The climate debate is a culture war

No good evidence for a “greenhouse gas effect”, GHE, exists. It’s supporters bypass scientific discussion of the GHE by demonising skeptics with labels like “shill” (you work for the fossil fuel industry), and “denier” (you support fascists). They avoid talking about fundamental science at all costs. Avoidance of scientific discussion is a common feature of authoritarian politics and scams. In 2007 - 2009, Gerlich and Tscheuschner (G+T 2009) wrote a scientific monograph explaining why a greenhouse gas effect is not a scientific proposition. Their monograph goes unanswered 12 years later.

Let’s look at what this GHE claims. It says the surface of earth is 33°C warmer due to our atmosphere. In particular due to the greenhouse gases (GHG), especially the 2 main ones: carbon dioxide, CO2, and water vapor in our atmosphere. It says that the CO2 warming part, is about a quarter, and was 8°C when CO2 averaged 280 ppm in the atmosphere. It says only a change in CO2 (and other trace GHG such as methane) 'is forcing'; that water vapor greenhouse effects are not forcing but they 'amplify' the CO2 effect.

There is no scientific evidence for any of this. It is a fairy story. Environmentalists, and science activists, basically, made it up. Let us consider what scientific evidence is and ideas are, and what separates a scientific idea from pseudoscience. Richard Feynman and Karl Popper explain it well. Specifically: 1) every idea, conjecture, hypothesis, model and theory in science must be grounded in fact. It must be testable against real world observations and/or experiment. An idea grounded in logic is not scientific unless every aspect of the idea resists falsification. Falsification is a process where we take projections (we look at what the idea predicts), and compare those projections with reality. With falsification, we specifically take a skeptical attitude towards the idea (like I'm doing now), and attempt to invalidate it (like a disproof). Scientists do this all the time. Falsification is part of the lifeblood of science. That's what G+T 2009 is. Rather than embracing falsification attempts as good scientists should, the establishment began a culture war against good science to keep their fake greenhouse gas effect. They call legitimate falsification claims 'denialism'. The effect of the culture was is to avoid scientific discussion at all costs so that the establishment, money interests, behind renewables have no critics; all critics and skeptics are demonized, and sometimes cancelled.

The function of the culture war is to polarize society so far such that an issue becomes extreme politics; which, basically, define a position. Unless one betrays one's party one cannot question its fundamental precepts. Global warming is a fundamental precept of the U.S. Democratic Party. The demonization of skepticism by media is Democrat activists (and their puppets and imitators) in action. To get everyone to toe the line, so that policy is justified. This was not, necessarily a conscious conspiracy. Al Gore began it, and he did everything openly. There are elements of conspricy in it; in particular, promises given in secret (e.g. email) and accepted for money. Yet in the main, it's not secret. So not a conspiracy.

How to tell whether a scientist's contribution to the greenhouse gas debate is legitimate

Simples!, just ask them to cite their attempted falsifications, or support for falsification, of the Greenhouse gas effect.

If they never tried to falsify it, they aren't even scientists, at least: not good scientists.

Notes:

• See Anthony Pagden's explanation of modern skepticism in "The Enlightenment And Why It Still Matters".

Leftism in a Nutshell

I wrote the paragraph (below in red) to explain why the Left support such daft energy policies (like 100% renewables). It was a reply to Dr Jay Lehr's article: "The Real Reason The Left Wants Only Wind And Solar Energy". Dr Lehr implies the Left maliciously want state control of everything. I think he's wrong.

Leftism, of all kinds, is best understood as a massive virtue-signaling exercise. In terms of electricity and energy, those aiming for 100% renewable energy have the highest value in the virtue-signaling utopian stock exchange. Only a small number of leftists understand electricity and energy well and most of them are pro-nukes. The 100% renewable thought leaders do not understand it. They have probably brain-washed themselves by only ever considering ideas and arguments of their fellow loonies. Current energy policies promoted by Democrats are not a plan (in the sense – no one did the numbers), they are an aim, or aspiration to ultimate virtue. Incompetence rules; not maliciousness. So 100% renewables only makes sense as a virtue signal power play.

The paragraph above doesn't make sense until one understands the distinctive character of modern leftist 'virtues'. They certainly aren't virtues I grew up with. Modern leftist virtues are solutions to problems defined by leftists. They see all the following are problems:

• capitalism,
• entrepreneurship (leads to capitalism),
• humanity (cause global warming & over-population),
• white people (oppress people of color),
• biology (oppresses gender-fluidity (biological sex) and causes inequality,
• heterosexuals - oppress LGBTQ
• feminism (oppress trans-people by resisting unisex changing rooms & Transwomen in women's sport),
• liberty, free-speech, equality!.

Wait a minute: liberty, free-speech, equality. Really?!? The new woke arguments are :

• free-speech must be banned for anyone who oppresses another with words. Especially banned for anyone who oppresses an intersectional.
  Q: What is oppression? A: It's what the victim feels it is. If it feels like oppression to an intersectional then it is!
• equality is a con-trick: intersectional minorities require equity instead. Equity means they get special treatment to redress the implicit (or institutional oppression) they 'experience'.
• liberty - this can lead to entrepreneurship, which can lead to capitalism, ...

In the stock exchange of leftist debate, the point of talking is to demonstrate ones superior ethics over the rest. On the left this has generally been done by taking an extremist, idealist position. The debate becomes one massive virtue signalling contest. The debate can be won by arguing positively for a better idea. It's far more likely for the debate to be won by negative logic; by projecting evil onto one's opponents. That's a very dangerous game - for oneself, as well. It's especially dangerous because modern leftism opposes free-speech for just about everyone except themselves! Leftists don't even know the arguments of the other side who they project as evil: deniers, shills, fascists, TERFs, MCPs, ... Modern leftist debate is an echo chamber of delusions; a long rant against devils, concocted in their own heads.

In modern leftism: censorship and equity are virtues. Equality and free-speech are problems (AKA evils). Perhaps people now understand what I meant by 'incompetence rules' (2nd paragraph above). The kind of reasoning what led to these modern leftist virtues is broken. It is incompetent reasoning.

Venus - effect of heat capacity

IPCC do not understand basic physics. Greenhouse theory promoters base runaway warming claims for earth on their explanation for how Venus’s surface temperature is very hot only due to the greenhouse gas effect. This contradicts basic physics. At the surface, Venus’ atmosphere is 92 times denser than earth’s. Basic physics says: Venus’ greater atmospheric mass increases the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and so decreases the net radiative cooling. So: creating a relative warming effect.

Source: Chemke and Kapsi, Dynamics of Massive Atmospheres, 2017 ApJ 845 1.