There is no scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming, because the radiation gets used up in the first ten meters (Heinz Hug's Measurement). More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature.

Several technical rationalizations are used. One is that the absorption bands supposedly widen with increased CO2. It doesn't, because a change in energy state of the molecules is required for widening the absorption bands (explained here).

Another assumption (pretense) is that reduced density on the shoulders of the absorption bands allows some radiation through until the density is increased through the addition of more CO2. But the increase in CO2 can only shorten the distance radiation travels before being absorbed, which is not an increase in temperature. Shortening the distance creates extremely slight increases in temperature by moving the heat to lower levels, but the quantities are extremely miniscule, not the catastrophic levels being claimed. (Explained on Crunching the Numbers)

A "denier" (authority, scientist) will say, the simple math is beyond question showing that doubling the CO2 will result in a 1.2°C temperature increase, the only question is whether water vapor will increase it through "forcing."

Then an "alarmist" (authority, scientist) will say, there is no question of the laboratory measurement showing a 1.2°C temperature increase with the doubling of CO2.

They both use the number 1.2, but one says it is derived through simple math, and the other says it is produced through a laboratory measurement. There are no connections between a simple calculation and a laboratory measurement. If the number is so unquestionable, why can't they determine where it came from? A fake curve is used, and it is phonier than a three dollar bill.

There is no such number in reality, nor anything close to it. The impossibility of making a real calculation or measurement is a quagmire beyond the ability of any scientist to unravel. It is common to write crazed equations as if they had some meaning, but they all run into conflict with each other, besides having no basis in objective reality. That doesn't happen without charlatanism replacing science a long ways back.

So it's important to understand the difference between the overwhelming charlatanism and the missing science. And it's important to realize that the reason why both sides can be so far apart on supposed science is because there is nothing resembling valid science behind the arguments on the official side, and opposing views are not allowed within science.

Producing valid science is about the most demanding task humans attempt. Probing the unknown is so difficult that the task has largely been abandoned and replaced by development of technology, which tends to look the same. Then when science is really needed, as with global warming, there is no real science to fall back on.

The most important element of real science is a body of knowledge which evolves over time. No one can arbitrate it; it just evolves. Anyone can question any part of it, and real scientists normally do.

This means that every element of science is just worth whatever it is worth. It's not a push-button machine which spits out yes or no answers for ignorant fools. What any element of science is worth depends upon all elements of the complex process.

One of the most obvious things about the global warming argument is a complete absence of the evolved knowledge of science, if not a total contradiction to it. A few examples are informative.

When fakes talk about ice melting in the Arctic, they pretend that the 0.6°C claimed increase in global average air temperature is the cause. Supposedly, the warm air is melting the ice. Such a miniscule temperature increase does not have the slightest ability to melt a slight amount of Arctic ice. Air has little heat capacity compared to water, and a massive amount of heat is needed to change the state of ice to water. And heat does not go downward, it goes upward. For these reasons, only warm ocean water could be responsible for the Arctic ice melting. None of these basic principles of science are evaluated by the charlatans—on either side of the issue.

Another example is the claim that all heat on the planet can be accounted for. It supposedly must be either in the atmosphere or oceans. What about the rocks. Well, we could do a little adjusting for that. And then they will say, we aren't sure how much heat escapes into space or at what rate, but just ignore this little technicality. They also forgot to consider how much solar energy entered the oceans and accumulated. There is no concept of how long solar energy should accumulate in the oceans or at what rate it would escape or where to or how. And then they forgot to account for the geothermal energy which continually moves upward from the center of the earth, which would accumulate in the oceans for thousands of years.

If there were a real science involved, none of this would have been missed, and the conclusion would have to be that we don't have the slightest idea how much heat there is in the oceans, where it came from or where it is going. But none of that matters for charlatans; they just want you to think they are unquestionable gods who could not be wrong having the tools of modern science at their disposal.

The frauds are not being held accountable for any of this, because all the public gets is a few trite quotes from authorities who no one has heard of. So journalists pick their favorite authorities to quote, and the two sides try to overwhelm each other through propaganda.

Fake Equations — where the number 1.2°C came from

Hacked files expose the fraud at it's source — Tim Ball

None Dare Call It Fraud — Paul Driessen