data set there is – and Trump is trying to defund it. I’ve never seen anyone question these measurements. They’re too simple to be wrong. But fortunately, Trump defunding Mauna Loa won’t stop us from knowing. These measurements are made around the world now – including at the South Pole. They all show the same thing -- dramatically rising levels of CO2 -- unprecedented in Human history. [A sensational conclusion designed to silence skeptics]

In fact, we are now at levels that haven’t been seen since a period known as the Pliocene. What was it like in the Pliocene? Global temperatures were ~2–4°C warmer than pre-industrial (~1750 AD) levels. Sea level was 33-80 feet (10-25 m). No year-round ice in Greenland and very tiny Antarctic ice sheets. [Is he inferring that CO2 levels were the only variable responsible for these climate and environmental conditions!?]

This is what we are using as a model for Earth in the near future under increased CO2. [Notice the ONLY variable in this statement-CO2] But this change is happening way faster than any of those long-term changes in the past. The big deal is it is happening at a time when modern society established itself at what it thought was a stable sea level, and started up massive levels of agriculture. The expenses will be huge and impacts potentially catastrophic. We’ll have to relocate all that infrastructure away from the coast and shift crops around to return them to the appropriate climatic zone – hopefully we can also find a suitable soil type in those climates. The potential impacts of climate change on the food industry is something you should be worried about. It is a real reason to start prepping. [ Notice the alarming tone in this passage - the fear-mongering! ] These are just impacts I use to make people think about why we should care. There are many more.” [All of this paragraph involves cherry-picked time periods to generate sensational, threatening claims that encourages people to adopt new attitudes and behaviour, and to pay their carbon taxes gleefully]

My Rebuttal.

My Question to the scientist.

Do you accept that CO2 is just one of many variables that have the potential to generate an increase in atmospheric temperatures?

Discussion #1.

The current concentration of CO2 is about 420 molecules out of every 1,000,000 molecules in Earth’s atmosphere at sea level. The other 1,999,580 molecules are N2 (78.1%), O2 (20.9%), Ar (0.93%), CO2 (0.04%). Gases like neon, helium, methane (0.000016%), and krypton are some of the major trace gases that make up a tiny part of the atmosphere. This is known science.

The Industrial Revolution began around 1760 in Great Britain and continued until about 1840. Scientists have calculated CO2 concentrations at 270 parts per 1,000,000 atmospheric molecules (~0.03%) during that period. The widespread burning of fossil fuels did not increase significantly until the automobiles and other ICE vehicles, and industrial machinery, became dominant forms of transportation and production over the 20th and early 21st centuries. CO2 levels were rising before the 1950s when you begin to track its rise. Prior to 1950, rising CO2 levels could not be attributed to widespread ownership of Ford 150 pickup trucks 🙃 and the like.

CO2 molecules generate heat in the presence of UV light which causes each molecule to vibrate. Scientists know that the chemical and mechanical structure of the CO2 molecule limits the degree of vibration that is possible. As the peak rate of vibration is approached, additional heat can only be generated by applying progressively more energy than UV radiation can provide on its own. This limitation is a known and accepted scientific fact. It partially explains why the increases from 270 to 420 PPM of CO2 has not caused a climate crisis since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Plants absorb CO2 to fuel photosynthesis. Greenhouse farmers are known to pump as much as 2,000 ppm of CO2 into their greenhouses to boost food production. Yes, the heat inside the greenhouse rises, as does concentrations of water vapour (also a known GHG), but temperature stops rising after only a few degrees despite more than a 5x increase in atmospheric GHGs. Why? The top rate of molecular vibration limits the heat production that GHGs can generate in daylight (UV radiation) even in a greenhouse.

Earth has a vast number of CO2 “consumers” on the planet including plankton, all green vegetation, flowers, cooling oceans and water bodies, etc. These consumers work 7x24x365 to reduce atmospheric CO2 increases and have been doing so for millennia. This is the known way, like a common thermostat, that Mother Nature creates stable atmospheric gas concentrations over prolonged periods. She has been using this mechanism long before scientists emerged from the human primordial soup to study these matters.

Why do climate scientists rarely discuss the above topics, and many others, when addressing the alleged Climate Change “crisis”? Why do they ignore or downplay the many other variables besides GHGs that have been responsible for climate variations throughout Earth’s history?

Discussion #2. 

The Milankovitch Cycles hypothesis came from a Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković in the 1920s. It presents a scientific model of Earth’s orbit and movement patterns and has aided human understanding of long term (over millennia) climate variations. In the last 100 years, scientific instruments and research methods have advanced enormously. Scientists’ and laypersons’ understanding of this subject have benefitted greatly. It is noteworthy that all investigations have necessarily focused on the past and its wealth of material evidence.

The future is the focus of climate change mathematical models. These models have played a significant role in research attempts to predict the future, somewhat like using a manipulated crystal ball.

The future is impossible to predict with any accuracy.

Yet scientists continue to rely on climate models in which they can imperfectly control for only a few potentially relevant variables.

From these efforts, climate scientists draw conclusions about Earth’s climate future irrespective of the fact that they are attempting to predict the future accurately in a domain of science known to be infinitely complex.

Imagine the hubris it must take to think that you can forecast a global temperature increase of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius by combining the predictions from 43 separate climate science models into a single one which represent the average of all 43 separate modelling research efforts.

I imagine that these climate modellers all know the inherent limitations of these models. They are not stupid people. They must surely understand their inability to control for the many other variables within those models that will affect the quality, accuracy, interpretations and trustworthiness of their models’ predictions. Are they fooling themselves, or us - the ones who fund their work and career as taxpayers?

My conclusions

I am not a climate scientist. I have, however, conducted a research study from start to finish, studied the scientific method and its various strategies, and completed courses in Statistics at the undergraduate and master's level. I can read and understand scientific papers. What I have read in climate science papers has fuelled my skepticism.

My interest in what I refer to as the Climate Change Crisis Theory (CCCT) dates to the Al Gore movie. I consider that film and its incessant promotion by the media, public institutions including schools, and government proclamations as a massive propaganda campaign filled with disinformation. The purpose of that campaign was to generate widespread fear and secure policy compliance within a whole generation of young people. Many gullible older people, especially those who were science illiterates, were not exempt🥺.

I wrote a book in 2023 called “What to do about climate change” as a means to set the record straight…

Fossil fuel combustion does not represent anywhere near the acclaimed existential threat to humanity required to justify the creation, buildup, maintenance and funding for the Climate Change Governmental Complex (CCGC) that exists today.

The CCGC rivals the Military Industrial Complex and the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex “investments” which are simply symptomatic of uber-rich regimes intent on getting richer and more powerful by controlling the legislative and regulatory apparatus’ of every nation.

Change the onus of responsibility.

As a CCCT skeptic, I believe the onus of responsibility must be on every climate scientist to address the legitimate concerns of well-informed citizens like me. They have the knowledge and resources to do this much more than average citizens.

Those scientists who are publicly-funded owe their livelihoods to taxpayers. As such, it behooves them to treat taxpayers with respect - to refrain from the use of demeaning language and ad hominem attacks like name-calling. They must embrace the challenge of answering legitimate concerns and questions about their work in an honest, respectful, and transparent manner.

Scientists must also reveal the sources of their research funding in sufficient detail to identify any potential third party biases that may influence the research paper’s published conclusions.

Any tax-funded scientist who is unwilling to do the above is morally compromised, in my opinion. They should never again receive money from taxpayers.

If they choose to continue their work, they must do so only by raising voluntary private donations to fund their research efforts with all disclosures.

Disclaimer.

I am NOT opposed to scientists or their work. Instead, I favour honest work over work funded and captured for nefarious purposes.

In other words, I am opposed to manipulation and use of all scientific endeavours that fuel disinformation to be disbursed by any source be they government or private sector enterprises.