The underlying science of global warming makes the fraudulent claim that upon doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, there will be 3.7 watts per square meter of heat increase in the atmosphere, and this will result in a near-surface temperature increase of 1°C as the primary effect. Secondary effects will supposedly act upon the primary effect to triple the 1°C to 3°C.

If this claim were true, the other greenhouse gases would be adding several watts per square meter also. Some scientists say that the atmosphere added 33°C to the earth, and all of this was due to greenhouse gases. Non-scientists love to promote this number as proof of the effects of global warming. However, more realistic scientists recognize that most heat enters the atmosphere through conduction, convection and evaporation, while only radiation is influenced by so-called greenhouse gases, which means the 33°C number must be a lot smaller.

Whatever that number is—somewhere between 8°C and 33°C—it would have to be adding so many watts per square meter just as CO2 is said to do. If 3.7 w/m² results in 1°C for CO2, 8°C must result from 29.6 w/m², and 33°C must result from 122.1w/m².

Yet climatologists claim the number has always been zero w/m² added by greenhouse gases, until humans did something to create 3.7 w/m². Supposedly, carbon dioxide does not always add watts per square meter of heat to the atmosphere, it only does so when humans are involved. Such is the nature of lying. The contradictions can never be entirely removed when lying.

Greenhouse gases are not nuclear reactions. They cannot create heat. Where does the heat come from? It can only come from the sun. Does this mean the sun adds more heat to the earth? An impossibility. Therefore, the increase in heat is supposed to mean less heat flowing out from the earth into space. For how long? For as long as the greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere.

There can never be a significant difference in energy flowing into the earth and energy flowing out beyond brief transitions due to equilibrium. Climatologists recognize the existence of equilibrium. Yet their claims can only be explained as non-equilibrium.

No two climatologists can produce the same explanation for a mechanism for global warming, the simple reason being that there is no such thing. Some scientists will say that the 3.7 w/m² creates a difference between inflow and outflow of the earth's total energy. Such a result would be non-equilibrium—an impossibility. So other climatologists will say that equilibrium is maintained, but there is a shift upward in equilibrium temperature. The problem with that claim is that such a shift in temperature cannot be represented by a number such as 3.7 w/m². Where are these watts, and what are they doing? They cannot be located, because equilibrium is distributed through every molecule and effect in the atmosphere. A few parts per quadzillion change for every molecule does not create 3.7 w/m² anyplace.

Therefore, the number 3.7 w/m² (or 29.6 to 122.1 w/m²) can only be applied to a difference in energy inflow and energy outflow for the earth. But there can never be such a difference because of equilibrium. And therefore, there is no mechanism that can be explained for global warming.

The 3.7 w/m² is derived from Radiative Transfer Equations

And is expressed through the over-simplified Fudge Factor