Physics Disproves Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam

It's about time that the truth is acknowledged.

Thanks!

Being yoked into a collective is the actual problem revealed. Independence is freedom.

Thanks!

That's really the point of fraud, innit?

Thanks!

"Are you against Eliminating Fossil Fuels?"

Vehemently. There is a very good reason that growers use CO2 to increase production in greenhouses, and that is why I am building a greenhouse today.

"I can't spread your shocking claims in my country."

You don't have to. Demonstrating the principle by producing goods enables them with merit to discover demonstrable facts, and is what is necessary to create wealth and personal prosperity. Growers in E. Asia use CO2 to increase production just like growers everywhere else. Independence is freedom. Independently create actual wealth and them as can do so will also create real wealth. That is the best we can do IRL.

Thanks!

"do you believe no scientist in the world would attempt to interpret data in a way that their paid to do, despite of how unethical that is?"

97% of scientists agree with whoever pays them. Just like cops, lawyers, judges, and politicians. I clearly don't believe that 'no scientists' do actual science. This post is exactly that, Professors Emeritus pointing out demonstrable facts. Actual scientific method in action.

"...my city's average temperature rising by 10 degrees in the summer over the last 20 years..."

What makes you think that is the case? Do you have records you have collected for the last 20 years that show that happening? No, you don't. You have been told that happened by someone else. Consider who told you that, and why they are telling you that. Note that the AGW scam is on track to produce hundreds of trillions of dollars of profit to the scammers by 2050. That's a lot of incentive to lie.

"McKinsey and Company estimated the Net Zero transition would cost about
$9.2 trillion per year and $275 trillion between 2021 and 2050."
--Lindzen and Happer (2025)

There are known consequences of paving locales. It's called the 'urban heat island effect'. You can ascertain the reality of this effect yourself, and you can even quantify it scientifically if you use appropriate tools and carefully document the results, which is the scientific method. But, you don't need to do that to confirm it's an actual, real effect. You just have to go from an urban environment where everything is paved or concrete structures to outside that urban environment to a forested area of a large enough extent. You can feel that the temperature has declined. If you don't trust your physical senses, you simply need a thermometer that you use to show the temperature in a city and in a forest.

"...it is clearly safe to assume these are actually just thousands of local events instead which somehow never add up to something bigger and never influence each other. clearly, the amazon forest disappearing has no effect anywhere else..."

You have to be careful with your tongue stuck so hard in cheek, because you will bite it if you're careless. I will suggest to you that you make direct statements of what you feel are facts, rather than resorting to ad homs, mockery, and innuendo, because then you become able to actually demonstrate what is demonstrably true, and can detect any errant, non-factual claims you might have been misled by.

Rapine misdevelopment by multinational corporations, such as profit from laying waste to the Amazon, isn't the climate. Dumping chemical pollution into our environment isn't CO2 creating 'global boiling' (to quote UN Secretary-General António Guterres). These are actual dangers that the AGW scam is concealing, real harmful environmental damage that we can put an end to if we notice them and make the effort to stop them from happening - and the multinational corporations hide these things by trumpeting the fake AGW scam that good people are bamboozled by so that they never take action to stop the real damage that is ongoing.

The destruction of the Amazon, of natural environments everywhere, isn't being caused by .04% of the atmosphere (that human beings release 3% of), CO2. It's being caused by big ag corporations illegally logging, burning, and converting to pasture so billionaires can run beef cattle, by Bayer and Archer Daniels Midland dousing our food in toxic biocides, and drenching pristine ecosystems in glyphosate. Those are real environmental destruction going on, and that is what the AGW scam is hiding from people that care about life and our environment, so that we don't do anything to stop it, but instead pay taxes to appease sky gods.

Please be more directly factual with your criticism so that I can learn from you. If I am wrong about something I want you to prove it - not make vaguely mocking comments that can't be demonstrated are factually correct or not. The reason you don't make specific claims is because you don't have actual observations of facts you can back up, and that makes your criticism useless to me.

Make useful claims to prove me wrong, so I can change my mind and become right by agreeing with facts you can prove, please. Also, self-voting is contrary to the entire purpose of social media. I'd have upvoted you if you hadn't upvoted yourself.

Thanks!

"...you're aligned with the idea that "climate change is fake"

This inaccurately characterizes me and the researchers in the OP. Indeed, it's a mischaracterization of scientific research into climate. No one I know has ever claimed that 'climate change is fake'. The factual statement is that anthropogenic (human caused) climate change is fake. More to the point, well asserted in the paper linked in the OP, is that there isn't a damn thing we can do about climate change, because forces far above our pay grade (such as the output of the sun, and the wobbling of Earth's orbit) are responsible for climate constantly changing, and not a damn thing we can do will stop that from happening.

"which do you prefer in your own financial and political interests..."

I don't. I am not a zealous acolyte of any religion or claim. I observe the actual data, and seek to surmount whatever is real and actual that might impact me or mine negatively. Because I note that humanity is extraordinary, uniquely apprised of capacity to reason and understand, and availed of the panoply of technology that comes of understanding, I highly value all humanity and the society we create. I prefer that we understand what is real and make decisions and apply ourselves to prevent catastrophic consequences that will surely lay us waste if we instead believe lies and do stupid things - like pay taxes to the tune of $275T between now and 2050 to appease the sky gods, or smth. The gods will not be appeased. That's what the paper's about.

"...do you understand yourself how GHG maintains habitable temperature on Earth? could you explain it to me as if I were 14 years old to make sure that we're on the same page?"

Lindzen and Happer are physicists that have spent their careers researching exactly that, and the paper linked in the OP is written for laymen. It is exactly the explanation you are seeking. The graph that is the titular image for my post shows exactly how CO2 and GHG's maintain habitable temperature on Earth, and the authors explain that the ~30w/m^2 they prevent from radiating into space is why the Earth isn't an icy, barren waste.

"could you state why you think any of the recent and popular studies saying that climate change is real isn't scientifically reliable?"

The first reason is that some years ago I had an uninformed opinion provided to me by corporate media. When I mentioned my suspicion that human industrial CO2 output could be having the claimed effect on climate to a friend I respected deeply, they pointed out that I was largely ignorant of the actual research, the hard data, and was falling for a money scam. While I was not swayed by that alone, I respected them enough to actually do some research, because they were right to point out I had not and my opinion was based on nothing but bare assertions.

WattsUpWithThat.com is a site where climate scientists discuss research, and the massive biases that research funders with a stake in the ~$275T AGW scam create. It was revelatory. I saw that CO2 has been orders of magnitude higher in the past, while ecosystems thrived. In the recent past there were also times when temperatures have been a few degrees higher, such as during the rise of Rome, and during the medieval warm period, when crops were able to be grown during longer seasons, and all the ills of inclement wintry temperatures were reduced, with obvious beneficial effects on human civil society. But what I found very convincing was the record of sea level rise and fall during the last couple million years, which is well documented and a record written in stone, not easily misinterpreted.

What that revealed to me is that we are today at the approximate height of sea levels that have serially risen and declined quite reliably over hundreds of millennia, and none of these changes were caused by CO2 emissions from human industry. It is very true that climate changes, but the sea level record shows that we have nothing to do with it, and rather than facing a dramatic rise in sea level - which would be catastrophic, as it has been over and again in the past - we face the very opposite situation, in which the oceans will be increasingly locked up in glaciers (much like CO2 has been locked up in coal and other minerals over hundreds of millions of years. CO2 levels are today at the lowest point they have ever been on Earth) and the sea levels will decline rapidly.

We are in an ice age. We are in an interglacial phase of an ice age, but the continental glaciers will soon return, because that is what climate naturally is doing over these last few million years, and not only is there nothing we can do about that, but we don't even well understand why this cycle began a few million years ago.

This utterly convinced me that the AGW scam was exactly that, a scam, and, like all scams, was going to do everyone that fell for it enduring harm. I think the best aspect of my environment, and that of my beloved sons, is civil society, an incredible boon to all humanity, and something I want to prosper maximally to increase the felicity of my sons and the future they will live in. Falling for a global scam will deprecate civil society, and degrade the conditions my sons and their myriad peers will enjoy as long as they live. This is why I speak out about it.

"...let's pretend for a moment that I think this study you've shown is 100% scientifically accurate. should I then think that global warming as a whole is a scam?"

Global warming is not an accurate characterization of Earth's climate, because, as you can easily confirm with trivial search of internet resources, climate both warms and cools. Climate change is not a scam. Claiming we have anything to do with climate change is a scam, and this can easily be confirmed by simply noting that sea levels rose >100m betwee 20kya and ~7kya. Dramatic global warming is a natural climactic variation, and not caused by industrial CO2 releases. Humanity didn't start releasing significant (~3% of the CO2 produced globally by all processes) CO2 until ~1950. Most of the CO2 produced every year comes out of volcanoes - and ~80% of volcanoes are underwater, where we know very little about them, what they're doing, how many of them there are, or even where most of them are.

"Anthropogenic" does mean of environmental change in general after all."

Anthropogenic does not mean environmental change. Anthropo refers to humanity, from the Greek.

"anthropo-
before a vowel, anthrop-, word-forming element meaning "pertaining to man or human beings," from Greek anthrōpos "man; human being" (including women), as opposed to the gods, from andra (genitive andros), Attic form of Greek anēr "man" (as opposed to a woman, a god, or a boy), from PIE root *ner- (2) "man," also "vigorous, vital, strong."

--https://www.etymonline.com/word/anthropo-

Genic refers to origin, also from the Greek.

"-genic
word-forming element meaning "producing, pertaining to generation;" see -gen + -ic."

--https://www.etymonline.com/word/-genic

So, anthropogenic means 'human caused'. That is why it is the defining objection of actual climate scientists to the claim that industrial CO2 output is causing temperatures to rise. Temperatures have risen and fallen on Earth for billions of years, and we didn't cause any of that. It's preposterous, completely false and not based on any scientific evidence at all, to claim the ordinary climactic variations today ongoing are anthropogenic. That is the central point of Lindzen and Happer's paper: human agency is not causing climate change - and human agency cannot significantly affect natural climactic processes, which is why they provide the calculation that fully realizing Net Zero by 2050 will only affect atmospheric average temperature by .13 degrees Fahrenheit, which is an infinitesimal and negligible impact on climate that will save nobody and nothing, but will make scammers inconceivably rich from the ~$275T they will extract from us to destroy our economy and turn civil society into a hellish dystopia.

I am unable to avoid the conclusion that you did not read the linked paper by Lindzen and Happer. Many of the questions you asked are answered in that paper. I humbly suggest that your lack of knowledge is the result of your lack of looking into these matters beyond corporate media claims, just as was mine less than a decade ago. It is a trivial matter to look at the data for global temperatures and CO2 levels for the last 600M years. That information is in the linked paper. All the claims made by the authors of the paper are easily verifiable. You haven't attempted to disprove any of them, and I don't think you even know what they are because you haven't read them.

The only reason you don't understand that they're telling you the truth is because you have only heard what the AGW scammers are telling you in the process of scamming you. While I realize that is unpalatable, because as Mark Twain pithily observed, it is easier to fool a man than to convince him he's been fooled, you are being scammed, and I don't want you to suffer the consequences of being scammed because I care about the world my sons will inherit from me, and they need allies to stop the steal, the theft of the blessings of civilization that is the birthright of humanity, and that includes you.

Please read the linked paper. Disprove anything asserted therein you disagree is factually correct with evidence that shows it is factually incorrect. If you're right, you'll change my mind. However, that is what I set out to do nearly a decade ago, and what convinced me that people aren't changing Earth's climate, because the natural forces controlling climate make human industry laughably puny.

Thanks!

Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below

Hey @felipejoys, here is a little bit of BEER from @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!

Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your BEER.

I appreciate you making direct statements disputing the paper, because it enables me to understand your objections so that I can consider them. The specific issue you have seems to be the characterization of CO2 as a 'weak' GHG, not with the ~30 watts/m^2 CO2 actually prevents from being emitted. You ignore the actual quantification of the greenhouse effect exerted by different gases, and decry the particular word used to refer to the reduced ability of CO2 to exert the greenhouse effect after reaching it's saturation point. Lindzen and Happer point out that ~90% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and that effect is vital to Earth's habitability (which you characterize as dangerous rather than utterly essential to life itself). If 90% of work is done by one thing, and 10% of work by several others, clearly one has strong effect and the others weak, but you completely reject that evidence.

"...everything else is in this chapter relies on a nonsensical sentence until we hit that graph, which applies distorted information onto it"

You yourself point out that CO2 reaches saturation, and then has reduced effect as a greenhouse gas - but you characterize their calculation of that effect as 'nonsensical', and then claim they use 'distorted information'. What calculation should be used to correctly gauge the post-saturation level of greenhouse effect by CO2? What is your source for these claims?

"now this was unbearable:

"B. The EPA's MAGICC Model Confirms Carbon Dioxide Now and at Higher Levels is a Weak Greenhouse Gas, So Reducing It to Net Zero Will Have a Negligible Effect on Temperatures

"they never explain why they are saying this!?!??? I mean... it doesn't confirm? even if they think it does, they never explain it."

The very next paragraphs state:

"The Environmental Protection Agency uses the Model for Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC), as does the IPCC, many government agencies and climate policy analysts to predict temperatures and sea level rise from the level of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere.

"The MAGICC model confirms that the U.S. achieving Net Zero CO2 and other GHG
emissions to Net Zero by 2100 would cause negligible changes in Earth's surface temperature. Reducing them to Net Zero would reduce global temperatures by less than 1° C (1.8°F) by 2100."

This is indeed confirmation by this model that Net Zero by 2050 (or even 2100) will not avert a climate catastrophe, because <1 degree Celsius is not a catastrophic 'global boiling'. This MAGICC model is used by the IPCC itself and it does not support their claims of catastrophic global warming from CO2 impending.

"Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 (from 400 to 800 ppm) would cause [...] less than 1° C (2° F)."

To which you reply:

"this would only be true if there were no feedback effects like more water vapor and clouds..."

You attempt to refute the statement regarding the inability of CO2 at saturation to substantially exert more greenhouse effect by stating that water vapor and clouds will instead, that they will be somehow caused by increased CO2. No one has ever asserted evidence of that to my knowledge, certainly it isn't mentioned in the paper, and you offer no mechanism by which CO2 might somehow increase water vapor and clouds. What is this 'feedback effect' of increasing CO2 that causes more water vapor and clouds?

"...adding one extra flame won't make the fire significantly worse, which renders existing flames completely harmless!"

You are certainly aware that is a false characterization, because I've cited the actual numbers the authors provided several times. The titular image for my post, taken from the linked paper, shows that CO2 reduces radiation by ~30w/m^2, at specific frequencies, which isn't of null effect at all. It is what makes life possible on Earth, and, as the authors point out, more of it will increase the fecundity of life on Earth, as it has at 10x - 20x times the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today. The fact that CO2 reaches saturation doesn't cause CO2 to stop exerting it's greenhouse effect. It just doesn't exert more of it. When you are dissolving something, like salt or sugar, into water, it dissolves fine until it reaches saturation. Then no more of it will dissolve into the water, and it just accumulates as a slurry. It doesn't slow down or reduce the percentage being dissolved. Neither does it eject all the solute from solution. Just so CO2 absorbs heat at certain frequencies, until it reaches saturation in the atmosphere, and then it can't absorb anymore. It still feeds plants though, which is why greenhouse growers use it to increase the productivity of their operations.

IMG source - Lindzen and Happer (2025)

There seems to be nothing behind your dissension but desperation to justify your faith in AGW. You intend to remain amongst the faithful in your AGW religion, and no heretical facts or evidence will cause you to renounce your faith. That is my takeaway of your refutation of my post, and Lindzen and Happer's paper.

Thanks!