Carbon dioxide is being blamed for every problem imaginable by journalists. Scientists only claim the increase in temperature has been 1°C due to carbon dioxide. If 1°C was that much of a problem, why not move 70 miles farther north. And why didn't that problem already exist 70 miles farther south?

Propagandists aren't just saying that the whole climate is the problem but that such isolated problems as health effects are caused by increased temperature. That would mean someone living 70 miles farther south always did have that problem, which is fake logic.

There is no real temperature increase due to carbon dioxide in the air. Looking at weather is irrelevant to the question, because there is no scientific possibility of carbon dioxide increasing the temperature of the atmosphere. The claimed science is absurd and fraudulent. Real scientists used to keep the incompetent scientists in their place, until journalists got involved and railroaded the subject.

There are incompetents in science who assumed that nothing heats the atmosphere but greenhouse gases. They missed the fact (quotes) that most heat enters the atmosphere by wind blowing over the surface picking up heat through conduction and convection. That's getting too much wrong to be real science. They aren't getting the rest of it right when they get such simple elements of science wrong.

There is almost no radiation of the type carbon dioxide absorbs. What little is absorbed is re-emitted in femtoseconds. So carbon dioxide is nothing but a pass-through for miniscule amounts of radiation and there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.

Every molecule in existence is a pass-through for radiation. (Nitrogen absorbs in the ultra violet range.) Re-emission takes the form of broad-band energy (infrared at normal temperatures), as the energy absorbed by electron bonds is transferred to the whole molecule.

Incompetents also assume heat gets trapped in the atmosphere. They missed the fact that the atmosphere often cools 20°C during the nights. The heat from carbon dioxide cannot be trapped when the rest of the heat dissipates.
 

 
Even if incompetents are assuming there is an addition process, adding is nothing resembling trapping. Fakes needed to replace addition with trapping, because the addition of almost nothing would require endless accumulation, which is being called trapping.

In other words, the 20°C would not be 21°C with carbon dioxide; it would be 20.00000001°C with the carbon dioxide, unless trapping can cause that infinitesimal amount to accumulate forever. Accumulating forever is what incompetents mean by trapping. Otherwise, absorption is not trapping. The word trapping doesn't exist in normal science; it's a rationalization by incompetents.

The most telling part of science fraud is always the starting point. The starting point of global warming claims is in the amount of radiation given off by the surface of the Earth. The truth is, there isn't enough radiation given off by cold matter to be relevant to the subject. So a fake constant (the Stefan-Boltzmann constant) is used to indicate 40 times too much radiation being given off by cold matter.

The sun's radiation is not absorbed by carbon dioxide, because it is too high of a frequency. So-called greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide only absorb low frequency radiation for the purpose. That radiation is called infrared radiation or black body radiation.

The radiation absorbed by CO2 has to come mostly from the surface of the earth, because only cold substances give off low frequency (infrared) radiation. At the same time, cold substances do not give off enough radiation to be relevant to anything. Engineers do not even list radiation as a relevant factor in cooling heated electronic components.
 

 
Carbon dioxide absorbs "fingerprint radiation" and emits broad-band, black body radiation, which means it emits much more readily than it absorbs. It emits absorbed radiation in 83 femtoseconds (83 x 10^-15 seconds), average.

Since carbon dioxide is a transparent gas, it only absorbs radiation at narrow peaks of bandwidth due to stretching of bonds. The absorbed energy then heats the whole molecule, which creates vibrations emitting broad-band, black body radiation, as all molecules do in proportion to their temperature. Temperature is vibratory energy. Molecular vibrations create vibratory waves as emitted radiant energy.

Energy leaving the surface of the Earth would be about 2% radiation and 98% conduction, convection and evaporation. (my best estimate working extensively with temperature controlling and measuring devices for 40 years in mushroom research and electronic designs)

Then, it was determined about 70 years ago, that 8% of the radiation leaving the surface of the Earth (black body radiation) is absorbed by carbon dioxide. This quantity is the same as the width of the three bands for carbon dioxide divided by the total bandwidth of the black body radiation.

Therefore, multiplying the 2% times the 8% yields 0.16% of the energy leaving the surface of the Earth being absorbed by carbon dioxide.

Having no science to work with, physicists contrived radiative transfer equations to calculate the heating caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The result shows 3.7 watts per square meter of heating upon doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There are no square meters in the atmosphere, but the Stefan-Boltzmann constant was needed for calculating radiation, and it uses watts per square meters.

The 3.7 w/m² are converted into 1°C by reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is not valid, because it applies to radiation emitted from an opaque surface, not from a three dimensional and transparent atmosphere. A transparent gas gives off radiation much more readily than an opaque solid, because radiation can leave from every three dimensional point in a transparent gas. It means climatologists started at the desired endpoint of 1°C and contrived a method of getting there.

It's not scientifically valid to convert watts per square meter into degrees centigrade, because watts are units of rate, which means the total keeps increasing, while temperature is a constant which does not change. It's like a watt meter which shows a 100 watt light bulb using energy constantly. The energy keeps accumulating. So consumers are charged for watt-hours. The amount of time determines the amount of energy. Similarly, the amount of time would determine how much energy accumulated in the atmosphere at 3.7 watts per square meter. Yet the number is used as a constant for temperature increase independent of time.

Physicists were stuck with that contradiction, because they used the Stefan-Boltzmann constant in reverse to get the one degrees centigrade, and that constant is designed for watts per square meter. In other words, to produce a fake mathematics, a simple constant was applied, and it does not produce the result that was needed. The process was nothing but a mathematical gimmick for faking the science.

Physicists used the world's largest computers for the radiative transfer equations, which means no one can verify the results.

The radiative transfer equations indicate that one molecule of CO2 doubling to two molecules would heat the entire atmosphere by 1°C. Being ridiculous, physicists say the equations only apply to present conditions, but there are no forces in nature which limit the laws of physics to present conditions. It shows the fakery of the calculations.

The process is called a greenhouse effect, while the absorbing molecules are called greenhouse gases, because the need is to contrive something significant out of miniscule irrelevancies. A greenhouse is not a miniscule irrelevancy, so it is used as the analogy. The analogy is a fraud.

There are two basic frauds. One is claiming 40 times too much radiation using an erroneous Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The other faud is pretending that the heat gets trapped, which implicitly means it builds up. The word, greenhouse is supposed to do that.

A greenhouse traps heat by blocking air currents. Supposedly the atmosphere does that somehow. There is no method of trapping heat in the atmosphere. Molecules radiate away absorbed heat in 83 femto seconds, which is not a trapping process.

Absorption of radiation by molecules creates vibrations, while vibrations radiate away heat. It means molecules in a transparent gas are flow-through mechanisms for radiation similar to the servers which transfer data through the internet.

The frequency of the radiation changes in doing that. When CO2 absorbs radiation at a wavelength of 15 microns, the vibrating molecule re-emits the energy at a wide bandwidth frequency, because a chemical bond absorbs narrow-band radiation, while the whole molecule vibrating emits wide-band radiation.

If the atmosphere could trap heat, it would not cool down at nights. All other sources of heat would get trapped, if there were a trapping mechanism. The other sources are vastly more relevant, as most of the sun's energy moves into the atmosphere by conduction, convection and evaporation from the earth's surface and then radiates into space from the atmosphere. If the heat got trapped, all life would end. There is no trapping mechanism.

About a century ago, scientists determined that saturation prevents CO2 from increasing the temperature of the atmosphere. Saturation means all available radiation gets absorbed with a small amount of CO2, so more CO2 cannot absorb more radiation.

Saturation occurs because there is so little radiation given off at cold temperatures that the required wavelengths get totally absorbed by a very small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Only 8% of the infrared radiation given off by the surface of the earth is absorbed by CO2. There are three narrow absorption bands for CO2, because only certain chemical bonds absorb the radiation.

The mind-frame needs to be criticized. Nonscientists do not have the slightest ability to evaluate the depth of science. It's way over their heads in details and complexities. That's particularly true of busy persons specializing in other subjects such as politicians and lawyers. So they have to go by some sort of social consensus. Therefore, two major questions need to be answered: One, where did the fake science come from; and two, how could scientists be that wrong? Those questions can be answered, particularly since Trump and followers showed us how fraudulent social realities can be. Most scientists are totally incompetent because of the abstract complexities of science. The purpose of science is to extend knowledge into unknown areas. Knowledge is abstract. Incompetents do not develop abstract realities in their minds. They use a replicating process and push their way into social structures which they hijack for power mongering purposes. There used to be about half of the scientists on each side of the global warming issue, until know-nothing journalists took sides and blocked all criticism of their position. They said the science is settled. Over time, the public saw nothing but the garbage journalists were feeding them and assumed it was science, while journalists claim everything that happens is influenced by carbon dioxide in the air. Real scientists used to say that isn't possible. They were silenced or shoved out of science by the frauds with know-nothing journalists leading the pack and controlling the realities. But the errors can be explained. To buy into the frauds in contempt for the criticism is to be part of the problem. Fraud doesn't look anything like valid criticism. Know-nothings do no explaining. No explaining, no truth. Nonscientists need to create accountability for science without drawing inept conclusions. That process requires criticism to be promoted rather than discouraged. If all critics have a say in a controversy, the truth rapidly evolves out of the process. Instead, the nonscientists and incompetent scientists blocked all criticism on fake greenhouse gases and railroaded an expensive fraud onto society. Conservatives claim there is not the slightest flaw in the science of this subject but carbon dioxide is not heating the planet due to the effects of clouds.

 
Other Factors Heat The Planet

Firing Scientists

Conservatives are wrong about it