Friday, March 2, 2018

97% of Scientists Do Not Agree with Anthropogenic Global Warming.

“97% of scientists agree!”

This is the mantra that became popular several years after Al Gore’s 2006 propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth. It was endorsed by Pres. Barack Obama when he tweeted on May 16, 2013 that, “97% of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.” From this claim stemmed claims of “the scientific consensus” and “the science is settled.” Anyone who dared to suggest that the climate was not warming up, or that CO2 was not the proximate cause was scorned and vilified. How could anyone have such an opinion when 97% of the scientists have agreed that excess CO2 is causing climate to warm up? How could anyone have the hubris to think that they knew better than scientists?

Where did this 97% figure originate? It appears to have started with a short 2009 paper by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago. In this paper, the announced the results of the two question poll. This poll was sent to 10,257 “Earth scientists.” 

The two questions were:

1. When compared with pre- 1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The poll received 3,146 responses. Of these only 79 of the respondents listed climate science as their area of expertise and had published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change. Of those 79, 97% responded “yes” to both questions. 97% of 79 is 77. When they tell you that 97% of scientists agree, you need to know that they mean 77 scientists out of 10,257 polled. I admit that I’m not very good at this new math, but the way I learned it, 77 out of 10,257 is 0.75%.

This is a dramatic conclusion drawn from a mere two question poll based on subjective evaluations. I asked an expert in research methodology about their paper, and she had the following questions:

  • What do they consider it an “earth scientist”?
  • What do they mean by “significant”?
  • Is there a standard definition of pre-1800s temperatures?
  • What types of human activity are to be considered?
  • Are there multiple intervening factors?
  • When considering mean global temperatures, from what date range is the mean derived?
  • What, exactly, is being measured in global temperatures? 

Doran and Zimmerman failed to identify the possibility of question bias and polling bias in their results. They freely admit the largest source of bias, apparently in the hopes that nobody would notice. Of their subsample of respondents, they filtered for scientists who published at least 50% of their papers on the subject of climate change. In 2009, mainstream climate scientists who disagreed with the global warming model had no incentive to publish their refutations. The sampling method of the results, in essence, filtered out anyone who would disagree with the proposition of anthropogenic global warming. In plain English that means, “97% of the scientists who agree with us agree with us.” Astonishing.

The Dornan and Zimmerman study and its associated controversy prompted John Cook and several other researchers to do a study of scientific literature to try and determine the scientific consensus surrounding anthropogenic global warming. They studied 11,944 climate abstracts. Of those, 7,930 were deemed to have no position on anthropogenic global warming and were discarded. Of those that remained 78 rejected anthropogenic global warming, 40 were uncertain, and the remainder endorsed anthropogenic global warming. Somehow, 3896 papers endorsing anthropogenic global warming out of 11,944 became 97%. In a jaw-dropping case of analysis bias, 66.4% of the data was simply thrown out, allowing them to claim the remaining 32.6% was actually 97%. This paper seem to confirm Dornan and Zimmerman’s results, and was widely touted, even though it means essentially nothing because the papers cited weren’t examined beyond the abstracts, and, as I will show, climate scientists had good reason to stay quiet if they disagreed with the “consensus opinion.” Friends of Science director Ken Gregory breaks down the Cook et al paper even more.

More on the 97% myth courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

With a most unscientific lack of skepticism, the 97% number became canon in the church of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Scientists who disagreed with the premise were branded contrarians and outliers. The consensus was established, the science was settled. Scientists who disagreed with Doran and Zimmerman’s poll had good reason not to respond. Just a year before climatologist George Taylor had been forced to retire from his tenured teaching position at Oregon State University as manager of the Oregon climate service because he publicly disagreed with the premise of man-made global warming. He was not the first. Four years later Prof. Nicholas Drapela, a chemistry professor at OSU, was also fired for his criticism of anthropogenic climate change.

When marine scientist Peter Ridd pointed out that the coral reefs were as healthy as ever and that local die offs had nothing to do with water temperatures, he was censured by his University for, “Failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution.” Ridd pointed out that two of the world’s leading organization studying coral reefs were using misleading photographs to make the case that global warming is causing a mass reef die off.

When a scientist cannot express skepticism or disagreement without worrying about his professional career, you no longer have science, you have religion. Science – real science – is based on skepticism, questioning, challenging hypotheses. The science was settled that the Earth was flat, until Ptolemy proved that it wasn’t. The science was settled that the earth was the center of everything, until Copernicus showed that the earth orbited the sun. There is no such thing as “settled science.”

As with any religion, anthropogenic climate change cannot tolerate heretics voicing their criticism. In Vancouver, Canada lawyer and Green Party leader Andrew Weaver sued Prof. Timothy Ball for libel because Ball suggested in a published article that modern climate science had been corrupted by money and politics. Fortunately for science, the lawsuit was thrown out of court. Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann followed suit in Canadian court, suing both Dr. Tim Ball and political pundit Mark Steyn for libel. The lawsuit failed, because in discovery Mann refused to turn over the raw data from which he produced his famous “hockey stick graph.”

The debate in academia as soon devolved from one of evaluating the science on its merits to evaluating scientific studies based on who funded them. Research doesn’t happen for free. Research grants to find evidence of global warming and link it to human activity were funded by companies with interests in green energy, speculators in Al Gore’s “carbon exchange” who stood to make trillions if the carbon exchange was enacted into law, and vocally supported by the ever-present fringe environmentalist lobbies, many of whom see the human presence on the earth as a blight. Threatened by the implications of man-made global warming, fossil fuel companies in turn funded grants to refute the results of the man-made global warming studies.

The dirty little secret in research grants is if you want to continue getting money, you provide the results desired by the person funding the grant. The most objective of scientists still walk a fine line in their research proposals to suggest that the research will likely produce the results desired by those who fund it. Research money often goes to those scientists who are so wedded to their preconceived notions that it’s impossible for them to see their own bias.

The claim of 97% consensus generated a huge backlash from the scientific community which has gone mostly unreported by the media. 31,487 American scientists signed a petition urging the United States government to reject the Kyoto accords in 1997, based on a lack of convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2 or other greenhouse gases is disrupting years climate.

Another study that for some reason never gets mentioned by the media is that by Lefsrude and Meyer, entitled, Science or Science Fiction? Professional’s Discursive Construction of Climate Change. This paper concludes that only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis. Of course, since this doesn’t fit with the political agenda of the climate change alarmists and the media, few people have ever heard about it.

The lie of the 97% consensus is revealed in the sheer number of scientists who reject the conventional wisdom of anthropogenic global warming. The proponents of the climate change scam will try to dismiss these skeptics as, “A handful of cherry picked quacks and denialist bullshitters, conspiracy theorists every one of them.” If it were up to the proponents of climate change, these men would be stripped of their degrees and denied the right to speak in public. This is the penalty of the heretic when he dares to challenge the orthodoxy of the anthropogenic climate change religion.

 Below is a sample list of first-class scientists who disagree with the premise of anthropogenic global warming. This is by no means a comprehensive list. The point is to show that the science is anything but “settled,” and that the myth of the 97% consensus needs to be put to rest once and for all. Science is about facts. It is not a democracy.

 In 2012, 16 scientists endorsed a letter to the Wall Street Journal stating that there’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “de-carbonize” the world’s economy. For those of you who don’t have the subscription to the Wall Street Journal, the article is reproduced in its entirety here.

In 2010, professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara resigned in protest from the American Physical Society due to the corruption associated with climate science, what he termed, “The most successful pseudoscientific fraud” that he had seen in his life. Read his resignation letter here.  

Dr. Richard Lindzen, emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT: “Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change, period.” Dr. Lindzen goes on to say in this video that, “Believing CO2 controls the climate is pretty close to believing in magic.  

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: “Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” Dr. Happer states in this video that, “Climate Change is An Extraordinary Popular Delusion.” In this video he states in this video that, “Carbon Pollution is a Myth. 

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: “We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.” In this interview, yet unequivocally states that “Climate Change is a Scam!” 

In this video, Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics, trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is "Dead Wrong."

 In this video, former NASA scientists trash the global warming hysteria.

In this video, Climatologist Dr Richard Alan Keen reveals the data and explains how the "Mainstream climate modelers" have got it wrong.

In this video, Dr Fred Goldman, Associate Professor at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm Sweden, exposes the so-called "Science" of Dangerous Man-Made Climate Change as complete nonsense.

 In this short video, Dr. Judith Curry, Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, testifies before Congress.

 In this video, Steven F. Hayward, Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University, discusses why the poor science associated with global climate change should not be the basis of public policy.
 Dr. S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and he was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962). In this interview, he discusses his role as the Father of Global Warming Skepticism.

Other Notable Deniers/Skeptics:

Dr Richard Muller – physicist, professor at University of California, Berkeley;

Dr. Paul Berenson, M.I.T, executive secretary of the Defense Science Board for the U.S. Department of Defense, Scientific Advisor to NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), and Scientific Advisor to the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command;

Dr. Robert H. Austin (Physicist) Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist;

Dr. David R. Legates (Climatologist) Delaware State Climatologist, Professor and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware;

 Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project;

Dr Yury Izrael, past UN IPCC Vice President, director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research;

David H Douglass, PhD, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester and a real climate scientist;

David Evans, PhD, consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005;

 Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfield, Contributing Author to the UN IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado, assistant professor at Texas A&M University;

Willie Wei-Hock Soon, PhD, astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, University of Southern California;

Dr. David Stockwell Ph.D. degree in Ecosystem Dynamics from the Australian National University; Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University;

Dr. Theodore G. Pavlopoulos (Physicist and Chemist) U.S. Navy, Retired – a member of the New York Academy of Sciences;

 Dr. Ole Humlum, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Oslo. PhD in Glacial Geomorphology;

 Dr Tom Segalstad, Geologist & Geochemist, UN-IPCC Expert Reviewer [resigned], a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC;

Dr. Michael J. Economides, Professor of Chemical and Bio-molecular Engineering at Cullen College of Engineering at University of Houston and the author of numerous books and more than 50 scientific studies, member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences;

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, [Meteorologist] of the University of Wisconsin;

Dr. Philip Lloyd, UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer;

Ferenc Miskolczi, atmospheric physicist specializing in atmospheric radiative transfer, senior principal scientist on several NASA projects related to atmospheric remote sensing problems and the evaluation of the Earth’s radiation budget;

John R. Christy, PhD. Atmospheric Science, professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville;

Petr Chylek, PhD., Physics , Adjunct Professor
of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia;

Roy W. Spencer, PhD., M.S. Meteorology, research scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville;

Sallie Baliunas, PhD. in Astrophysics, Harvard, astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division and formerly Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Observatory

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

An Open Letter: I’m a Conservative

Recently there's been an article floating about the interwebz titled, "An Open Letter: I’m a Liberal." People are cutting and pasting it, and it's become a bit of a liberal manifesto.  It appears to be generally attributed to a woman named Lori Gallagher Witt, although I have been unable to find the original source.  You can find this all around the net, the sources I drew from are here and here.

Liberals proclaim it to be brilliance. I aim to put an end to that nonsense, and explain to Ms. Witt and those who quote her, why I am a conservative. Feel free to quote me here, as others have quoted her.

1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. Period.

No one disagrees with you.  What we disagree on is who is responsible.  If you give government that responsibility, it infringes on the rights of everyone to ensure the welfare of a few.  The government is not capable of keeping people from being neglected. As Bill Whittle observed, there's a word for people who are kept safe, fed, clothed, housed and sustained fully by others; and that word is "slaves."

2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.

Then you are pro-slavery.  Healthcare is a service provided by a limited number of highly trained professionals.  When you make this a “right,” then you give me the ability to demand service from these people whether they want to provide it or not.  When there are more people demanding access to this “right” than there is capacity to provide it, and if the providers violate your “right” if they choose not to, then you are making the withholding of services a punishable crime.  This exacerbates the very problem you are trying to solve, because no one in their right mind will willingly enter a field in which their services can be commandeered by the government (read: the people) at a whim, and where your services are subject to be provided on demand, regardless of the compensation.

3. I believe education should be affordable and accessible to everyone. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.

No one disagrees with you that education is too expensive.  But you don’t understand the concept of supply and demand economics.  In your well-intentioned attempt to make education affordable, you have allocated government funds to help people pursue education.  This has increased the demand for education, supposedly making it more affordable, but it didn’t increase the supply of education, which more or less remained static.  More money chasing a fixed asset results in higher prices.  As usual, your liberal attempt to fix a problem has made the problem worse.

4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.

"I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this.” May I introduce you to Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Patty Murray, Representative Diane Feinstein, Representative Nancy Pelosi, and a whole host of other liberal politicians who curry votes by pandering to low-income voters by promising them largesse from the public treasury in exchange for their voter loyalty?  

The wealthy already pay far more than their “fair share”, but it never seems to be enough.  How about you quit punishing the wealthy for being wealthy, and allow them to grow their businesses, which will provide jobs and opportunity which will narrow the cracks for the disadvantaged to fall through, and provide more disposable income to the individual who can distribute to their philanthropic activity of choice?

5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.

If you want to pay higher taxes, no one is stopping you. The IRS will be happy to accept your voluntary contribution.  What gives YOU the right to demand I pay more, though? The “Lining Corporate pockets” trope is BS – it doesn’t happen normally, and when it does, it’s called corruption, and seems to be more prevalent among the very liberal politicians you support, than the freedom loving, small government conservatives you despise.  Big government means more opportunity for corruption.  If you want less corruption, then remove government’s access to the opportunity.  

The problem with your argument is that EVERY death can ultimately be attributed to a lack of healthcare. Here’s a shocking fact for you:  EVERYBODY dies. No matter how much healthcare you provide, the ratio of death per unit of population remains at 1.  No matter how much healthcare you provide, the result is inevitably the same.  We’ve already discussed how your efforts do nothing but decrease the supply of healthcare, putting it farther out of reach of the average person, but you suffer from a fallacy that, when boundary checked, will result in bankrupting the country for a goal that can never be reached.  

6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.

You have obviously never had to make payroll or run a company. Employees must create more value than they are being paid, or there is no incentive for companies to have them employed.  If your worker does not provide you with enough value to pay him a decent, livable wage, yet you are forced to pay him that anyway, why would the company hire him in the first place?  Newsflash: companies are not in the business of losing money.  Your efforts do not help the class you’re trying to help, they are making employment less attainable, while at the same time making the consumer goods and services they provide more scarce and more expensive, which again hurts the very class you’re trying to help.  If you want people to get a decent, livable wage, then work towards increasing employment opportunities, and increasing the ability of the individual to compete in the labor market.

7. I am not anti-Christian, I simply believe in separation of State and Church. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine.

Good for you.  Too bad your fellow anti-Christian liberals don’t share your sentiments and make the public practice of Christianity an act of civil discord, subject to innumerable lawsuits and attacks on freedom.

8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.

Does that include the right of free association?  If I don’t want openly LGBTQP++ people working for me because they promote a culture I vehemently disagree with, is that not my right? The average conservative doesn’t care what you do with your genitals, or who you do it with.  They just want you to keep it to yourself, because it’s in bad taste to parade your personal fetishes in public. Does this mean that you have the right to force a private vendor to provide a service that they don't wish to provide you?  If you do force a vendor to provide a service against their will, who accepts the liability if the quality of that service is less than perfect, and by what measure do you evaluate that quality?  Have you even thought through the natural consequences of your forcing me to accept and cater to a lifestyle I reject and find abhorrent?

9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I'm not opposed to deporting people who are here illegally, but I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).

Is it your contention, then, that illegal immigrants do not overload the emergency services at hospitals, which cannot refuse them treatment by law?  That they do not overload our school system, which cannot refuse public education and are not allowed to ask immigration status by law?  That they do not commit a disproportionate number of crimes because they have to live in the shadows and have no respect for the laws of the country to start with?  Do not certain states offer illegal aliens college tuition rates as residents, making it more expensive for an American citizen from another state to attend than it is for someone who's not even supposed to be in the country?

I agree with you that the enforcement as it’s done today is stupid, a waste of resources and violates the human dignity of the immigrant.  I believe that if you want to enforce immigration law, you punish the enablers that allow the law to be flaunted:  No more health care for illegals on demand.  You get your health care, but you also get deported.  No more public education for illegals – it’s not violating their rights to ask if they are here legally.  Severe penalties for those who employ illegals.  Remove the support structure, and they will self-deport.  And eliminate the idea that being born on American soil automatically gives you citizenship.  This idea is the result of a flawed interpretation of the 14th amendment, which ignores the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Children born to illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin, and are citizens of that country, not the United States.

10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.

No rational person wants to eliminate government regulations, for all the reasons you cite.  The problem is that our regulatory agencies operate outside the umbrella of the Constitution, and pass regulations which have the force of law without ever having to undergo a legislative review required by the Constitution.  We would be much better off overhauling our regulatory structure to more resemble that of the EEC, where regulatory committees draft regulations which are then presented to the legislatures for ratification.

11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.

You do not understand what Fascism is, or how it came about.  I really wish you Trump haters would learn the definition of Fascism before you go throwing it around like you do. Fascists were collectivists, against individual freedoms, and believed that the citizen should be subordinate to the state. They did not accept the free market economy, but believed that businesses should operate as directed by the state. They promoted minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-taking, progressive taxation of capital, rigidly secular schools. They consolidated power through bullying, strikes, silencing of dissent in any way possible, and as they gained more power they used physical violence and laws to imprison critics.

The behavior of the fascists is most represented by today's liberals. One of the keystones of fascist propaganda was to accuse the opposition of that which the fascists are most guilty.

Trump might be a lot of things but one thing he definitely is NOT is a fascist. Please stop using this to describe him, because you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

I'm not a Trump supporter and never have been, but henceforth I am announcing a corollary to Godwin's Law. If you call Trump or any other conservative a fascist, you lose the argument, right then and there.

12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized.

Raaaacism!  The most racist people of our society are those who use race as a means of dividing people, giving preferences to one “race,” to ensuring that quotas are met, etc.  You want to put an end to racism?  THEN SHUT DOWN ALL THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT IT! You’re not helping the very class you’re trying to help, you’re only promoting the idea that they need help.  Uphold the dignity of the individual, quit asking him his skin color on every single government form and reportable piece of paper. Doesn’t it bother you that they don’t ask your race when you file your taxes?  They don’t care what color you are when they’re taking money from you.

If you think being a conservative equates with racism, if you think that being a member of the Republican party means you're an angry white guy who wants to keep minorities down, then you've been listening to too much liberal propaganda and haven't been paying attention to the obvious evidence right in front of your eyes.

13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is sensible policies, including background checks, that just MIGHT save one person’s, perhaps a toddler’s, life by the hand of someone who should not have a gun. (Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine).

Your well-intentioned efforts have the same fallacy that you apply to health care.  How much gun control is enough?  If this law will save one more life, isn’t it worth it?  Every law you apply will save one more life.  Yet, in your blind allegiance to dogma, you neglect the fact that most of the problems you’re trying to solve are because someone broke a law that’s already on the books.  How will more laws change that?  Have you ignored the huge number of unreported crimes that never happen because an honest citizen like me brandished a gun and made the criminal think again?  Has it not escaped you that violent crime rose sharply in the UK after they eliminated gun ownership?  Have you not missed the fact that the majority of gun violence in America occurs in urban areas with the strictest gun control laws in the nation?  What is wrong with your analytical skills?

14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?

Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.  Quit condemning me when I call out something I find publicly unacceptable.  You do not have a right to be unoffended, and I do have a right to speak up when I find someone’s deviancy abhorrent.  You do not get to dictate to me what I am supposed to find “normal.”  Telling me that you’re offended by my opinions and cannot accept that I disagree with you  just tells me that you’re unable to control your emotions, so I’m supposed to alter my behavior to keep from causing you offense. Grow up.

15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.

Sorry, but your use of “sustainable’ energy flies in the face of basic physics and economics.  We NEED energy.  It’s the life blood of an industrialized society. There is simply no other currently used energy technology that provides as much energy for as low a cost as fossil fuels.  So far, there is no technology that allows us to store energy in as dense a form (joules per cubic centimeter) that’s as easy to extract than gasoline. That’s the facts.  All of your renewable energy boondoggles have fallen flat on their face.  Wind power is unreliable, and the cost of refurbishing a wind turbine after the blades wear out is more than the cost of a new turbine – and yet you dare to lecture me on sustainability.  If you were a real proponent of sustainable energy, then you would educate yourself on the subject and be pushing your political leaders to endorse and sponsor thorium reactors, which are safe, cheap, clean and green.  The technology exists, but the political power is controlled by big oil and an atomic energy lobby which makes billions off of providing and disposing of dangerous and expensive uranium fuel.

16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. We should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t we be?

If you are an employer, you have to face the biological fact that women are not as reliable as men in the workplace. When you hire a young woman, you are accepting that at some point, she’s going to either leave your company either temporarily or permanently, not because she’s not loyal, but because she wants to raise a family. This is a fact, sorry, and no matter how much you legislate it away, it’s something that as a businessman, an employer is going to be considering. If you are an exceptional employee, the employer will work harder to try to keep you in spite of the family thing.  But hiring a woman inherently has more risk associated with it from an employer’s standpoint than hiring an equally qualified man. That risk is real, and must be quantified from a business standpoint, and will be considered by employers no matter what you want. If you pass equal wage laws, you’re making it less likely that a woman will be hired, because an employer may choose to limit his risk exposure.  In blue collar or physical labor, you have to come to grips with the basic fact that the average woman is not going to be able to lift as much, carry as much, or perform on the same physical level as the average man.  Yes, there are exceptions, but I’m speaking on average.  No matter how much you want to wish them away, this is reality, and a company that doesn’t recognize reality doesn’t survive.  No, this reality is not homogenous – the risk exposure of hiring women is not equal across the work force. Some employers are structured in such a way so that their risk is mitigated.  Some aren’t, for reasons that have nothing to do with gender preference.  YOU tell ME: why have so few women sought to train themselves in marketable STEM fields?

I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.

So, I'm a liberal.

That about does it.  As a conservative, I think we should take care of each other, but, as a conservative, I recognize that I have neither the right or the responsibility to force anyone else to take care of me or their fellow members of society.  My only role is to encourage them to do so, and try to establish an environment where they do so out of their own free will.

So, I'm a conservative.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

How Liberty Dies

Last night I witnessed firsthand how Liberty dies.

People talk about the Republican “establishment” and it becomes something of a boogeyman. A faceless, malevolent force that corrupts good men and turns a party that pays lip service to liberty, smaller government and the rights of the individual into a self-serving vehicle that unscrupulous people use for personal power and gain, funded by a swell old boys network of financiers who seek to subvert the free market that should be guaranteed by government servants into a cronyist kleptocracy that cares nothing for the average person except as a host for its parasitic activity.

But nobody really believes that “Establishment” rhetoric, do they?  I mean, sure Mitch McConnell and John McCain are as dirty as any Democrat and can’t be trusted to even flush after a healthy dump, but OUR personal elected Republicans are cut from a different cloth, and CARE about us!  Right?

Friends, last night I witnessed the Republican Establishment in full roar, pulling out dirty trick after dirty trick, abusing the rules – ignoring the rules when convenient – in order to wrest power back from the people and restore it to its rightful place – in the hands of a select few who will use that power to manipulate willing dupes to think that they’re relevant to the party in some way other than as a host for a parasite.

A little background:  In 2012 the local Clark County party was flooded with concerned citizens who were pretty pissed off by the Obama administration.  Lots of people who had never before been involved in politics outside of voting got involved.  The local party swelled, and – to the horror of the establishment – they voted out the establishment cronies, and put in their place an executive board cut from the same cloth as Washington and Jefferson – concerned citizens who felt that the party and the power rightfully belonged to the people.  The bylaws were redrawn to seize power from the executive committee and place it in the hands of the central committee- composed of precinct officers elected by their neighbors.

The Republican Establishment at the State level was put on notice: Clark County was a free county, and would promote a Republican agenda that put the citizens first, not the deep-pocket special interests. Candidates would be recruited who were mavericks, not beholden to the mutual backscratching, wink and a nod establishment whose primary role is to fleece the sheep and convince the sheep that they should enjoy it.

This caused no end of turmoil among the local and state-level establishment.  The Establishment machine ground on, supporting, recruiting and subverting Republican in Name Only candidates in spite of the local party, such as John Blom, Julie Olson, Jeannie Stewart, Linda Wilson and Brandon Vic. These stalwarts, some nominally part of the County central committee, never showed up for the central committee business except for elections and any meeting that had an agenda that threaten to upset their supply of fleece.  Other wannnabes like the unelectable Carolyn Crain who desperately wanted to join the club became obnoxious nuisances.

The Clark County Republican Central Committee created a stir when a motion was presented to censure our congressional representative, Jaime Herrera Beutler, for not supporting the core principles of the party in her congressional voting record. The debate was contentious, and the motion was eventually tabled.

At the end of the 2016 election cycle, the county chairman, Kenny Smith, decided to relinquish the gavel.  Kenny had done a masterful job at steering the party during his two-term tenure, and was a shining example of even-handed leadership. I didn’t always agree with him, and yes, some mistakes were made and decisions that I didn’t agree with, but I could be sure that my voice would be heard when Kenny had the gavel.  In an uncontested election, a young nobody that no one had ever heard of was elected to the position. David Gellatly came with ringing endorsements, and promised us to continue the legacy of the Liberty-minded people when he was elected.

This was a lie.  Gellatly had no intention of keeping the Clark County Republican party independent of the establishment.  The party is divided into two camps. Both espouse the same core principles and values, but one side – the establishment – is willing to compromise those principles and negotiate them away in order to get elected.  The other believes that principles aren’t negotiable, that as conservatives, we would do much better by bravely standing on our principles, and using the inescapable power of reason to convince the undecided voter that our way is preferable. The negotiable principles of the establishment camp opens the door for corruption and cronyism to enter, and power-hungry people who will do things to seize that power that more ethical patriots shy away from precisely because we stand on our convictions.

This might have been less of a problem, except that Gellatly came with baggage.  Like our president, he has a thin skin and just can’t shut up on social media. As Chairman of the local party, his best strategy is to maintain detached and let the squabbles be resolved by the body.  But Gellatly kept stepping into the fray and abusing and disenfranchising people in the marketplace of ideas, engaging in battles of rhetoric that would have yielded nothing for him if he won except the enmity of the body he was the chair of.  He proved himself to be petty, ill-informed, pendantic, condescending and prone to be personally abusive.  Hey, this is politics, and we’re all guilty of these faults to some extent, but to have these traits on public display by the chairman suggests a potential for abuse of power. Many times Gellatly would remember his place and have to walk back something he said that was out of line in order to preserve the dignity of the seat, but apparently just never learned. I personally on several occasions suggested that someone should never pass up the chance to stay quiet, and he ignored my advice, thinking that I was directing it at other people.  Some observed that Gellatly showed many signs of narcissistic personality disorder.

Meanwhile, things were not well on the executive board.  Gellatly was apparently playing fast and loose with party funds. Expenditures were being made without board approval.  Receipts were not being filed. Decisions were unilaterally made concerning the Lincoln Day dinner that rankled people. The Lincoln Day speaker stepped in her own personal cow pie, and Gellatly was between a rock and a hard place, already being on contract for a speaker that nobody really wanted. The Lincoln Day dinner net fell far short of expectations – in a large part because expenses weren’t controlled, but also because many supporters just turned their back in disgust.  Gellatly was reduced to giving away complimentary tickets to fill seats.

His public behavior and the fiscal problems motivated the board to start organizing his removal.  The Vice chair, Leslie Meharry, resigned.  An executive board meeting was called to vote on a motion to recommend a recall to the central committee. Facing a defeat at this meeting, Gellatly allowed Meharry to “un-resign.” This gave him the vote he needed to survive the no confidence vote.  It was later deemed that rescinding Meharry’s resignation was against the rules, and should not have been allowed. Jimmy Johnson voted against referring Gellatly’s removal to the central committee in a state of confusion, incomprehensibly declaring that this was something the Central Committee should resolve.

The gloves were off.  Knowing that Meharry’s status wouldn’t stand, Gellatly circulated a petition to remove  the four primary executive board members who voted for referring his removal to the central committee. Under the Gellatly regime, dissension will be punished. 

Make no mistake, the October 17 meeting had nothing to do with the performance or qualifications of the four individuals involved, all of whom had executed their office in exemplary fashion, in spite of the obvious lies Gellatly spun about them.  Not one of them was under scrutiny or question until the issue of Gellatly’s removal was placed to a vote. Susanne Gerhardt, the treasurer kept meticulous books and on multiple occasions invited anyone who wanted to come examine the books and see the problems Gellatly had caused. Any insinuation that the books weren’t available is a damned lie. The removal of these four exemplary volunteers was a referendum on who controls the local party: the people or the establishment.

The October 17 meeting violated the rules.  A special meeting such as this can only be called by consent of the executive board.  The executive board voted not to have the meeting.  That vote was overridden by Gellatly, in violation of the rules.  Many PCO’s chose to come to the meeting anyway, to backstop the perfidy he could cause by having his cronies illegally remove four board members by acclaim in an illegally called meeting.  Unfortunately, the turnout legitimized the legality of the meeting.

An outside chairman was brought in to supposedly ensure objectivity, Mr. Kirby Wilbur, a talk show host for KVI in Seattle, and chairman of the 2012 State republican convention. Yes, the establishment tool Kirby Wilbur who turned off the microphones at the State Convention to silence voices that he didn’t want to have heard on the floor. Don't say that it didn't happen, I was there and saw it happen firsthand. Establishment tool Jaime Herrera Beutler provided pizza and beer for the meeting – seriously?  This special meeting was so well-organized that our Congresswoman in DC arranged for pizza and beer to remove four sitting board members who were hostile to her performance in office?  The silver lining for this egregious pandering is that the venue prohibited alcohol, and as a result the CCRP has been banned from the venue in perpetuity and Carolyn Crain, who signed the contract, was fined $2550. Of course, the new board will no doubt vote to reimburse her with donor money.

In an insult to the entire body, Gellatly and his financiers, including Clyde Holland, hired a private security company to oversee the festivities, including Gellatly’s personal friend who is a bouncer at a strip club.  This was purely an intimidation tactic, as legally these rent-a-cops have zero authority to use force to do anything, and I damn well know that many people in attendance were more well-armed than they were.  Seriously, private security?  We never needed private surety at any other function.

Gellatly unilaterally barred everyone who was not a PCO from entering the premises. Except of course, his mother and his wife.  Other non-PCO’s who were acceptable to Gellatly were given some sort of office such as Sergeant of Arms that allowed them to be there. Many of these people had never before been seen at a central committee meeting, and others who had served as Sergeant of Arms previously were denied entry.  The Committee overturned the rule of the chair and allowed entry of the non-PCO’s.

Gellatly called the meeting on the basis of a petition he had circulated to have the four board members removed, and whose signatures he had verified.  The legitimacy of him verifying the signatures on a petition that he created was called into question, and of course establishment tool Kirby Wilbur ruled that verifying your own petition was legitimate because of a rule technicality demonstrated that the establishment is willing to sit on the letter of the rules when it suits them, no matter how absurd the results appear.

Unrelated to the October 17 meeting, In a stunning abuse of his position, Gellatly has filed suit, funded no doubt by Clyde Holland and company, against Richard Colwell, PCO 632nd precinct. Colwell is one of the more vocal opponents of Gellatly.  This is pure dictatorial bullying on behalf of the chairman, and puts the rest of the Central Committee on notice that if you disagree with the chair vehemently enough, you will be punished, and you will suffer financial loss either through legal means or through defending yourself.

Bullying. Secrecy.  Intimidation.  Lawsuits. Absurd interpretations of rules. Lies.  Slander. Pandering.  This is the establishment Republican party.  This is what won on October 17 in Clark County, WA.  Three good people, stalwart, hard working volunteers, honest people were removed from their positions to fuel the ego of one person who has no business holding office, supported by a corrupt establishment.  Gellatly no doubt has dreams of running for office in the future, and he will do well in the swell old boys party of the republicans, as they reassure the sheep that the fleecing is for their benefit.

It’s time to get out the elephant guns.  This swamp won’t drain itself.  The Republican party has to die, so that something better can take its place.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Will More CO2 Cause More Warming?

It was recently argued that Venus, which has a 95% CO2 atmosphere, is consequently suffering from runaway greenhouse gas warming.  If Venus is so hot because of its CO2, then when we add CO2, we, too will get hot. Just like Venus.

Hold on, Hoss, it's not as simple as that.  Yes, Venus has a lot of CO2.  It's also closer tot he sun and receives almost twice as much solar radiation.  It also has a much higher atmospheric pressure, nearly 90 times as high as the earth's.  Looking at Venus and trying to extrapolate Climate behavior on Earth on that basis is just plain silly.

They would have you believe that the Venusian model is just a scaled up version of our CO2 "problem."  As if the mechanism is identical between our 0.04% and the 95% of Venus.  It's not.

CO2 has an absorption peak at 15µm. This gets nothing from sunlight, because it's well out of the solar spectrum, but it's almost smack in the middle of the planetary thermal radiation band. Picks up about 8% of the energy across that band, and then re-radiates it as broad-spectrum IR. This is heat given off by the planet after being warmed by the sun.

Now the CO2 picks up a little of that IR energy all across the band. Mostly it's insignificant, because compared to the 15µm peak, it's effectively nothing. But it's NOT zero.

According to Dr. Heinz Hug, the CO2 in our atmosphere absorbs all the energy there is in this band in about 10m. Double the amount of CO2, and all you do is make it so the energy is absorbed in 5m instead. At the low levels of CO2 in our atmosphere, even at the geologically historical high of 2,000ppm, the 15µm absorption will still dominate. The shoulders of the absorption band will have a small effect, moving it from 8% to, say 10% of the planetary IR, but that still leaves 90% of the heat getting through to space.

But we only have 400ppm CO2, not Venus' 965,000ppm. The 90 atmospheres of pressure has a huge effect, because it amplifies the amount of CO2 in a given volume by 90x, making it so there's 147,737 times as much CO2 in a given volume of air on Venus as there is on Earth. Instead of it taking 10 meters to absorb all the energy in the absorptive bandpass, it now takes about 7 µm.

At that density of CO2, the out of band absorption beyond the 15µm absorptive bandpass quits being effectively zero. Yes, compared to the 15µm band, it's pathetic, but there's enough CO2 there to suck it all up, all across the band. There's no measurement of the actual absorptive coefficient of the out of band area, but it's not zero (basic microwave physics, and yes, I AM an expert in that area), and there's enough CO2 in Venus' atmosphere to saturate the planetary IR radiation band even in the out of band areas.

Basically Venus' atmosphere is opaque at the planetary IR emission frequencies. There's enough CO2 to dominate across the band, not just the sensitive 15µm area. One way to think of it is signal to noise in your FM radio, where CO2 is the noise you're trying to see a signal through. If you have a decent receiver, you can pick out a clean signal, no matter if the noise floor is 400 or 2000. That signal stands strong above it. make the noise floor 150,000 and you're not going to get a thing. It's actually the mirror of that, but the metaphor holds.

This is supported by direct measurements, because in spite of receiving nearly twice the solar radiation as Earth, Venus's black body radiation is 27.4°C cooler than Earth.

The effect of increasing CO2 in an already saturated system is zero, until you saturate the system so much that the out of band absorptive capacity starts getting felt.  Levels of CO2 that high would kill all animal life on earth (thought the plants would be real happy).

But wait, we see in the paleo atmospheric levels taken from ice cores that rising global temperatures accompany rising CO2 levels.  Common mistake in data analysis: correlation does not imply causation.  If CO2 drove the global climate, then it should be a leading indicator.  The ice core record lacks the resolution to tell if CO2 Rises before or after temperature rises.   But if it were the primary driver of temperature, we would expect CO2 and cooling temperatures to track as well. We do not see this.  What we see is a very close correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 levels, and then CO2 lags temperature in the cooling cycle, sometimes by a considerable amount.

This is exactly what we would expect is we consider the CO2 dissolved in the ocean. Gas solubility in a liquid is very temperature sensitive.  The higher the temperature, the less gas can be dissolved int he liquid. There is 10 times as much CO2 in the ocean as in the atmosphere. We would expect that if the ocean were to warm up, some CO2 would be released out of solution, causing an atmospheric rise. But as the ocean cools down, if the atmopshere and the ocean are near equilibrium it takes much longer for the CO2 to enter solution than it does to be forced out of it by temperature.  The historical levels reflect this.

Global warming doomsayers make the case that the ocean losing CO2 will make the ocean more alkaline, and we're instead seeing acidification. Rising temperatures will cause a change in pH, regardless of any CO2 loss or gain.
This fact is clearly evident when we measure the pH of water at 0°C we find it to be 7.47, but the same water at 100°C will have a pH of 6.14. There a definite corelation of pH and temperature. But CO2 levels in the ocean trail the temperature by a good bit as the ocean cools. If the ocean pH is dropping while the ocean temperature rises, this can partly be attributed to the effect of temperature, but not all.  The sudden additional of human produced CO2 does place the ocean CO2 levels out of equilibrium.  Even though the temperatures are going up by whatever mechanism, there's still more atmospheric CO2 than can be accounted for in the ocean.  

Once again, correlation does not imply causation.  Are CO2 levels rising?  Yes.  Is this reflected by a rising pH in the oceans?  Yes, and this is something that should be addressed.  Is the increase in CO2 causing a greenhouse warming of the planet.  Absolutely not.  Every watt of IR energy that's being picked up and re-radiated by atmospheric CO2 was being re-radiated at lower levels of CO2. It just doesn't get as far through the atmosphere as it used to. That's just physics. Another mechanism for the observed warming should be considered, such as variability of cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor ( a much more effective and more abundant greenhouse gas than CO2) or perturbations in solar output. 

There's also the question of the data reliability.  We're basing these measurements off of data taken for decades and even centuries.  The methods of measurement and collection have changed dramatically.  Has a measurement bias crept in?  Are the temperature tracking stations today experiencing the same local conditions as they or their forebears did 100 years ago? Formerly rural stations are now finding themselves in urban growth areas, which are known heat sinks.  Can we even trust the data, when an audit of US weather stations show that 69% of them are inaccurate by more than 2°C and do not conform to NOAA siting guidelines.

Anthropogenic global warming proponents need to address the physics of atmospheric IR absorption, and accurately show how more CO2 will affect a saturated system. They need to answer the questions of reliability of US weather stations, and by inference that of the rest of the world (assuming a first world country like the US can afford to do weather measurement as well or better than anyone else). They need to address the details of water Vapor effects on climate as thoroughly as they're trying to do to make Carbon the culprit.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

The CO2 numbers don't add up

 Does the heat-trapping effect of CO2 have any effect on the temperature of the planet?
Let’s do the numbers. . .

Let’s take, for the sake of argument, the volume of Earth’s atmosphere. Let’s just deal with the lowest kilometer of the atmosphere. Above that, temps drop, typically at a rate of about 1°C every 200M on average, and heat above that isn’t directly contributing to heating the water in the ocean. So the surface area of the Earth is 510,072,000 km^2 which is 510,072,000 km^3 since we’re just using the bottom km. Now, I know that 30% of that is not in contact with the water and therefore not contributing to heating any water, but it’s all a giant heat sink, and the more air, the better for your argument.

And let’s take, for example the volume of the top 10 meters of water on the ocean. The oceans are about 361.9*e^6 square kilometers, top ten meters, divide by 100 gives us 3,619,000 cubic kilometers of water.

So the question is, how many degrees of heat does that air have to give up to heat that top 10 meters of water by 1°C?

Well, first we have to figure out how much mass our water and air is. Water is by definition 1000Kg per cubic meter, and there are 1*e^9 cubic meters in a cubic km. This gives us 1*e^15 grams of water per cubic km. Multiply that by our volume, and we have 3.619*e^21 grams of water. Yeah, yeah, salinity, temperature, etc. . . On the scale we’re working at they’re negligible to the final result, as you shall see.

For the air, we have 1.2041 kg per cubic meter at sea level, times 1*e^9 cubic meters in a cubic km, times 1000 grams in a kg, times 510,072,000 km^3 on the planet, gives us 614.1776952*e^18 grams of air.

The heat capacity of water is 4.184 joules per gram. For you freshmen that means you have to add 4.184 joules to a gram of water to heat it by 1°C. The formula is Q= mc∆T where Q is the energy, m is the mass, c is the heat capacity and ∆T is the change of temperature. That means to raise the temperature of the top 10 meters of the ocean by 1°C, you need to add 1.5141896E+22 joules of energy.

Now the ocean heats up by direct exposure to the sun, which amounts to a HUGE input of energy. But that’s not what we’re talking about. The premise is that the CO2 in the atmosphere is trapping solar energy and that trapped heat is warming the oceans. Essentially the CO2 is supposedly contributing to heating the air, which then heats the oceans. So how much hotter does the air have to get through CO2 warming to cause a 1°C rise in ocean temperatures as a result?

To frame this, we have a known energy amount, 1.5141896E+22 joules, a known mass of air, 614.1776952*e^18g and a heat capacity of 1.01 joules per gram. Rearranging our formula to solve for temperature, Q/mc= ∆T, gives us 24°C.

So your CO2 heat contribution would have to raise the atmosphere by 24°C, all of which would then have to be transferred to the water to raise the top 10 meters by 1°C. It would actually have to raise it much higher, because this assumes a 100% efficient heat transfer, which is wildly optimistic.
I gave a lot of leeway in this model. The actual part of the atmosphere that needs to be heated is much smaller, requiring far higher temps to get the same effect. Ocean mixing will take some of the heat to the depths, resulting in effectively much larger volumes of water to be heated than we postulated. Now, are you going to tell me with a straight face that CO2 greenhouse effect contributes enough thermal energy to the atmosphere to cause a significant or even measurable change in ocean temperatures? If you still hold to this, then you’re a special kind of stupid.

  Global warming is that the planet's ecosystem is heating up. This is the atmosphere AND the ocean, since the ocean actually controls the atmospheric temperature. Posit any mechanism you like, if you don't affect the ocean temperature, you don't affect the climate.

CO2 doesn't absorb, it re-radiates, trapping the heat and not reflecting it back to space. The point is, how many joules of solar radiation are received by the sun, and how many are reflected back into space? That which is not reflected is absorbed, on a system scale. CO2 prevents reflection back into space, therefore the system (i.e. primarily the atmosphere and secondarily the ocean) must absorb it.

It's a cumulative effect, and my point was to demonstrate that the mechanism by which the atmospheric temperature heats the ocean is of no consequence.

Do the math backwards: How much does the ocean have to heat to heat the atmosphere by 1°C? The ratios are the same: 1/24th of a degree. The ocean is exceedingly efficient at controlling the temperature of the atmosphere. It can cause dramatic changes of atmospheric temperature without changing it's own temperature hardly at all. Anyone living close to the sea knows this. This is what drives hurricanes and typhoons. This is why Northern Europe is a fertile agricultural area instead of a sub-arctic tundra.

The single biggest factor in heat absorption by the climate system is by direct solar heating of the ocean. The ocean is a giant heat sink which dramatically affects the temperature of the air above it. As the air heats up, more water vapor is absorbed into the atmosphere, which convects up and condenses to clouds. The clouds increase the surface albedo of the planet, reducing the amount of sunlight that hits the ocean to warm it, cooling the ocean. It's a feedback loop, and the most important one in terms of regulating the climate and distributing heat around the planet. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, and the amount of water vapor is highly variable based on ocean heating. compared to this giant heat feedback mechanism, the contribution of CO2 is negligible.

In fact there's no evidence to say that CO2 is even a leading factor in climate fluctuations or a trailing one.

Climate changes. It always has. The change in solar irradiance since the Little Ice Age is 3 W/m2. The change in forcing due to CO2 is 1.5 W/m2 per doubling and since we've only had 0.43 doublings since the Little Ice Age. That means CO2 rise since the Little Ice Age has added .43 x 1.5 = 0.65 watts compared to 3 watts for the sun. That's a 5-fold difference. What is primarily driving climate warming, the sun or CO2?