Why is it important to dismantle the false theory of CO2 warming? Because they’re going to use it to bludgeon us into submission. It’s already happening:
Eventually, I want to arrive at a pretty solid logic for why the theory of CO2 warming makes no sense. But in the meantime (while building my case) I’ll piece things together, make comments, report on news, etc. The above link is a report.
More news: arctic sea ice is at a 10-year high.
I’ve been reading some from the Science of Doom website, one of the premier sites that explains the physics of CO2 catastrophe to a more-or-less lay audience. They claim that back-radiation from CO2 must warm the surface because this radiation must have an effect on the surface, even if the radiation is from colder up in the atmosphere.
We can think of this by considering if 30-degree heaters can warm a 40-degree, fully-insulated room. According to the theory of back-radiation, if one has a number of 30-degree heaters, they can warm a 40-degree room because the radiation from the heaters necessarily affects the temperature of the walls. Do you agree? If so, we can save a lot of money using low-wattage heaters.
Or, think of this: if we have put a lump of granite at 2C in a 0C room, the 0C room is necessarily radiating infrared energy: no one disagrees with that. Therefore, the radiation from the cooler 0C walls will affect the 2C lump of granite and warm it up. Agree? Yet this is what the idea of back-radiation is all about.
These are examples of theory that makes no sense. Back-radiation is a weird fiction; some parts of it are true enough, but the overall physics is a bit warped.