Thought I would put this info out there for those of you who run across a Climate Change Dupe.

[BTW: Name calling, although it is a logicall fallacy, seems to work on a lot of people at an emotional level. So, in response to "denier" accusations, maybe we should respond with our own "Dupe" accusations. "Dupe" means one who is easily deceived, which is accurate for these people.]

So, in order to respond to the Climate Change Dupes, it is helpful to understand where the original Climate Change Hoax claims come from.

COMPUTER MODELS -- TWO INPUTS

They use computer models. ONLY computer models.

EVERY computer model is created in a similar way. There are TWO inputs in their computer models.

DIRECT EFFECT + FEEDBACKS

The first variable programmed into EVERY computer model is exactly the SAME variable. It is called the "Direct Effect." The Direct Effect is a known principle of physics that if you increase the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere by 100% (doubling the CO2 level), then the temperature will increase by 1 degree celsius (+1C). Now, nobody can ACTUALLY do this in the real world for the entire Earth, so it is done in a laboratory with equipment much smaller than the Earth. Does this same principle actually apply if the entire Earth's atmosphere were to double the CO2 level? I have my doubts, but nobody can prove it one way or the other. So, let's go with it and assume it is true.

The second variable programmed into EVERY computer model is called the "Feedbacks" variable. The idea here is that (a) if the temperature rises, then (b) that rising temperature will ITSELF also have some sort of effect on the atmosphere (more/less rain, more/less evaporation, more/less growth of plants which produce more/less oxygen/absorb CO2, etc.). The effects of Feedbacks could be endless. What MOST computer models do is ASSUME that the Feedbacks will TRIPLE the temperature change.

So, the input = Direct Effect (+100% CO2 = +1C) + Feedbacks (+1C x 3 = +3C) = output climate change scenario based on that last number of +3C.

Based on this idea that rising CO2 levels will necessarily increase temperatures by a fairly large degree, the computer can spit out various outputs of a wide variety of catastrophies (tsunamis, flooding, polar cap melting, whatever).

ASSUMPTIONS PROVE NOTHING

But here's the problem in case you didn't catch it ...

The "Feedbacks" is an ARBITRARY NUMBER, based on nothing more than a GUESS. It isn't even an educated guess. It is a POLITICAL AGENDA GUESS. They WANT the answer to be catastrophic, so they use a variable in the Feedback part of the equation to produce the result they want.

This is why the computer models are ALWAYS setting off alarm bells.

This is ALSO why the compter models are ALWAYS WRONG.

Their predictions have not been right sometimes and wrong sometimes. They have consistently ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.

That's because (a) it is NOT KNOWN if these Feedbacks REALLY EXIST, (b) if there is some mechanism in the Earth's atmostphere that OFFSETS these Feedbacks, or (c) if the Feedbacks might actually have an OPPOSITE effect.

What if instead of increasing temperature 3-fold, what if it decreased temperature by 50%? All the computer models would completely change. But they NEVER consider that possibility.

WE. DON'T. KNOW.

And neither do [THEY] -- the Climate Change Hoaxers.

As for the Climate Change Dupes -- they simply believe what the liars creating these false computer models tell them, because ... they are DUPES in the first place. They will believe ANYTHING if it fits what they WANT to believe.

CLIMATE CHANGE HOAXERS ARE ALSO COVID HOAXERS

It is important that the same type of lies about Climate Change are being used against everyone in all sorts of subjects, including the Covid "computer models" and the new "Delta Variant" models (there are NO BLOOD SAMPLES OF A VIRUS, only computer models of antigens).

THE AGE OF LIES

Thought I would put this info out there for those of you who run across a Climate Change Dupe.

[BTW: Name calling, although it is a logicall fallacy, seems to work on a lot of people at an emotional level. So, in response to "denier" accusations, maybe we should respond with our own "Dupe" accusations. "Dupe" means one who is easily deceived, which is accurate for these people.]

So, in order to respond to the Climate Change Dupes, it is helpful to understand where the original Climate Change Hoax claims come from.

COMPUTER MODELS -- TWO INPUTS

They use computer models. ONLY computer models.

EVERY computer model is created in a similar way. There are TWO inputs in their computer models.

DIRECT EFFECT + FEEDBACKS

The first variable programmed into EVERY computer model is exactly the SAME variable. It is called the "Direct Effect." The Direct Effect is a known principle of physics that if you increase the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere by 100% (doubling the CO2 level), then the temperature will increase by 1 degree celsius (+1C). Now, nobody can ACTUALLY do this in the real world for the entire Earth, so it is done in a laboratory with equipment much smaller than the Earth. Does this same principle actually apply if the entire Earth's atmosphere were to double the CO2 level? I have my doubts, but nobody can prove it one way or the other. So, let's go with it and assume it is true.

The second variable programmed into EVERY computer model is called the "Feedbacks" variable. The idea here is that (a) if the temperature rises, then (b) that rising temperature will ITSELF also have some sort of effect on the atmosphere (more/less rain, more/less evaporation, more/less growth of plants which produce more/less oxygen/absorb CO2, etc.). The effects of Feedbacks could be endless. What MOST computer models do is ASSUME that the Feedbacks will TRIPLE the temperature change.

So, the input = Direct Effect (+100% CO2 = +1C) + Feedbacks (+1C x 3 = +3C) = output climate change scenario based on that last number of +3C.

Based on this idea that rising CO2 levels will necessarily increase temperatures by a fairly large degree, the computer can spit out various outputs of a wide variety of catastrophies (tsunamis, flooding, polar cap melting, whatever).

ASSUMPTIONS PROVE NOTHING

But here's the problem in case you didn't catch it ...

The "Feedbacks" is an ARBITRARY NUMBER, based on nothing more than a GUESS. It isn't even an educated guess. It is a POLITICAL AGENDA GUESS. They WANT the answer to be catastrophic, so they use a variable in the Feedback part of the equation to produce the result they want.

This is why the computer models are ALWAYS setting off alarm bells.

This is ALSO why the compter models are ALWAYS WRONG.

Their predictions have not been right sometimes and wrong sometimes. They have consistently ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.

That's because it is NOT KNOWN if these Feedbacks REALLY EXIST, if there is some mechanism in the Earth's atmostphere that OFFSETS these Feedbacks, of if the Feedbacks might actually have an OPPOSITE effect.

What if instead of increasing temperature 3-fold, what if it decreased temperature by 50%?

WE. DON'T. KNOW.

And neither do [THEY] -- the Climate Change Hoaxers.

As for the Climate Change Dupes -- they simply believe what the liars creating these false computer models tell them, because ... they are DUPES in the first place. They will believe ANYTHING if it fits what they WANT to believe.

CLIMATE CHANGE HOAXERS ARE ALSO COVID HOAXERS

It is important that the same type of lies about Climate Change are being used against everyone in all sorts of subjects, including the Covid "computer models" and the new "Delta Variant" models (there are NO BLOOD SAMPLES OF A VIRUS, only computer models of antigens).

THE AGE OF LIES