About the Post

Author Information

My Two Favourite Questions for Global Warmists

Paul Jacobson — American Thinker — June 14, 2014

So, I find myself sitting around a patio table next Independence Day sipping on the perfect mimosa with some friends and a couple of folks I haven’t met before. One of the new acquaintances brings up the subject of “climate change.”  I know from the term used that this one is probably a sorta believer but not a hard-core, unshakable advocate; were that so, he would have used the latest, hippest, most with-it name-change term “climate disruption.”  Now it’s time for my Favorite Global Warmism Question #1:

  • Did you know that there’s no such thing as a greenhouse gas?

The conversation around the table stops dead in its tracks. Everybody’s looking quizzically at each other. No one is looking at me. After a few seconds, a dear friend of many years says, “C’mon, Flyoverpen, you must be kidding.  Everybody knows greenhouse gasses exist.”  I cross my arms, put on a smug pursed-lip smile and repeat, “Nope, there’s no such thing as a greenhouse gas.”

I then proceed to explain that the word “greenhouse” in that term is a misnomer.  In a real-world earthbound greenhouse — we all know what they look like even though there aren’t many in existence anymore — the sun’s short-wave infrared light penetrates through the glass roof, warming up what’s inside the greenhouse: air, plants, soil, etc.….

…..now it’s time for Favorite Global Warmism Question #2, and this one is really serious:

  • How much actual CO2 is there in the atmosphere?

Shoulders are shrugging all around the table, and folks are muttering, “I have no idea… not a clue… beats me,” the way just about any normal citizen would respond to this question… except the other new acquaintance, whose arms are folded and whose face is bearing a smug pursed-lip smile. “That’s one I happen to know: the actual CO2 in the atmosphere today is 379ppm.”  Aha!  Now I strongly suspect that I have a global warmism true believer in front of me, so I’m gonna have to be careful. I respond, “You’re absolutely right!  And that number is virtually undisputed.” And it so happens that number comes straight from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a notoriously pro-global-warmism U.N. entity. 

At this point, I’m going to depart from the fantasy conversation in order to play some games with that number. The IPCC, along with the rest of the global-warming “consensus,” would just as soon nobody even be aware of that IPCC number; notice how global warmists never refer to it in their advocacy propaganda. However, if somebody has to know, best that the data be presented in the format of their choice. They wouldn’t like one bit what I’m about to do with it.

First, let’s take a look at IPCC presentation of present-day CO2 (actual data from 2005) compared with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750):

  • CO2 2005=379ppm
  • CO2 1750=280ppm
  • Increase: 99ppm

A normal citizen looking at these numbers would probably be thinking, “Hmm, those are pretty good size numbers, several hundred; the difference between them is substantial. But, uh, what does ‘ppm’ mean?  Oh, yes, parts per million, I get it.” But even following that cognitive eureka, the full import of the data is unlikely to really sink in: people can come close to conceiving a hundred in human experiential terms, but a million?  That will always remain an abstraction. So far so good for the cause of global warmism: the truth is still very opaque if not completely disguised.

To get closer to human experience, we need to play with the IPCC data format by presenting the numbers like this*:

  • CO2 2005=379ppm=0.000379=ca 4/10,000
  • CO2 1750=280ppm=0.000280=ca 3/10,000
  • Increase: 99ppm=0.000099=ca 1/10,000

Whoa! You’re trying to tell me a change of one part in ten* thousand threatens to plunge the earth into climate catastrophe?  Read FULL article and complete answers here…..



Tags: , ,

2 Comments on “My Two Favourite Questions for Global Warmists”

  1. sandcanyongal June 19, 2014 at 1:14 pm #

    So. An “American Thinker” is speaking out. What are his educational qualifications and direct work experience in climate science, I have to ask?

    I wouldn’t go to a carpenter for brain surgery and I don’t listen to “Thinkers” when it comes to the potential extinction of mankind. Just saying.

    • Glaxx Zontar June 21, 2014 at 9:00 am #

      If you doubt the content from the given explanation, look them up. Available from any climate science web site, provided by actual scientists, they explain it in very similar terms. Very easy to confirm or refute if you are interested in facts not fantasy.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

%d bloggers like this: