There is a pretense of a solid foundation to the science of global warming based upon greenhouse gasses trapping heat. At the root of this claim is so much obvious scientific error and contradiction that it can only be called fraud.

When critics try to pin down what it is that greenhouse gasses are supposed to do, they find dozens of different, conflicting explanations. Why does the public assume there is something simple and obvious about greenhouse gasses trapping heat?

There are so many underlying, scientific falsehoods that I'll list them numerically.

1. Greenhouse Gasses. The first error that uninformed scientists make is to assume nothing but greenhouse gasses heat the atmosphere. They seem to have overlooked the fact that most of the heat gets into the atmosphere through conduction and convection. This is like a fan used to cool electronics. A fan is about a hundred times more effective than radiation alone.

2. Equilibrium. The temperature of the atmosphere is not determined by the amount of heat entering nor by the amount leaving but by an equilibrium between the two which nature establishes and humans cannot comprehend.

Equilibrium requires that the emitting material (atmosphere) must have a defined temperature. It is the temperature that determines rate of energy leaving. And the rate of energy leaving must equal the rate of energy entering from the sun. Nothing that man or nature does can change that temperature. It consists of a gradient with height in the atmosphere and interaction with the surface of the earth, but the effective temperature is defined by equilibrium. It takes awhile for equilibration to occur, which allows for nonuniformity.

3. Zone of Emissions. The claim is that there is a zone at about five kilometers of height in the atmosphere where outward emission occurs. This zone is supposedly at a temperature of -19°C, because the Stephan-Boltzmann constant says so. It says that a surface at a temperature of -19°C will emit 235 watts per square meter of black body radiation, which is the amount of solar radiation the earth absorbs on average.

It is extremely obvious that such a zone does not exist. What keeps radiation from leaving at other temperatures? Nothing does. How would energy get to that zone for radiating outward? There is no mechanism.

The concept of there being such a zone is a misuse of the Stephan-Boltzmann constant. The constant was designed to indicate the amount of radiation emitted by a surface at a particular temperature. A gas is nothing resembling a surface. Radiation would be emitted from all points within the three dimensional structure of the atmosphere.

4. Fudge Factor. In claiming that the science of greenhouse gasses is rock solid, fakes pretend to be able to calculate the amount of heat produced by a greenhouse gas and any increase in it. The equation is reduced to three components, which supposedly account for the infinite complexity of the atmosphere. The three component equation does nothing but show the desired result, and when the desired result changes, the equation changes. That's what a fudge factor is.

Here's what the fudge factor looks like. Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C₀. Then, temperature increase = 0.75 times heat increase. The constant 5.35 shows about a 3°C temperature increase with doubling of C02 in the atmosphere, which was the desired amount in 1988. That amount became incredible, so it was changed to 1.2°C. For this, the constant would have to be 2.31. Then additional changes were made.

The fudge factor is used to create the pretense that greenhouse gasses add a known amount of heat to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses have no significant effect upon most of atmosphere, because equilibrium requires a fixed, effective temperature for the atmosphere. At the top of the atmosphere, a slight variation in rate of energy leaving could occur, but the net effect throughout the atmosphere would have to stay the same for equilibrium.

5. Prediction Contradictions. The initial 3°C had to be reduced to 1.2°C, because thermometer measurements supposedly showed that effect since the industrial revolution. But now there is a contradiction: There is no way to show a catastrophic temperature increase in the future, when the amount in the past was so low. Fakes ignore the contradiction and pretend that the future will do something catastrophic which the past did not do.