People ask me all the time ” What is the most startling event you have seen in the climate debate” Some of the hysteria now may seem to be as extreme as it can get, but if we look at some behind the scenes events, it is even worse than you think as far as how extreme these people are getting
I was startled in 2015 when I saw Gina McCarthy testify and admit the steps being taken would only save .01C
This is from a previous opinion piece on this For Fox news.
…It’s an established fact that the draconian steps mandated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. would only prevent the planet from warming by 0.01 degrees Celsius – an almost imperceptible amount.
Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said: “The value of this rule is not measured 
in that way. It is measured in strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action to address what is a necessary action.”..
SHE SAID IT NOT ME, I almost fell out of my chair, I thought she was purposely sabotaging the EPA mission, In what sane world would you take those kind of steps for .01C over 30 years to be a good example for the rest of the world?. I thought, okay once the press digests this, its really going to be over, I was wrong on that, Its like it never happened and is being pushed with extra furor Thats what zealots do.
This chart is wonderful in explaining why the effects of co2 are minuscule.
Look closely at the bottom line which represents 1% of the atmosphere, Here let me blow it up for you:
Man is responsible for about 1/4 of the total co2 or .0001 of the atmosphere
But wait it gets worse — the US is only responsible for 15% of that which means its .000015!
Had enough? Not done. What is the yearly contribution of CO2 from the US,? Now keep in mind what is being proposed to target and shut down this input by the U.S.
Assuming the bulk of the increase is in the last 45 years, it means that on a yearly basis its .000000033 of the atmosphere. Since some states are enacting measures to curb this, it means that you are willing to risk the economic good of your state for .0000000066 of the atmosphere on a yearly basis.
Now I am very sensitive to a lot of HONEST SCIENTISTS, not bandwagon brokers for another agenda. They are focused on CO2 and the upward trend in temperature and believe the correlation is causation. To illustrate how you can be mistaken let us look at the correlation between an increase in postage stamps and global temperatures ( the end of this chart is the Homer Simpson stamp)
Chart is courtesy Dr. Willie Soon
You can see that if one is arguing that CO2 is the cause, then one can argue that the increase in postage stamps can also be (wrongly) considered the cause. Yes its absurd, but it makes the point that correlation is not causation. If we look for instance at total solar irradiance and temperatures it seems like that is a far better linkage:
Chart again courtesy of Dr. Willie Soon.
The geological history of the planet charting co2 vs temp certainly does not have that correlation!
The attributes of CO2 lend it nearly powerless vs. water vapor as it absorbs radiation in a very small portion of the IR Spectrum. That absorption is strongest at very c
old temperatures, like -60C to -80C, which is at the top of the troposphere, not below. In addition, water vapor is responsible for the bulk of the GHG effect. The idea of feedback from CO2 gets challenged by simply looking at the “saturation mixing ratio” charts (and understand that very tiny increases in water vapor are the by-product of cyclically warmed ocean where it produces its greatest temperature difference where it’s coldest). For instance, the increase of just .1gram/kg of water vapor can be seen correlated with a 10 degree difference between -40 and -30. You need much more water vapor where it’s already warm to increase temperatures even slightly.
This, IMO, explains the distorted warming you see on the chart below, which indicates where life thrives temperatures are not rising fast.
This chart shows the water vapor increase, Notice how much of it is in an area where there is very little temperature change.
Lesser increases in the polar areas have led to greater temperature increases. Notice also over Antarctica, the increase in WV correlates to where its warmer, The fact is the more moisture the more clouds. Where its very cold clouds trap heat, where its very warm, increased clouds can have the opposite effect. A lot of the weather you see today, the increased global mid-latitude rain while it is drying over the tropics at 20k and higher, is something one would see with NATURAL CLIMATE CYCLES. In fact, that used to be taught. But the key is the cyclically warmed ocean (which by the way also add CO2) and the effect on WV).
You can see the drying over the tropics here:
Another great look at this is with UAH satellite temps (I believe they are the gold standard). I believe a lot of this is a step up function directly related to the drying over the tropics, increased sunshine over the enso regions of the Pacific, Whenever a super Nino goes off, immense amounts of WV are thrown into the air and take many years to wash out completely. Notice the super Nino of ‘97-98 and the recent one. The first established the so-called pause but at a higher level. Back in 2015, when it was becoming apparent a new super Nino was brewing, I opined a new higher plateau would result — again because of water vapor.
You can see this all the time (without my additions) on Dr. Roy Spencer’s site.
It appears my idea could have merit.
My goal is not to win some kind of fight or be a hero to anyone (I have enough trouble being a hero in my own house haha). It is to get as much of the information out that shows why there is climate skepticism. My goal cannot be to save the planet or the country. It is to get an answer, That is what a forecaster does and I consider catastrophic global warming to be a big forecast. This forces me to look for what is not seen, for that will eventually show up. And so I see there are people on the other side of the issue also looking for the unmoved mover, iow … the source. As such, I study and understand what the honest brokers on the other side are saying. You have to remember that if for 30 years, this was your focus (and if you are right) you are the Galileo of climate. It is very, very hard as long as temperatures are rising to see anything but your goal. As someone who is very “goal oriented” I know and understand that. But the problem is when you do that, you don’t see the attribution and forcing by other factors (or dismiss them).
This just the tip of the iceberg, however, the hysteria that is being pushed by people who only use climate and weather as a means to an end, if you look beyond what you are told, warrants at least robust skepticism if not outright refutation. The problem is with a willing media that refuses to look in many cases, and an education system that is convincing kids in grade school this a looming problem, the best you can do is try to get the information out there. We are dealing with zealots, and if one looks at history, small committed bands have overturned entire systems. The problem with revolutionaries, they are good at tearing down, but are not good at building up. That is another lesson from history, Given this is likely about the tearing down of an existing system, we can see more clearly that climate hysteria is a means to an end,