• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Skeptics’ Climate Arguments Are Inconvenient Facts That Can’t Be Refuted

by Pierre Gosselin
March 14, 2024, 12:39 PM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 3 mins read
A A
3

earth sun horizonThe science of climate change is very complex and there are many different points of view. This post summarizes some of the strongest arguments of climate skeptics.

1. Natural climate variability

The Earth’s climate has always changed in the past, often dramatically, even without human influence. The current warming is therefore likely just part of a natural cycle and one that is capable of reversing on its own. [emphasis, links added]

2. Climate models are still in their infancy

Climate models are complex computer programs that attempt to simulate the climate system. These models provide different results and are unable to accurately reproduce past climate changes. All are filled with assumptions and guesses.

The climate is a highly complex, chaotic system and so much of it is still poorly understood. Much remains a complete mystery, which means it is impossible to accurately model. Model outputs are thus unreliable.

Remember that with chaotic systems like weather and climate, even very small changes in the initial inputs, which are many, can be amplified over time, thus making long-term predictions impossible. That’s a hard fact of life that climate scientists have to accept.

3. The influence of the sun

The sun is the Earth’s main energy supplier and its activity certainly greatly influences the climate. Hundreds of publications show this. Many of these impacts are poorly understood, and so climate scientists like to pretend they don’t exist.

4. Limited effects of trace gas CO2

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a trace “greenhouse” gas that human activities release into the atmosphere. Many scientific publications show that CO2’s impact on global warming is overestimated.

5. Oceanic cycles hugely impact climate change

The ocean acts like the Earth’s giant heat re-distributor. Many cycles impact climate. Ocean currents move warm water from the equator towards the poles, and from higher depths to lower depths, thus redistributing energy.

Ocean cycles play a crucial role in regulating Earth’s temperature and weather patterns. Changes to these cycles can have significant consequences for global climate.

The heat content of the oceans is about 100 times that of the atmosphere, so even small heat redistribution changes can significantly impact the atmosphere above.

Predictions are difficult because there is little historical data available from the ocean depths and scientists can only speculate what the oceans will do next.

6. Economic consequences of climate change

Measures to combat climate change entail extremely high costs and are especially socially unbearable for the poor.

Study after study suggests these costs far outweigh the negative consequences of climate change, which we are unable to steer in the first place.

Read more at No Tricks Zone

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 3

  1. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:
    2 years ago

    Nick Schroeder wrote:
    “So where does this 396 second source of surface upwelling heat flow come from?”

    That comes about due to the climastrologists misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation, treating real-world graybody objects as though they are idealized blackbody objects.

    https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif

    As you can see from the graphic above, by using the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation, they are forced to assume emission to 0 K. They often also assume emissivity of 1 just like an actual idealized blackbody… other times the slap ε onto the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation, which is still a misuse of the S-B equation.

    The original Kiehl-Trenberth “Earth Energy Balance” graphic (said graphics represent the mathematics used in Energy Balance Climate Models) pinned that number to 390 W m-2, which would correspond to an idealized blackbody object at 288 K emitting to 0 K and with emissivity of 1. Of course, that shows without a doubt that they’ve misused the S-B equation to bolster their narrative. Earth’s emissivity isn’t 1 (it’s 0.93643 per the NASA ISCCP program) and it’s not emitting to 0 K (the majority of wavelengths emit to the ~255 K upper troposphere, the Infrared Atmospheric Window is emitting to the ~65 K near-earth temperature of space).

    Now, in order to keep the alarmism at a fever-pitch, they had to keep claiming more and more ludicrous numbers… hence today’s 398 W m-2 surface radiant exitance at their claimed 288 K (which isn’t even physically possible). You can do the calculation via the S-B equation to see this for yourself.

    But that’s not the only problem brought about by their misuse of the S-B equation… it also proves that backradiation is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to that misuse of the S-B equation. It doesn’t exist. Some claim that it’s been empirically measured… except the pyrgeometers used to ‘measure’ it utilize the same misuse of the S-B equation as the climastrologists use.

    This essentially isolates each object into its own system so it cannot interact with other objects via the ambient EM field, which grossly inflates radiant exitance of all objects, necessitating that the climatologists carry these incorrect values through their calculation and cancel them on the back end (to get their equations to balance) by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.

    And that’s the third problem with the climastrologists misusing the S-B equation… their doing so implies rampant violations of 2LoT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and Stefan’s Law.

    As I show in the attached paper, the correct usage of the S-B equation is via subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object.

    2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense states that system energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient (remember that while 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense only mentions temperature, temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant, per Stefan’s Law), that it requires “some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time“… that “some other change” typically being external energy doing work upon that system energy to pump it up the energy density gradient (which is what occurs in, for example, AC units and refrigerators).

    The “backradiation” claim by the climatologists implies that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient… just one of many blatant violations of the fundamental physical laws inherent in the CAGW narrative. As I show in the linked paper, this is directly analogous to claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill (ie: up a pressure gradient).

    Read the full explanation here:
    https://ufile.io/gb1xn4lh

    Reply
  2. Nick Schroeder says:
    2 years ago

    “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil DeGrasse Tyson

    Believe = religion
    Think = opinion
    Know = science

    What I know follows.
    What do you know that’s different?

    Published (SubStack, X, MSN, PAPundits, et. al.)
    Peer reviewed (the world)
    And undisputed (so far)

    ISR at ToA = 1,368 W/m^2.
    From the Sun’s perspective Earth is a flat, discular, pin head.
    To average that discular energy over a spherical surface divide by 4.
    (disc = π r^2, sphere = 4 π r^2)
    1,368/4=342.
    (Not even close to how the Earth heats & cools + this is Fourier’s model which even Pierrehumbert says is no good.)
    Deduct 30% albedo.
    (Clouds, ice, snow created by GHE/water vapor.)
    342*(1.0-0.3)=240.
    Deduct 80 due to atmospheric absorption.
    (If this were so ToA would be warmer than surface.)
    Net/net of 160 arrives at surface.
    Per LoT 1 160 is ALL!! that can leave.
    17 sensible + 80 latent + 63 (by remaining diff) LWIR = 160
    Balance is closed, done, over, fini, “Ttthhhat’s ALL folks!!”

    So where does this 396 second source of surface upwelling heat flow come from?
    396 is the S-B BB calculation for any surface at 16 C, 289 K, that serves as the denominator of the emissivity ratio: 63/396=0.16.
    It is a theoretical calculation.
    It is not real.
    It is a duplicate “extra.”
    It violates LoT 1.
    396 up – 2nd 63 LWIR (How convenient.) = 333 “back” from cold to hot w/o work violating LoT 2.

    Not that it matters.
    Erase the 396/333/63 GHE “extra” energy loop from the graphic and the balance holds true.

    IR instruments do not measure power flux, they are calibrated to report a referenced temperature and infer power flux assuming the target is a BB. (Read the manual.)
    16 C + BB = 396 & incorrect.
    16 C + 0.16 = 63 & correct.

    There is no GHE.
    There is no GHG warming.
    There is no CAGW,
    The consensus is wrong – Aahhgain!!!

    Disagree?
    Bring science which is not appeals to authority, off topic esoteric Wiki handwavium and ad hominem gas lighting and insults.

    Reply
  3. Spurwing Plover says:
    2 years ago

    the Big Problem is that the Skeptics are standing on their Bank Account/Paychecks

    Reply

Comments are welcome! Those that add no discussion value may be removed.Cancel reply

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • Wind farm constructionIn The Name Of ‘Green’ Energy, Wind Farms Are Devastating Natural Habitats
    Oct 6, 2025
    Wind farms touted as green energy are triggering soil erosion, insect collapse, and biodiversity loss, raising doubts about their true environmental cost. […]
  • Pope Leo ice blessingPope Leo Joins Climate Cultists In Bizarre Ice-Blessing Ritual, Betrays Church’s Mission
    Oct 6, 2025
    Pope Leo joined climate cultists in a strange ice-blessing ceremony, sparking backlash from Christians and raising questions about Catholic priorities. […]
  • Abigail SpanbergerReport: Spanberger Winning Virginia Governor’s Race Would Add $500M a Year to Electricity Bills
    Oct 6, 2025
    Abigail Spanberger’s plan to rejoin the RGGI could add $500M a year to Virginia electricity bills, while Earle-Sears opposes any carbon tax. […]
  • Wall Street financial districtUN-Backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance Shutters, Dealing Blow To ESG Activists
    Oct 6, 2025
    The Net-Zero Banking Alliance has shut down as banks exit, sparking ESG activist backlash over fossil fuel projects and climate goals. […]
  • Massive Amazon deforestation for COP30 roadCOP30’s Carbon Circus: Elites Show Everything That’s Wrong With Climate Alarmism
    Oct 6, 2025
    Skyrocketing costs, private jets, and rainforest destruction expose the hypocrisy surrounding this year’s COP30 climate summit in Brazil. […]
  • oil rig drillAmerica’s Energy Boom Exposes The Folly Of Britain’s Net Zero Disaster
    Oct 3, 2025
    America’s energy boom and policy flexibility are widening the economic gap with Britain, where high prices and net zero goals are stalling growth. […]
  • Arctic sunsetNew Study Shows Arctic Sea Ice Decline Slowing, Driven More by Natural Variability Than Emissions
    Oct 3, 2025
    New study shows Arctic sea ice decline has slowed since 2012, driven more by natural variability than greenhouse gas emissions. […]
  • Attorney General Rob BontaNewsom Backs Off Climate Fight As AG Bonta Doubles Down On Suing Energy Firms
    Oct 3, 2025
    Two years after launching a high-profile climate lawsuit, Newsom is backing off while AG Rob Bonta doubles down on lawfare against major energy firms. […]
  • Farm irrigationMeteorologist Debunks Reuters’ Claim That Climate Change Threatens Europe’s Resources
    Oct 2, 2025
    Data show Europe’s droughts, weather, and biodiversity issues stem from mismanagement, not climate change, despite alarmist media claims. […]
  • Russ VoughtTrump Nixes $8B In ‘Green New Scam Funding’ In NYC, Blue States
    Oct 2, 2025
    Trump DOE halted billions in green energy projects citing poor economics, DEI hiring, and weak energy impact, sparking backlash in blue states. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky