How To Discuss Global Warming With A ‘Climate Alarmist’

Smoking Gun #14: The relationship between CO2 and Temperature simply isn’t linear

One of the most damning smoking guns is that the entire field of climate “science” appears to believe that there is a linear relationship between CO2 and Temperature. The IPCC models focus exclusively on CO2, and the relationship they model is a simple linear regression. If you try to model a logarithmic relationship as linear you can be 100% certain that the predicted value will overestimate the actual observation and that the error will grow over time. That is exactly what has happened with 100% of the IPCC Models, 100%.

 Talking Points:

1. The vast majority of the heat-trapping capability of CO2 occurred as it increased from 0 ppm to the pre-industrial level of 280 pp. The Downward Forcing changed from 230 to 258 W/M^2, an increase of 28 W/M^2.
2. Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm increased the Downward Forcing from 258 to 259 W/M^2, an increase of 1 W/M^2.
3. Doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm would increase the Downward Forcing from 259 to 263 W/M^2, an increase of 4 W/M^2.
4. That additional energy is dispersed throughout the entire 70 km of the atmospherics.
5. Doubling CO2 has no measurable impact on the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere, and a simple addition of H20 or a cloud layer dwarfs the impact of the additional CO2.
6. CO2 only impacts the energy balance in the upper atmosphere once H2O has precipitated out.
7. The fact that the “adjustments” to the historical temperature records makes temperatures more linear and more correlated with the increase in CO2 makes the “adjustments” very suspect, and inconsistent with the real physics behind atmospheric CO2.
8. The climate models are simply designed to “prove” CO2 is the cause of the warming, not to accurately model the real climate. The bottom line is that the climate is impacted my an infinite number of variable, not just CO2.
9. The best analogy to explain this concept is painting a window. The first coat of paint blocks out a lot of light, but each additional coat blocks less and less light. In economics, it is called “the law of diminishing returns” and the example is always a thirsty party goer that really enjoys his first beer, but by his 20th beer the enjoyment per beer has been greatly reduced.

Smoking Gun #15: Climate “Science” Temperature Reconstructions are not reproducible outside the “Peer Review” community

One of the most Orwellian and suspect foundations of the AGW Theory is the temperature reconstruction on which it depends. The original IPCC Report in 1990 used the bottom chart as its temperature reconstruction. The chart accurately identified the well documented Medieval Warming period and Little Ice Age.

The problem is, the original chart used by the IPCC did not support the narrative that CO2 was causing global warming. A campaign was then started to rewrite history to make a more convincing argument to convict CO2 and eliminate the inconvenient Medieval Warming period. The IPCC ultimately replaced the problematic chart with the problem-ridden and sharply criticized and widely debunked “Hockey Stick” Chart.

 Talking Points:

1. The “Hockey Stick” is not reproducible due to its reliance upon unconventional researcher independent/manufactured statistical techniques such as “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline.” (Must Watch Video Clip)
2. The Hockey Stick and other following temperature reconstructions include proxies with extremely large errors such at tree rings, coral and even ice cores.
3. Even though thermometer data was available, and in fact used by NASA and NOAA in their global temperature reconstructions, Michael Mann did not include instrumental data until 1902. Its addition dramatically altered the trend of the chart. Proxy data was included until 1980, and once discontinued the trend of the chart was dramatically altered again.
4. The Hockey Stick shows a full 1.1 degree Celsius increase between 1900 and its publication in 1999. NASA’s global temperature chart shows an increase of about one half that value at 0.6 degree Celsius.
5. The longest continual thermometer record spanning over 350 years shows no warming until a suspicious rapid increase starting in 1980. Nearly 100% of the warming in the 350 year record has occurred since 1980, which is completely inconsistent with the AGW Theory and all other temperature reconstructions.
6. The “Hockey Stick” passed “peer review,” and helped solidify the “consensus.”
7. The Medievel Warming period has been widely demonstrated to be a global phenemenon.
8. There are serious problems with the ground measurements used to in the temperature reconstructions.

Smoking Gun #16: The rate of change in the Sea level is not increasing (2nd derivative)

If in fact, temperatures are increasing at an increasing rate, glaciers should be melting at an increasing rate and therefore sea levels should be increasing at an increasing rate. They aren’t, in fact, the most recent data shows that the rate of increase has been DECREASING since 2004.

Talking Points:

1. The rate of change of the sea level has not been increasing, which would be expected if in fact we are warming at an increasing rate.
2. Sea levels are increasing at a rate of 3 mm/year, or the height of 3 dimes.
3. The rate of sea level increase is nothing alarming on a historical scale.
4. It is far more likely that we will experience sea level decreasing ice age long before Manhattan gets flooded.
5. James Hansen predicts a sea level rise of 2 to 5 meters over the next 84 years, or 24 to 60 mm/yr. During the ending of the recent ice age, sea level increased 100 m over 6,000 years at a rate of 17 mm/yr, and that was melting mile high ice over North America. NASA’s James Hansen in his “peer reviewed” paper claims sea level we will increase at a rate higher than what existed at the end of the ice age. Does that even seem remotely possible considering there are far fewer glaciers to melt and the actual rate of sea level increase has been DECREASING?

Smoking Gun #17: The rate of change in Temperature is unaffected by Anthropogenic CO2.

Talking Points:

1. Most anthropogenic CO2 was produced post-WWII.
2. Temperatures increased 0.6 degree Celsius between 1910 and 1945, before most anthropogenic CO2 was produced. 0.6 degrees over 35 years.
3. Temperatures remained flat between 1940 and 1980, even though CO2 increased.
4. Temperatures increase 0.6 degree Celsius between 1975 and 2010. 0.6 degrees over 35 years.
5. Anthropogenic CO2 has not accelerated or altered the natural rate of temperature increase.

Smoking Gun #18: The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 isn’t related to Anthropogenic CO2 production.

The above chart must be analyzed in the context of the largest CO2 sink, the oceans, are warming and degassing CO2 during this period.

Talking Points:

1. In 1959 man produced 2.25 GtC per year, atmospheric CO2 increased by 2 ppm/year.
2. in 1987 man produced 5.5 GtC per year, atmospheric CO2 increased by 2 ppm/year.
3. The huge spikes in 1987 and 1997 are most likely due to El Ninos, and not related to anthropogenic CO2.
4. In 1992 man produced 6.1 GtC per year, atmospheric CO2 increased by 1.75 ppm/year.
5. Anthropogenic CO2 increased by nearly 5x between 1959 and 2014 from 2.2 GtC to 9.8 GtC in an almost linear manner.
6. The rate of Atmospheric CO2 increased from 2 ppm in 1959 to 4 ppm in 2012 with a great deal of volatility that could not be due to anthropogenic CO2.
7. Man’s production of CO2 production has actually exceeded IPCC projections during a period when temperatures “paused.”

Smoking Gun #19: The  Equatorial Upper Tropospheric “Hot Spot” simply doesn’t exist.

A crucial/critical outcome predicted of the AGW Theory is an Equatorial Upper Tropospheric “Hot Spot.”

Talking Points:

1. As the above graphic demonstrates, the observed temperature change of the upper equatorial troposphere is the exact opposite of predicted.
2. When models are a full 180 degrees off they simply can’t be more wrong, and useless for explaining the observation.
3. The field of Climate “Science” is the only field that I know of outside politics where you can be wrong on such an epic scale and still keep your job.

Smoking Gun #20: 35 Years Ago We Had A Coming Ice Age and a 10 Year Supply of Oil

Basically every major and even minor prediction of the nascent field of Climate “Science” has been wrong on a biblical scale.

Talking Points:

1. The climate models demonstrate an epic level of incompetence, ignorance, scientific malpractice and inaccuracy.
2. In the 1970’s and 80’s the environmental scare du jour was the coming ice age.
3. This video clip debunks the claims of disappearing Snow Cover and Sea Ice, Hurricanes, Extreme Weather, Tornados, Droughts, Floods, Heat Waves, etc etc.
4. This video clip debunks the extreme Sea Level change claims.
5. Polar bears are not endangered, in fact, they have been thriving during the claimed warming period.
6. This video clip debunks the claims of ocean acidification.
7. This video highlights why the “experts” avoid publicly debating Global Warming…they lose.
8. Ehrlich lost his bet.
9. This video highlights why Climate Alarmists don’t like to debate…they lose.
10. I truly feel sorry for Bill Nye and Al Gore, Anthony Watts simply destroys their credibility.
11. British courts disagree with Al Gore.

Smoking Gun #21: The Climategate Emails expose scientific collusion, malpractice and highly unethical, deceitful, deceptive and unscientific practices.

Talking Points:

1. Climate “Science” is the first social media science where the number of likes and friends determines the truth. In a real science, the purpose is to debunk the “consensus,” not agree with it.  Peer pressure isn’t part of the scientific method.
2. Smearing people that disagree with the “consensus” as “deniers,” “flat earthers,” “Skeptics,” and  “anti-science,” isn’t part of the scientific method. Science by “authority” isn’t science.
3. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food, and a fundamental molecule of life. Plants die when CO2 falls below 180 ppm, and Submarines have CO2 levels 20x the level in the atmosphere.
4. There are very serious problems with the exclusive/non-inclusive “peer review” process. It is better called “pal review.” Very bad “science” supports the “consensus.”
5. The “solutions” presented don’t solve the problem and are extremely expensive.
6. The “solutions” do nothing to materially slow the growth of CO2 and/or temperatures.
7. There are serious problems with NOAA temperature measurements.
8. There are serious problems with the temperature data “adjustments.”
9. The historical data has been adjusted.
10. There are serious problems with the sea level measurements.
11. There are serious problems with the glacier claims.
12. “Independent” climate agencies appear to be colluding.
13. There is evidence of extremely disturbing unprofessional/unethical/dishonest behavior among climate scientists.
14. There are problems with claims of a “consensus.” Here is another Video.
15. The “Climategate” emails expose extreme misconduct.
16. Climate “scientists” believe warming has nothing to do with the disappearance of Mt Kilimanjaro Glacier.
17. Eisenhower warned of the possibility of the corruption and politicization of science.
18. The field of Climate Science lacks diversity and inclusivity, and condones/encourages a hostile work environment towards those who don’t join the herd.
19. CO2 is not a “pollutant,” it is essential for life. Plants die when CO2 drops below 180 ppm.
20. Fraud has already been discovered at the highest level.
21. Methods of measuring CO2 differ.
22. Because CO2 can cause both warming and cooling, it is an untestable hypothesis. Science is dependent upon falsification, therefore climate “science” is no science at all.
23. This graphic demonstrates that water vapor and temperature are almost indistinguishable in the lower atmosphere, temperature does not follow CO2.

Smoking Gun #22: Climate “Science” isn’t science at all. Some described it as “Politicized” science, but in reality, it is just cleverly disguised politics.

Whether it is a coming ice age or global warming, the “solution” is always the same; less freedom, greater government control over our lives, fewer choices, higher costs and a lower standard of living.

Talking Points:

1. The documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” highlighted the political foundation of Global Warming movement early in its development.
2. Another documentary “Iron Mountain; Blue Print to Tyranny” was another documentary, but made before the Global Warming movement. It highlights the MO used by left-wing politicians to gain control and power.
3. Unlike the Free Market, socialism isn’t self-sustainable. Socialism is dependent upon funding from taxes generated from the free market system. If a capitalist wants more money, they produce a good or service for the market. If a socialist wants more money, they have to motivate the public to want to pay higher taxes. Preventing global warming, saving the earth, fear mongering and other tactics are all commonly used by the left-wing. The key point, however, is that the truth isn’t important, the ability to raise money is what is important.
4. Anti-capitalism and anti-human politics dominate the environomental movement.
5. Bigger government, less freedom more interference in our lives.

Smoking Gun #23: The costs of fighting climate change are astronomical, and the benefits are basically immeasurable.

The costs of waging a war on climate change are astronomical and measured in percentages of GDP. The benefits are basically immeasurable. For the following talking points, I’ll use the lower estimate of $42 billion per year.

Talking Points:

1. At $50,000/yr, $42 billion could pay 840,000 teachers/year.
2. At $2,000,000 each, $42 billion could build 21,000 bridges/year.
3. At $4,000,000 each, $42 billion could build 10,500 schools/year.
4. At $1,000,000,000 each, $42 billion could develop 42 new drugs/year.
5. With a population of 320 million, $42 billion could give every American $131/yr.
6. At $500,000/mile, $42 billion could paive 82,000 miles of road/year.
7. The same argument can be applied to buying up and preserving the rainforest, building endangered species breeding farms, hospitals, water and sewage treatment facilities and/or any number of projects that will make a real impact on humans and the environment.
8. Even the smartest, most arrogant, idealistic and naive kids in the room, the know-it-alls at Google failed miserably at developing an alternative energy solution. All that time, effort and money could have been spent or solving real problems and making a real difference. Silicon Valley just seems to think that solving the energy problem is as easy as writing code and that everyone else should pay for their naivety/ignorance/ideas/failures.

Smoking Gun #24: What Einstein concluded Global Warming and more CO2 are bad anyway?

Talking Points:

1. Civilizations and nature thrive during warming periods, they die during Ice Ages.
2. Crop yields increase with higher CO2, reducing starvation, improving the standard of living and lowering the cost of food.
3. CO2 has lead to a “Greening of the Earth.“
4. One of the easiest ways to greatly improve the lives of people is to get them an inexpensive energy source, and the cheapest energy sources are carbon based.
5. The Little Ice Age was defined by starvation, plaque, hardship, social unrest, and violent revolution. People tend to move out of cold regions and into warm regions.
6. While catastrophic global warming is 100% pure speculation and something that has never occurred during the past 600 million years, even when CO2 was as high as 7,000 ppm. The likelihood of an Ice Age is almost a 100% certainty. Wind and solar power won’t work when covered in a mile of ice. Preparing for global warming leaves society completely unprepared for the far more likely and catastrophic event of an ice age.
7. This graphic says it all, we simply get far more food out of far less land with higher CO2. I would think that would he every environmentalist’s dream come true considering we are cutting down the rain forest to grow food/fuel crops.
8. The push for biofuels has resulted in the destruction of the rain-forest and other sensitive ecological areas. Oil and fracking are infinitely more environmentally friendly requiring an extremely small foot-print to deliver vast amounts of energy, whereas biofuels require plowing, planting, fertilizing, herbiciding, pesticiding million and millions of acres of land that could be used for far better uses. BTW, you have to burn huge amounts of petroleum-based diesel to run the tractors, trucks and production facilities required to produce the extremely inefficient biofuels like ethanol.

Smoking Gun #25: Atmospheric temperature follows atmospheric H2O, not CO2?

Talking Points:

1. The above graphic about says it all. Where there is H2O in the atmosphere, there is warmth. Atmospheric temperature does not follow CO2 which is and even 400 ppm all the way up to 70 km.
2. Water vapor by far is the most significant green house gas.

Debating Tips: Talking Points to Win the Argument

Debate Talking Points:

1. Evidence of Global Warming is not evidence man or CO2 is causing the warming.
2. Climate change is the norm. No one doubts that the climate is changing or that temperatures have increased since the end of the last ice age.
3. CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and never caused catastrophic warming.
4. Always tie the observation back the CO2’s mechanism to affect climate change. CO2’s only mechanism is through absorbing long wave IR (LWIR) between 13 and 18 microns. Yes, the oceans are warming BUT how does CO2 cause it? LWIR between 13 and 18 microns won’t warm water.
5. The Climate Alarmist will almost certainly point to disappearing ARCTIC Ice, which has been declining, but global sea ice has not. How can CO2 cause more ice in the South and less ice in the North? Artic ice floats on water and is influenced by the ocean temperatures. Ocean temperatures aren’t impacted by CO2.
6. Ice ages begin when CO2 is peaking, and end when CO2 is hitting a minimum. There is no mechanism by which CO2 could either end or start an ice age. Clearly, other major forces control the climate.
7. CO2 and temperatures simply aren’t highly correlated, and what correlation does exist shows CO2 lagging temperature.
8. There is nothing abnormal about the temperature variation over the past 50 and 150 years when compared to the entire Holocene.
9. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods all had temperature peaks above today’s level and lower CO2.
10. The Mt Kilimanjaro Glacier is not melting, it is at 19,340 ft and temperatures never get above freezing. Ask the Climate Alarmist how a glacier “melts” is sub-zero temperatures.
11. No IPCC climate model accurately models global temperatures, and all overestimated the current temperature change. Climate “Scientists” have a “consensus” on a theory that their models disprove.
12.  Meteorologists can’t predict the weather 5 days out, Wall Street Investment houses can’t predict the S&P 500  5 days out, Climate “Scientists” can’t predict the infinitely more complex global climate 100 years out.
13. The costs of fighting the war on climate change far outweigh the benefits. The fortunes being spent would be far better spent on solving real problems.
14. The same people that told you we had a coming ice age, a 10 year supply of oil, that you can keep your doctor, that Obamacare would lower health care costs, that raising the minimum wage will create jobs, that a baby is a choice not a life, that ISIS/ISIL was the JR team, that giving Iran nuclear material will make us safer, that competition is bad for the public schools, that tough gun control laws lowers crimes, that “safe spaces” are appropriate for our Universities, painting cops as pigs is “art,” and that Trump had no chance of getting elected are the same people telling your that the coming ice age, global warming, climate change has a “consensus” and is “settled” science.
15. Record high daytime temperatures are evidence of global warming, BUT NOT AGW, they are evidence that more incoming energy is reaching the earth. The GHG effect only traps OUTGOING LWIR, and has little or nothing to do with daytime temperatures.
16. There are no trends of worsening droughts, tornados, hurricanes, floods, extreme weather, accelerating temperatures or accelerating sea level increases. None.
17. Global warming is more religion and superstition than science.
18. Coral reefs and sea life developed during periods of much higher CO2 levels. Coral is made out of calcium carbonate, and like plants needs CO2 to survive.
19. When the answer to “are we warming” is best answered with “it depends on what data set or time period is chosen,” you know there are real problems.
20. The temperature reconstructions like the “Hockey-Stick” are not independently reproducible. No independent unbiased researchers would accept statistical methods like “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline,” or start with an objective of “getting rid of the Medieval Warming Period.“

What Can You Do?

1. Balance must be restored to our Research Universities. Current staffing statistics demonstrates an extremely concerning systematic discrimination against conservatives. Both sides of the story must be known to reach the truth.
2. An open source approach must be taken towards the global temperature reconstructions and climate models. Way too much power is entrusted into the hands of a very few, highly biased and unethical activists masquerading as “experts” and “scientists.” Transparency is needed to ensure accuracy and appropriateness of the temperature “adjustments” and factors and data used in the models. No open source temperature reconstruction would accept “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline,” and no open source model would put so much weighting on CO2, or accept the highly inaccurate and biased results of the current models.
3.  Research grants can no longer be given intending to produce a given result. Public policy should be based upon the science, the science should not be based upon the public policy.
4. Any research used to support a public policy that will result in spending taxpayer dollars must be independently verified using statistical methods like double-blind testing. The data and research conclusions reached in the field of climate “science” would never pass the rigors required by the FDA for drug approval. If Wall Street brokerages used the statistical methods and “adjustments” similar to the climate scientists the SEC would have them all behind bars. Bottom line, we need a watchdog to ensure the accuracy, validity, reproducibility, efficacy and that the benefits outweigh the cost to society.
5. Federal grants should be limited to Universities that demonstrate a staff inclusive of conservatives, and the research projects should be broken apart similar to building a new weapon system where no one researcher knows the big picture. The key is, the desired result can not be known to the researcher in order to ensure an objective conclusion. Financial conflict of interests must also be removed.
6. Fight back against the left-wing climate bullies, don’t support their causes or unAmerican boycotts, blacklisting and/or censorship efforts.
7. Demand Environmental NGOs start delivering products to the market. If commercially viable solutions exist, produce it, and stop encouraging the spending of taxpayer dollars on unproven concepts. Left-wing groups use the US Treasury like it’s their piggy-bank and treat agencies such as the EPA like they are a venture capital firm.

Please like, share on Facebook and Twitter, re-post, re-blog, and comment. Pass this on to your representative, school science teacher, skeptical friend, neighborhood climate alarmist and/or anyone that may have an interest.

E-mail a link to 10 friends, local and national media, and include a link when commenting on articles. Help spread the word that there are legitimate arguments against the AGW/CAHG Theory.

The climate alarmists win when they are allowed to stifle/avoid debate. This document provides a turn-key solution to starting and winning the debate.

Download and pass this Report/Presentation along to others:

Download a PDF

Source