Refuting global warming science is elementary part III

confused liberal climate science

Liberals are either the victims of deceivers who distract them from the truth or the perpetrators of the lies presenting facts and then misleading others to false conclusions.  Neither is the kind of person whom honest people want leading the nation.  Socialists have found a home in the Green Movement duping people into believing that redistribution of wealth is the solution.

(In another debate with a liberal who believes he has learned science I asked this;)

Question: How do you explain the liberal science belief that CO2 forms a greenhouse bubble above the stratosphere when it is a heavier than air gas?

His answer:

Brownian motion, air movement and thermal effects result in continuous mixing of the constituents of the atmosphere.  Sampling throughout the troposphere to the tropopause reflects thorough mixing and presence of carbon dioxide.

Research reflects the fact that conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals, who are quite smart enough to play tit-for-tat games with losers who engage in verbal sparring despite their lack of suitable arms.

And once again a conservative falls and there is no-one there to rescue him as he struggles, desperately attempting to breath around the foot he has jammed into his own mouth.  Weird.

My response:

Brownian Motion?  That is what you are going with?  Seriously?  You are going to use Brownian Motion to disprove physics?

You are declaring that CO2 molecules rise above the stratosphere by virtue of Brownian Motion and stay there, that they never fall, but continue to accumulate?  That thermodynamics and convection currents push CO2 up and never down.  According to liberal science, even though CO2 is heavier than air, what goes up does not ever come down, hot air rises, but never cools.  And on that basis you declare intellectual victory?

How about using weather balloon data showing we have been collecting for the last seventy years that show how CO2 above the stratosphere has doubled or tripled?  Why not?  BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH DATA!

There is NO empirical evidence of planetary CO2 increases, no evidence it exists in the upper atmosphere beyond what is normal, and no scientific proof that CO2 creates a greenhouse effect beyond someone’s computer models that they programmed to say just that!  The only data they have collected is from the source alluding to the fact that man produces more CO2 due to industry and fossil fuel burning, but none that it has become significant in the atmosphere.  The Earth’s ecosystem has been converting CO2 into plant life for eons and it is still just a trace gas despite mankind’s industrial explosion.

If this is what you believe then, on that basis, I must admit complete and utter defeat!  There is no possibility of overcoming such galactic stupidity.  Ignorance can be overcome, but as Larry says, “You can’t fix stupid.”  You have proven that you are the kind of person with whom Sam Clemens warned never to argue.  If people like you are the majority of American voters then this nation is doomed.


“Just as you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink, you can tell a liberal the truth, but you can’t make him think.”

{Author’s note: The “science” of climate change promoted by liberals is based on deception and the science of distraction.  When they go beyond the simple “mankind pollutes” meme to claim they represent science that proves man causes climate change, people like this are not the ignorant who don’t know any better and deserve respectful consideration to be educated.  They are the deceivers who deliberately distract the ignorant and uneducated with industrial smoke stacks and automobile exhaust pipes telling them, “Look at how much pollution mankind is putting into the atmosphere.”

They claim NASA scientists prove they are telling the truth, yet NASA is under the federal government promoting the leftist narrative that Islam is the principle culture that advanced science in Europe, which is like saying science was promoted by the Inquisition.  It is not 97% of scientists who agree on climate change and the “flat-earthers” know no science.  It is only those who are on the government dole who adhere to the Democrat policy platform that mankind is the cause of global warming and can control the climate of the planet.

But none can explain why the North Pole is still surrounded by an ice cap they said would have been completely melted and gone forever by 2013.  They just come up with new excuses to perpetuate their deceit.  This is not about the science of the Earth, but about the science of psychological manipulation through propaganda.

They keep people’s attention on the smoke and away from the actual scientific data acquired from weather balloons and the like that show no change in the CO2 content of the upper atmosphere.  They keep their attention on the source and not the outcome, just as they do when they cast aspersions on those who have spent a lifetime working to become wealthy, condemning them as the greedy stealing money, not as the industrious creating jobs.  So long as they can keep the people ignorant they can continue to fool the gullible into thinking that giving them power will save the world when all they will do is take people’s money on the pretense of “redistribution.”}

Refuting global warming science is elementary part I

Refuting global warming science is elementary part II

Related articles;

Climate change deniers vs. Chicken Littles

Politico-economics of climate change eco-terrorism explained

Other articles;

Morality in humanity

The Final Solution to Islamic terrorism

The message for America in black and white

A litany of liberal lies about Bush and other Republicans

(Please like and share this with your friends.  Let them know the truth.  To subscribe click on “follow” and respond to the email WordPress sends you.)

About dustyk103

This site is my opinion only and is unpaid. I am a retired Paramedic/Firefighter with 25 years of service in the City of Dallas Fire Dept. I have a B.A. degree in Journalism, and A.A. degrees in Military Science and History. I have spent my life studying military history, world history, American history, science, current events, and politics making me a qualified PhD, Senior Fellow of the Limbaugh Institute, and tenured Professor Emeritus for Advanced Conservative Studies. 😄 It is my hope that readers can gain some knowledge and wisdom from my articles.
This entry was posted in Climate Change, Election 2016, Fundamentals and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Refuting global warming science is elementary part III

  1. Bob Green says:

    Don’t you wish that it were JUST the global warming hoax and a “chicken little” apocalypse that liberals are trying to foster on the ignorant masses at about $22 Billion per year in income redistribution to perpetuate the lie?

    “Liberalism” is far more comprehensive…and far more destructive to our nation and our individual freedoms. It “empties treasuries, blackens souls, and decimates everything it touches over the long haul. One day, unless the American people wise up to the damage liberalism is causing, it will eventually ruin this nation beyond repair.” – John Hawkins


  2. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    “How about using weather balloon data showing we have been collecting for the last seventy years that show how CO2 above the stratosphere has doubled or tripled? Why not? BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH DATA!”


    Except that such experiments are conducted regularly, even on an undergraduate level:

    What do you know, they were able to find CO2 going up into the atmosphere as far up as the balloon could go.


    • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

      Maybe Brownian motion doesn’t “disprove physics” because it is actually part of phyics?


    • dustyk103 says:

      Yes, they have and, what do you know, none are ever used to report great increases in CO2. Just because convection currents cause the atmosphere to be mixed does not prove that CO2 accumulates in the upper atmosphere.


      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        Are you unable to see the chart I posted there in my reply? It is labeled: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide During the Past 50 Years


        • dustyk103 says:

          Yes, I know that chart. It is a chart of industrial CO2 output and has nothing to do with the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere.


  3. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    There is no such thing as ‘liberal science’ – there is only science and non-science


  4. dustyk103 says:

    There is also pseudo-science that is only partially science.


  5. Beau Tachs says:

    Compelling evidence has been unearthed that NOAA temp. numbers have been systematically manipulated for some time- because the current data they are getting refutes the “climate change” theory. A council has been convened to assess the level of falsification. I wonder what the science would say of the money spigot were to be turned off for five years.


    • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

      Beau, do you honestly believe those students from Kansas Wesleyan University that I linked above were on the “money spigot”?

      Science is wonderful because anyone who is careful can conduct an experiment, and you can write down all the facts and others can test your experiments and try to replicate the results. Therefore a world-wide conspiracy to falsify scientific evidence is not going to work very well, is it? How could it possibly work?


      • Tom Monfort says:

        “Therefore a world-wide conspiracy to falsify scientific evidence is not going to work very well, is it? How could it possibly work?”
        I’ll say it doesn’t work very well, because they have to keep changing what causes the doomsday scenario they want us to believe. When the science they use to prove they are right, is exposed as a conclusion reached by using data that gave the result they were seeking. This is about the exposure of the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph from East Anglia University, Climate Research Unit. To follow the conspiracy as it was exposed and led to the eventual changing of the labeling from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’. The conspiracy is kept alive by the political partners, skilled at covering when the science fails and they move on to different storylines. The focus and use of the political ‘science’ to point out new dangers to national security and health, while at the same time attacking any scientist that speaks out and labeling them a ‘denier’ of the ‘settled’ science. There plenty to read laying out the conspiracy. It’s usually referred to as ‘Climategate’ and it is worldwide.


  6. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    “Yes, I know that chart. It is a chart of industrial CO2 output and has nothing to do with the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere.”

    1) The Pinatubo Volcanic Eruption is non-industrial output.
    2) The chart is showing atmospheric CO2 (“atmospheric” means “from the atmosphere”)

    It is almost like no evidence would ever convince you. Anything you don’t like you ignore or think is a lie. You are unshakable in your beliefs.


    • dustyk103 says:

      And Pinatubo doesn’t even register on the chart. What about the Iceland volcano (whose name is unprintable) in 2010? My beliefs rest in scientific fact, and so far no one has provided any more proof that mankind is causing global warming than they have proven evolution. They are both theories, but liberals say we must give the government our money “just in case” the theory that industrial CO2 is causing global warming might be true. Well, by that logic people should send me their money “just in case” I can solve the world’s problems.


      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        Some logic. There is ample evidence for both those scientific theories, but no one thinks you can solve any of the world’s problems because there is absolutely no reason to think that.

        And what about a volcano in Iceland that erupted in 2010? That chart is a few years old now: if you look closely you will see that the data for 2010 and beyond is only a projection. But even if the chart was updated and explicitly pointed out more volcano eruptions, the data listed there would all still be the same.


        • dustyk103 says:

          The fact that there is evidence for a theory does not make it a fact. And the funnier part is that there is probably as higher a percentage of people who would agree with how I believe the problems of the world could be solved as believe that giving Democrats other people’s money will solve global warming. 😀


      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        I’m going to keep a running tally of the claims of this man who says his beliefs rest in scientific fact:

        Greenhouse Effect? Hoax.
        Theory of Evolution? Hoax (and possibly blasphemous)
        Hole in the Ozone? Hoax!
        Albedo Effect? Not a hoax, except in the case of infra-red light
        Brownian Motion? I’m not sure if he thinks this one is a hoax or not, he seems to be contradicting himself on this one


  7. dustyk103 says:

    Arthur W. DiMatteo’s tally of claims he says that this man, who says rests his beliefs in scientific fact, said any of these was a hoax = 0. I never claimed any of them was a hoax. The only thing I claimed was a hoax was the liberals claim that global warming is man-made and that Democrats can fix it with more money. You can assume all you want, but when you try to fool people like you just did, you can only make an ass or yourself, not of me.


  8. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    So now you believe in the greenhouse effect, in evolution, and in ozone depletion? You can’t have it both ways. All of those claims you made in writing, and anyone reading who cares enough to bother can simply go through your articles and find every one.


    • dustyk103 says:

      You are just spinning like a top! Do you actually believe that what you claimed in your prior post is equivalent to what you just posted?

      Greenhouse Effect? Hoax.
      Theory of Evolution? Hoax (and possibly blasphemous)
      Hole in the Ozone? Hoax!

      I said none of those are hoaxes. There really is a Greenhouse Effect as proven by Greenhouses, not by liberal climate scientists who claim the entire planet is affected by CO2 as a greenhouse gas when it is a heavier than air gas. That part is a hoax. The science behind the actual Greenhouse Effect is not.

      Likewise, there really is a Theory of Evolution. I did not say it’s a hoax or that it is confirmed science, I said it is just a theory without proof beyond conjecture and hypothesis. Liberals who claim they understand more science than conservatives are fooling themselves believing evolution is a scientific fact.

      Acknowledging that there is a hole in the ozone is not the same as believing in ozone depletion via aerosol sprays and Freon, which were both frauds to put them out of business and clear the way for second rate companies whose buddies in Congress made it possible. I’ve said many times that the discovery of that hole over the Antarctic meant nothing and congressman scapegoating Freon was all a scam. I never said it didn’t exist.

      You really should quit while you’re behind. The only person you are confusing is yourself. My first ex-wife used to argue like you; change my words to make me wrong. Doesn’t work any more, especially when its in writing.


      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        All that nuance doesn’t make you seem any less of a near-hysterical reactionary who never studied any science at all.

        So you don’t like the word ‘hoax’ – that clearly is not the point. You are back to denying Brownian motion again, in your rather catachrestic description of ‘air gas.’

        I am only left to wonder how you can possibly think that genetics and the fossil record do not count as any evidence at all, and that the evolution of our species is “just a theory” with no more substance than “conjecture and hypothesis.” I am likewise bemused when you say the discovery of the continent-sized hole in the ozone layer “meant nothing.”

        I suspect that the aforementioned first partner in your series of marriages did not need to change your words to make you wrong.


        • dustyk103 says:

          Your attempt at labelling me “a near-hysterical reactionary who never studied science” is the patently obvious Alinsky tactic of mocking another in order to demean their intellect in the eyes of the ignorant observer. So you can take that and shove it up there with your head where the Sun don’t shine. My scientific knowledge has been proven better than yours as is my understanding of the difference between theory and fact. The word hoax, used in your context, is stupid because a hoax is a prank, while the liberal global warming movement is actually defrauding people of their money.

          You’re back to Brownian Motion again as if CO2 is not a heavier than air gas and you say I know nothing of science? Our Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere mixes, but that doesn’t mean it mixes equally at all strati. The liberal theory that CO2 somehow rises and accumulates above the stratosphere to make a greenhouse bubble is the theory of the ignorant who don’t understand what ‘heavier than air’ means. This also explains why you think that genetics and a fossil record PROVE evolution when scientists say it only provides a basis for a theory.

          Likewise, your ‘bemusement’ that I said, “the discovery of the continent-sized hole in the ozone layer ‘meant nothing'” is amusing to me. Just because scientists found something they didn’t know was there, you buy into the propaganda that it was caused by Freon and aerosol sprays, which is patently absurd! That’s like discovering a cave and saying it must have been caused by flush toilets so we need to go back to buckets.

          The entire liberal argument about man’s influence on climate change is one big fraud to part fools from their money, and you have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.


  9. dustyk103 says:

    Dusty Koellhoffer · University of Georgia
    Unless you are a tool of the Jihad.

    With Islamo-nazi fascism rolling like a tidal wave over the Middle East, Obama says we must beware of ice melt from the North Pole and rising oceans.
    Obama Jihad against climate change and for navel gazing…/obama-jihad…/

    You can no more reform Islam than you can reform Christianity…/reforming-islam-is…/

    Liberals continue to promote the fraud that man controls the climate and will make the earth a desert….See More
    Like · Reply · May 28, 2015 8:59am

    Edward Silha · St. Mel’s Chicago, IL
    Kerry Emanuel sees himself as a conservative. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan.
    Emanuel is also a highly regarded professor of atmospheric science at MIT. And based on his work on hurricanes and the research of his peers, Emanuel has concluded that the scientific data show a powerful link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
    “There was never a light-bulb moment but a gradual realization based on the evidence,” Emanuel said. “I became convinced by the basic physics and by the better and better observation of the climate that it was changing and it was a risk that had to be considered.”

    Watch his video if you dare risk disabusing yourself view about the science.
    Like · Reply · May 31, 2015 10:56am

    Dusty Koellhoffer · University of Georgia
    The fact that the climate is changing, which it does all the time, combined with the fact that man has developed industry and carbon emissions, does not make a definitive corelation to come to any conclusion that the latter is any causal effect on the former.
    Like · Reply · Just now


  10. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    If it is an “Alinsky tactic” then why do you do it to me? And why do you assume that the observer is ‘ignorant’ – you are kind of harsh on your own audience here on your website, aren’t you? I would hope that any readers here not only had the benefit of an education, but also are perceptive: perceptive enough to be tell which one of us supplies charts and experiments conducted at universities and is able to express himself coherently, versus the one that spouts a whole lot of tough-guy-talk and appears to have a selective memory and a very limited grasp of the terminology related to the subject. You even try to ape my writing style in your responses.

    If you had any understanding of chemistry at all, you would stop writing “air gas” as if it were homogeneous. Carbon dioxide is a component of the air and it doesn’t make sense to say it is heavier than air: it is a natural part of the air, at detectable levels in every stratum, please go back again to reread the article I posted about the Kansas Wesleyan University students!

    I had gone through this with you before Dusty, did you forget? The atomic weight of carbon is different from the atomic weight of nitrogen and oxygen, and on the molecular level CO2 may be heavier, but that doesn’t mean that carbon dioxide is not in the atmosphere, and in every lungful of the air that you breathe. Is Brownian motion a hoax or not? If you keep saying ‘carbon dioxide is heavier than air gas!’ and refuse to acknowledge that air is in fact made up of many different gases that always include carbon dioxide, well after this point, I will have to conclude that you are incredibly thick — or you are just being dishonest.


    • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

      How carbon moves through our atmosphere:


      • dustyk103 says:

        Thanks, Arthur. That’s an excellent picture to illustrate my point. CO2 rises from fires, but then it cools and comes down. It does not accumulate in the upper stratosphere to make a greenhouse bubble to cause a greenhouse effect. Most of it is at the surface proving that when it rises from being heated it cools and falls. Otherwise, plants would die from lack of CO2 and stop generating O2.


    • dustyk103 says:

      Paragraph 1: Utter horse crap. I’m not being hard on my readers by saying they are ignorant, because everyone who believes mankind is causing global warming either did not learn or does not remember the simple science they learned in grade school. Here they will learn the simple truth. I don’t need charts and graphs to illustrate my point because they are available from both sides all over the Internet. I’m not here to teach science, but to expose a fraud that claims it is based on science. And your remark that I am ‘aping your writing style’ is just proof that you are full of yourself and still trying to demean me.

      Paragraph 2&3: Stop writing “air gas?” Not sure what you’re trying to say. ‘Gas’ refers to a particular element while ‘air’ is a conglomeration of gases. They are not “homogeneous?” You mean synonymous? Yes, CO2 is a component of the air, but you know that CO2 molecules are heavier that Nitrogen (that comprises about 80% of the atmosphere) and Oxygen (that is about 20%) molecules. CO2 remains a trace gas and, despite all claims, has barely increased in the last century and remains a trace gas. Of course it’s detectable in every stratum, but there is no evidence it accumulates more in any strati above the troposphere, as liberal’s claim, to make a greenhouse bubble.

      So those who do believe that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” for which there is no proof except computer models in which programmers made them (garbage in, garbage out) are either ignorant, stupid, or deceivers. Ignorance can be overcome through education. Stupid is as stupid does and you can’t fix stupid. You are obvious neither which puts you in the last category. You are one of those who supports the Democrat agenda to defraud more money from taxpayers and you will use pseudo-science, Alinsky tactics, and propaganda to achieve your goal of duping taxpayers that giving Democrats more money will “save the planet” from mankind’s pollution.


      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        No I mean homogeneous, not synonymous: you are an illiterate.


        • dustyk103 says:

          nyuck nyuck nyuck. I’m sorry. I just couldn’t resist pulling your leg. You have to admit that was funny. I was certainly laughing.

          The fact is they are not homogeneous in all strati because CO2 is a heavier molecule. The upper atmosphere is not only thinner, but of a different consistency than the troposphere. Despite the claims that CO2 has a greenhouse effect, that effect is based on false scientific claims that it has different properties at different altitudes. Meaning that some “scientists” claim that less is more the higher you go. It’s bunk.


  11. johnstoirvin says:

    “This is…… about the science of psychological manipulation through propaganda.”

    That statement from the article supports something I’ve said for many years:
    “The term ‘settled science’ is an oxymoron, used by real morons to manipulate their fellow morons at the expense of everyone, moron or not.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.