(0:01 - 0:30) By now I'm sure you're all as tired of the obviously false and overhyped narrative regarding man-made global warming as I am. Today, I'm going to definitively debunk this narrative with solid and undeniable science. And humor. No, really. In science, a fatal flaw is any fact or observation which, if true, disproves a theory. There are, in fact, several fatal flaws in the climate alarmist narrative. (0:30 - 2:54) While there are many arguments that cast doubt on the theory of CO2 emissions leading to a runaway greenhouse gas effect that will make the earth uninhabitable, I'm going to stick strictly to fatal flaws. And I promise I'm going to explain them so clearly that even if you have no knowledge of science whatsoever, you will understand them. These arguments are so solidly grounded in known and proven science that the only way a believer in man-made global warming can deny them is to childishly cover their ears and chant, la la la la, I can't hear you. Or buy a Liberal Party membership. Within a few days, these arguments, with links to the proofs I will show you today, will also be available as a fact sheet, free for download and sharing at strongandfreecanada.org. The first and, in my mind, one of the most damning fatal flaws is the greenhouse gas absorption chart. Many slightly different variations of which can be found with a quick online search, but they all show the same thing. The chart shows various greenhouse gases and the wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum that they absorb. At the top of the chart is the entire spectrum. Here, for example, is visible light, and to the left of that, at the very bottom of the spectrum, ultraviolet. But notice that these are under the area of the chart where light is entering the atmosphere from the sun. What we're concerned with is this section here, where energy is being radiated back into space. This is where heat in the atmosphere is being trapped, or at least that's what the climate alarmists tell us. By the way, the climate alarmist narrative is a prime example of how the media, as they bought and paid for mouthpieces of the globalists and their cooperating governments, uses pseudoscience to fool people. They start with a statement which everyone knows is true. In this case, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is true, and we all learned that in school, and they never lie in school. Then, however, they draw a conclusion from that which sounds like it should be true, which sounds like would logically follow from the first statement, but which in fact is entirely false. In this case, that if we increase the amount of CO2 in the it will trap more heat, leading to a greenhouse gas effect which will kill us all. (2:56 - 3:56) But this chart demonstrates how absolutely false that conclusion is. Focusing again on heat being trapped, heat is attempting to radiate out into space, we can see that there are a number of greenhouse gases that do indeed trap some heat. Water vapor is the primary one, and in fact water can trap 50 times the heat that CO2 can. In many places, water vapor overlaps CO2, making CO2 completely irrelevant as the water vapor is already absorbing all of the heat. You will also see clearly that CO2 does not absorb the entire infrared spectrum, but only narrow parts of it. There are many frequencies which are infrared transparent, meaning that in those wavelengths, CO2 does not absorb heat at all. And just in case it wasn't clear, infrared wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum and heat are the same thing. Well, almost. That's not entirely scientifically accurate, but there is a very strong correlation. (3:56 - 4:11) For those of you who care about the scientifically accurate distinction, heat is energy that results from the movement of molecules. The more movement, the more heat. However, if you stand near a heat source such as a fire, you are being bathed in infrared light. (4:11 - 5:03) You can't see it, because our eyes can't detect that wavelength, but for the purposes of what we're discussing today, you can think of heat and infrared wavelengths as being the same. Before I continue, I need to explain how science measures the wavelengths that each greenhouse gas can absorb, so you will understand that this is very solid and undeniable science. A spectrometer, sometimes also called a spectrophotometer, passes light through a greenhouse gas and a very sensitive detector measures how much light passes through at each wavelength. I'm going to show you a very short video which explains it visually. Note that in this video, they refer to the greenhouse gas as the sample, by which they just mean the greenhouse gas that is being measured, as CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. There are several others, including, but not limited to, oxygen, methane, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. (5:05 - 5:54) Here's how a spectrophotometer works. A lamp provides the source of light. The beam of light strikes the diffraction grating, which works like a prism, and separates the light into its component wavelengths. The grating is rotated so that only a specific wavelength of light reaches the exit slit. Then the light interacts with the sample. From this point, the detector measures the transmittance and absorbance of the sample. Transmittance refers to the amount of light that passes completely through the sample and strikes the detector. Absorbance is a measurement of light that is absorbed by the sample. The detector senses the light being transmitted through the sample and converts this information into a digital display. (5:56 - 6:38) Now that you know how the absorption frequency of CO2 is measured, we can now return to the greenhouse gas absorption chart. Once again, we're only concerned with the spectrum on the right-hand side of the chart, the energy that is trying to escape into space. The circled areas are the frequencies of the spectrum that CO2 can absorb. And this is where many climate alarmists who don't actually know any science make a false assumption. You'll notice that the sides of the CO2 areas marked in brown are a slope, not a straight vertical line. They assume therefore that if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased, the chart would then look like this, which would be a substantial increase in the amount of heat being absorbed. (6:38 - 6:53) But this chart does not show the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at all, but rather the frequencies in which CO2 can absorb heat. Sort of. Which means that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost entirely irrelevant. (6:54 - 7:25) I say almost entirely because adding more CO2 will have no noticeable effect. We can measure it with scientific instruments, but you yourself would never notice it. The CO2 in the atmosphere is already absorbing 100% of the heat that it can absorb. However, if we could somehow magically reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to zero, then CO2 would of course absorb no heat, because it's not there. Like, not zero. This would be fatal, by the way, as all the plants would die. (7:26 - 14:20) In fact, atmospheric levels of CO2 are already historically quite low compared to some times in the distant past. This is a concern raised by Tom Harris and others if you saw the recent re-release of my interview with him, because the monkeying around the globalists are doing to reduce CO2 emissions could potentially trigger an ice age by lowering CO2 levels to dangerous levels, and not in 10,000 years, but very soon. Tom fears that if we don't stop this narrative, a new ice age could start by the end of this century. This would be very, very bad, because it would dramatically reduce the length of the growing season and greatly reduce the amount of land in which crops could be grown, as they would be locked in eternal winter. In addition, plants would have a much harder time with things, and that's hardly fair to them, is it? After all, they're just sitting there minding their own business. They didn't do anything to deserve that kind of abuse. Don't panic, though. If it happened, it would be a very slow process. Our great-grandchildren would be dead by the time it even became noticeable, and there would be plenty of time to reverse it. And it's very likely that nothing the globalists do would actually have any effect on CO2 levels, because... drumroll please... I said drumroll please... So hard to get good help. 97% of atmospheric CO2 occurs naturally and has nothing to do with anything we humans are doing, outside of the mere 3% of CO2 that human activity emits into the atmosphere. Most of it by China. CO2 levels are driven by the oceans, which release CO2 when the water warms, respiration and decomposition of plants, animals, and microbes, and volcanoes and hydrothermal ocean vents. Which brings us to fatal flaw number two. The climate alarmists like to claim just two degrees of global warming would make the earth uninhabitable, but what if that's not only not true, but can be easily proven to not be true. This is fatal flaw number two, and it can be irrefutably demonstrated with ice. Specifically, ice cores. Scientists have been drilling into ice sheets and analyzing ice cores since the 1950s, particularly in Antarctica and Greenland, which both have very thick sheets of ice rusting on land, which means they haven't really moved much in the past million years. Areas with accumulating snow turn to ice with air bubbles trapped in them that preserve samples of the atmosphere from the past. Scientists are able to analyze the cores to learn about past changes in the concentration of atmospheric gases and the glacial interglacial cycles for the past million years or so. Some of you, well actually it's a lot longer than that, some of you who have been watching my shows for several years may have seen this next video before where Dr. Jørgen Peder Steffensen of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, I believe I got through that, demonstrates in this video that the two degrees of warming argument is clearly false. In the latter part of this short video, Dr. Steffensen strays into an area that is not a fatal flaw, but does dramatically expose how the climate alarmists support their lie by simply not telling you the truth. I'll explain after the video. When we remove or drill the ice core, we leave a hole and we insert a thermometer in the hole. We are able to map out the temperature through the three kilometer ice sheet. Now that temperature, if we do it precisely enough, a thousandth of a degree accuracy, then the ice has not forgotten how cold or warm it was on the surface at the time the snow fell. So using those temperatures, we have been able to reconstruct the temperatures of the last 10,000 years. Here we have our picture of the temperature reconstructions that we have from Greenland in a graphical form. And if we go back along this axis, it's going back in time. This is the last 8,000 years we have plotted here. On this axis, we have the temperatures at the sites in Greenland. And we can see that if we go back from now, about 4,000 years ago, we would have temperatures up here for about 4,000 years that were two and a half degrees warmer on average than today. Now, as we go approach our time, we can see that in the period between 4,000 years ago and back to the period 2,000 years ago, which is actually the Roman age, the temperatures have been decreasing in Greenland by two and a half degrees. Then the temperatures increased gradually up to a maximum point around the medieval warm period, we call it 1,000 years ago. And then temperatures declined and goes down to a minimum around 1650 AD, comes back up a little in the 18th century. And then around 1875, we have the lowest point in the last 10, 8,000 years right here. And that matches exactly the time when meteorological observations started. If, as Dr. Stephenson shows, the temperature 4,000 years ago was 2.5 degrees warmer, then the climate alarmists must draw one of two conclusions because they are the only two options which logically follow what the ice core data shows. One, either all life on Earth started 4,000 years ago, which is clearly false, or two, two degrees of warming would have no noticeable effect. Well, actually, that's not quite true. Archaeological studies show that the period from about 4,000 years ago and earlier corresponds to what was called the Holocene Thermal Maximum, a global warm phase from about 9,500 to 5,500 years ago, with peak warmth 8,000 to 6,000 years ago. During this time, northern hemisphere summers were one to three degrees warmer than today, leading to longer growing seasons by two to four weeks in many regions, expanded habitable zones, and increased productivity of wild and early domesticated plants. Archaeological evidence strongly supports that these conditions made life easier for early human societies, particularly by facilitating reliable food production, population growth, sedentism, and the spread of agriculture. This ease is evident in reduced mobility of populations, larger settlements, and surplus food found by archaeological digs. At the end of the video, Dr. Stephenson shows that we hit a modern global low temperature right at the time that we started recording temperatures, so of course they've been climbing since. As I said, this is not a fatal flaw, but it does demonstrate that the Alarmists are cherry-picking their data to support a very flawed argument. But I'm afraid that Antarctic ice cores make the global warming argument even sillier. I'm kind of embarrassed. (14:21 - 16:18) Climate Alarmists. Well, no, not really. They keep telling us that CO2 levels predict temperature changes. Look at this graph. Oldly labeled CO2 locksteps with temperature, but not the way they want people to think. You may have heard this before, and I wouldn't say that this qualifies as a fatal flaw either, but if you look closely at the graph, you can clearly see that in most cases CO2 changes follow temperature changes, not the other way around. Let's call it honorable mention for demonstrating that they clearly aren't looking critically at their own data. But here is where claims that CO2 locksteps with temperature falls apart entirely. This chart shows Antarctic ice core data going back 650,000 years. Pretty sure I remember my grandfather telling me that it's around the time he was forced to walk 10 miles to school every day. Uphill. Both ways. In the snow. Barefoot. The chart is a little messy though, and that makes it a bit confusing, so let's clean it up a little. That's better. The blue line is CO2 levels and the black line is temperature. The gray areas are warm periods. You can see we're in one of them right now. You can also see that there is definitely a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, but remember, the alarmists aren't claiming that there's just a correlation. Locksteps with temperature. Except, not always. Like here, about 600,000 years ago, when CO2 levels dropped dramatically while temperatures rose. And here, 440,000 years ago, where it did it again. And here, where CO2 levels were going up while temperatures were falling. And here. Here. Here. And here. The data just keeps obstinately refusing to support their narrative. (16:19 - 17:10) How rude. But they keep using it anyway. Remember that first messy version of the graph? The one I so considerately cleaned up for you? You're welcome. I got that graph at CO2 Earth, a climate alarmist website. How embarrassing. But it gets better. Well, not if you're a climate alarmist. Then it gets worse. Okay, a lot worse. Because that graph only goes back 650,000 years. Geologically speaking, that's like Tuesday. Now, this graph, this graph goes back 600 million years to when the Earth was just a bitty baby. Aw, look at him. Isn't he cute? No ice caps or nothing. This right here is the Ordovician period, from 440 million to 500 million years ago. (17:11 - 20:14) Pretty sure even my grandfather wasn't alive then. And this is the Ordovician Ice Age, when the entire world was like Winnipeg. And this right here were the atmospheric CO2 levels at the time, over 4,000 parts per million. And this line right here are the atmospheric CO2 levels now. But remember, if we don't stop driving cars and starting any bugs, the Earth is going to heat up like Doug Ford's armpits. But now I've saved the best for last. Fatal flaw number three, blithely ignoring the laws of physics. Even if you didn't pay much attention in high school science, I'm pretty sure we remember something being mentioned about laws of thermodynamics. Laws, not suggestions. Laws. We humans can break the law, but thermodynamics? No. He's a model citizen, a very good boy, and he never breaks the laws. Because unfortunately for the climate alarmists, when it comes to CO2, absorbing infrared radiation does not equate to absorbing heat. And this can be very easily proven. But first, I have to apologize. Remember at the beginning of this episode when I said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Case that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is true, and we all learned that in school. And they never lie in school. I lied. I know it's not nice to lie. Well, maybe, when it makes climate alarmists not only look stupid, but makes them look spectacularly, breathtakingly stupid. But first, before the final reveal, here is yet another example of the alarmists using facts that everyone knows to mislead you. Here's how their logic goes. Or doesn't. CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light in the electromagnetic spectrum. True. Heat sources emit infrared light. True. In fact, true so often that most of the time we can get away with thinking of heat and infrared light as the same thing. True. Therefore, CO2 absorbs heat. Yeah, uh, no. It doesn't, actually. It absorbs infrared light, which as I very honestly pointed out is, as far as strict definitions of physics go, not the same thing as absorbing heat. Remember earlier when I was very honest about heat and infrared light aren't really the same thing? Infrared wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum and heat are the same thing. Well, almost. That's not entirely scientifically accurate, but there is a very strong correlation. For those of you who care about the scientifically accurate distinction, heat is energy that results from the movement of molecules. The more movement, the more heat. (20:15 - 20:33) Thank you, past me. Now, for the proof. This is Bassolito Springs in Italy. I know, underwhelming, isn't it? It is, however, quite close to the Grotta di Bossea caves, which are world famous. That's actually irrelevant. But it's a really nice picture. (20:33 - 21:42) Let's see that again. Pretty. Actually, though, Bassolito Springs is also famous, but only if you're a geologist. The spring is famous for having the highest levels of CO2 in the air near them than anywhere else in the world. Here's a chart showing levels and temperature at different times of the day. The CO2 levels vary quite a bit because the spring is above ground, so how much there is air at any given time will change depending upon how much CO2 the spring is emitting, how much wind there is, and whether or not the gift shop is open. I couldn't find any information on which day these measurements were taken, but it doesn't really matter because they change every day. Kind of like liberal promises. The squiggly black line is the air temperature. Right here, at 7 a.m., when the temperature was about 23 degrees, the CO2 levels were measured at 750,000 ppm. That's enough to give the Ordovician period a complex. And here, at 3.30 in the afternoon, the CO2 levels were a mere 1,000 ppm, while the temperature was almost 10 degrees higher. (21:43 - 25:05) So, if CO2 in the air actually absorbed heat, then the air would be warmer when the CO2 levels are higher, and not just higher, 750 times as high. Which means that CO2 does not absorb heat. But just in case you or your friends were still buying this crap, la la la la, I can't hear you! Here is a graph showing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by altitude. And indeed, we see that CO2 is much more concentrated at lower altitudes. What you need to note about this graph is that the concentration of CO2 stays steady in a vertical line all the way up to about 70 kilometers. And finally, we're there. We have arrived at our destination, because here is another image I took from a climate alarmist website. A nifty little graphic that purports to show how the atmosphere traps heat. It shows sunlight coming in. Check. It shows heat going out. Check. It shows the temperature of the surface as plus 15, and at 5 kilometers up, minus 18. And even politely labels that altitude for us as the average altitude of the Earth's thermal radiation, the altitude at which the heat now begins to bleed off in earnest, like relatives fleeing the restaurant when the check arrives. Now, remember our very good boy, thermodynamics, who never breaks the law? The second law of thermodynamics states that energy, or heat, which is most definitely a form of energy, remember the best definition of heat in physics is molecular movement, which is energy, will always move from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration. It never goes the other way. Ever. Heat cannot return to the ground from colder air higher in the atmosphere. It's impossible. Breaking the laws of physics, impossible. And if CO2 had some magical ability to defy that law, wouldn't the average altitude of the Earth's thermal radiation be 70 kilometers, not 5 kilometers? The real problem here, folks, is, as usual, an improper use of the English language. CO2 does not trap heat. Bacillus Spring proves that. CO2 does absorb infrared radiation, and in doing so the air gains energy because, once again, the laws of thermodynamics. In this case, the first law. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change form. In this case, the action of CO2 absorbing infrared radiation causes the molecules to speed up, generating heat, changing the infrared light energy to molecular movement. And when we say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this is what we mean. It means that the absorption of infrared light causes the CO2 molecules to move faster. But, as I hope I have demonstrated beyond any doubt, that is not the same thing as trapping heat. It will still bleed off into space. The laws of thermodynamics require it. No exceptions.