One thought on “What are the best arguments against catastrophic human caused climate change?”


    My reply:

    I have the best argument: basic physics. CO2 can’t be driving the climate because even if it absorbs IR from the surface on the way up in the atmosphere, its basic job as a tiny fraction of the atmosphere is to take solar heat from the surface up into outer space mainly by convection, where it is lost forever. Once the heat has left the surface, there is no physical way for it to return because of the basic laws of thermodynamics, which so-called climate scientists studiously ignore. The very fact that heated air is rising in the gravity gradient field of the Earth makes it cool via adiabatic expansion. It’s like a fireplace with a chimney. The pot cooks, and the heat escapes up through the chimney and never returns to cook the meal twice, no matter what you do to to the hot smoke after it leaves the chimney, so all this worry over IR absorption bands is of no interest to us at the surface, and the entire CO2-driven greenhouse warming theory is moose hockey. Notice how satellites measure the air temperature at the tropopause not the surface? That’s because they can’t, anymore than they can measure the temperature inside the Earth. At the surface, there are temperature measurement stations, but outside the U.S. and Europe they are sparse and suspect, hence trying to derive a long-term temperature average is a guessing game. The global warming scientists have only dared to claim 0.1C-0.2C global warming per decade, which is very questionable since it’s based on this suspect data and fancy computer algorithms that calculate a non-physical quantity called global average temperature that they treat as physical for their usually wrong Armageddon predictions.
    Earth cannot heat itself by it’s own radiation | PSI Intl (
    Here’s my devastatingly simple explanation of why CO2 Greenhouse Warming Theory is moose hockey in more detail:
    TLW’s Two Cents Worth on Climate Change (

Comments are closed.