Why “The Science” Settled On “Carbon”

Why “The Science” Settled On “Carbon”

The answer to the question Why “The Science” Settled On “Carbon” is easy. The Science settled on “carbon” because it’s easy.

See? Easy is the answer, as promised.

Now that I’ve had my (hilarious: you laughed, right?) joke, let me explain.

What controls the climate on earth is not easy. It is the sun, mostly, our distance from it, the angle the rays hit the earth’s curved surface, the shape of the orbit, the variable output from the hot beastie itself, and those kind of things.

Second down on the list, but still huge, is water. It’s everywhere, as ice, liquid, and ice. It both holds the sun’s heat (as it were), and spurns it. It swirls and sloshes over the surface, which itself is changing. The seas cherish then releases immense quantities of heat and moisture. Most water which finds freedom in the atmosphere precipitates again eventually.

Third thing is land. What’s on it, and where it is. The wind hits land, and land moves the wind about. The land causes the water to move thither and yon.

Fourth thing is life. The wee rascals of the sea pee out particles which turn into clouds. Planetary green stuff sucks up what some say is a pollutant—their main food—and they excrete the air we can breath. Everything else that slithers, swims, or strides brazenly changes the environment in its favor, changes which in turn affect the climate.

Last thing, likely the very last thing of any consequence, something way down on the list, is carbon dioxide.

CO2 is easy to model. All those other things are hard. So hard that scientists often use a hand-waving trick called “parameterization” for them. Parameterization means crude guess. It’s not quite as terrible as it sounds. They have had some success by tuning the knobs on the parameters to get better matches between the model and Reality.

Not enough success, but we’ll let that pass today. All we’ll say is that this trick makes models much more correlational than causal. Vast uncertainties about cause abound. Pretending otherwise leads to over-certainty.

But CO2 is easy. The models are all built around this easy device. CO2 inside models can be made to go up, or down, in whatever order you like. And the output from these models can then be pored over, and discussed.

I don’t believe climatologists realize how the culture created by CO2-over-focus has compromised their study of the atmosphere. But we can let that pass, too.

If you can stretch your mind back as much as ten years, you’ll recall Experts used to say “carbon dioxide” or “CO2”, as I did above. But that became too burdensome for them. So they shorted it to “carbon.”

They all now condemn “carbon”. Which is ludicrous. And it makes them sounds foolish. But that, of course, has never been a stumbling block for Experts.

Carbon, you see, is everywhere, and in everything. Of importance, anyway. Carbon dioxide is trivial and influences things only subtly, as above. Carbon, well, if you are against carbon, and seek to control it, then you can be against everything and seek to control everything.

That is the gift their monumental over-simplification has wrought. Saying “carbon” allows ignorant spoiled brats to land audiences at the UN and scold adults who have been taught to know only this one word.

Saying “carbon” also allows papers like this one: “A theory of carbon currency” by Qiao Liu and others in Fundamental Research (no, I never heard of it, either). Abstract in part:

We propose a new international monetary system based on carbon currency (the carbon standard) to tackle two pressing externalities in today’s global economic and political context: the dangerous and irreversible effects caused by unconstrained green-house gas emissions and the cost to the rest of the world as a result of the U.S. dollar being the dominated global currency and the U.S. Federal Reserve increasingly implementing monetary policies not aligned with the global common interest. We define carbon currency as standardized carbon-related securities backed up by the right of one unit of carbon emissions. It can be used as a new global reserve currency and functions as an international unit of account.

Who says things like “pressing externalities” anyway? Never mind.

You can see what happened. They’re not frightened of “climate change”, but they like the idea of China—all are from the Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing—moving away from the dollar. “Carbon” is the excuse because of its “irreversible” effects.

If it wasn’t for the ridiculous simplification, now the only way to discuss “climate change”, they wouldn’t be able to write this kind of paper with a straight face.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.


  1. APP

    Extra CO2 is good for agriculture (NASA has a satellite measuring greening of the earth, it’s greener now than 1998) – slight extra warmth good for civilisation in general – and doubling of CO2 leads to a linear temp change, meaning the effect of CO2 on temperature diminishes exponentially.

  2. bruce g charlton

    I remember when I first heard about climate warming in the late 1980s, from Lovelock mainly – and it was all about methane.

    Then, suddenly, it was all about CO2.

    What you say about CO2 being ‘easy’ may be one reason – but I’m pretty sure the Main reason they settled upon CO2 is that it is the molecule of Life.

    Any plan to ‘control’ CO2 therefore must be a plan to control every living thing – as well as a lot else.

    The plan to control every living thing was already in existence and well advanced among the totalitarian establishment – all that was necessary was for Them to say this plan was ‘really’ about creating a system of micro-monitoring and incentives to control ‘global’ CO2, and claim that this totalitarian plan was vital to save the planet from otherwise certain annihilation.

    Brave New World plus 1984 On Steroids – and all for our own good!

  3. They say “carbon” because they’re throwing methane on the trolley as well now. Probably anything else with carbon adjacent to it they can slap a tax on.

  4. Justin H

    The war on “carbon” is the war on life itself. We all know they have no intention of limiting THEIR OWN carbon dioxide emissions as they jet off to Davos. Rather, they have a Thanos-like vision in which they will save the planet–for themselves– by eliminating half the population and the “burden” they pose to the planet. It’s Ehrlich’s “population bomb” idea back from the dead after being debunked by pesky facts.

    What logic suggest that it’s not ok for a car to emit CO2 but it’s perfectly ok for all mammalian life to breathe it out? None that I can see. Emissions are emissions. And yet we miss the obvious parallel– our use of carbon-based fuels is as natural as the carbon-based fuel our mammalian life uses– glucose. And our internal combustion engines that oxidize carbon to produce Co2 and water are an extension of nearly identical chemistry powering all mammalian life. The beauty is the stored potential energy in the carbon bond.

    Which is why they must destroy it. The prosperity it provides is a key barrier to achieving the power they wish to have. When you can heat yourself or feed yourself without their permission, you don’t need them.

    And they are working very aggressively to end that.

  5. spudjr60

    How do I know that Global Cooling/Global Warming/Climate Change is not a real problem?
    Because the solution proposed is Socialism, i.e. more government control of all aspects of human life.

    If it were a real and serious problem, then the only solution that stood of chance of working would be to increase Universal Individual Private Property rights.

  6. jeff

    Carbon footprint has moved well beyond carbon dioxide. It’s the equivalent of “leave no trace” when hiking in the woods extended to all of life where human beings are evil.

  7. Hagfish Bagpipe

    “…a new international monetary system based on carbon…”

    Carbon? — oh no, no, no — the new international monetary system is based on the Lie. It’s the proper currency for the Empire of Lies. The Empire believes lies make the world go round, that lies can buy anything, that all power comes from lying, and that lies are the basis of all human motivation. And, since the Empire has an unlimited supply of lies — because Satan, the father of Liebucks, is their central banker — they claim the right to rule the world. Of course, they’re lying, but it’s pretty amazing how far they’ve gone and how long they’ve gotten away with it. Like with Bernie Madoff. But their ponzi, like Bernie’s, is fated to fail, leaving a wide wake of destruction.

  8. Cary Cotterman

    Another insightful essay. But please start proofreading.

  9. Hagfish Bagpipe

    The Empire just blew up the Nord Stream pipelines resulting in the worlds biggest cow fart bubbling up in the Baltic Sea. Tucker Carlson did a segment on it emphasizing the complete disconnect between the Empire’s carbon/methane/environmental doomsaying, with them as the saintly saviors of humanity, and then savagely blowing up a gas pipe spewing methane poison killing wildlife disaster provoking WWIII escalation. Might make for cog-dis in some of the Empire’s supporters.

  10. Hagfish Bagpipe

    ”But please start proofreading.”

    Mr. Cotterman, you must be new here — those aren’t typos, those are easter eggs, deposited by our host, who has a novel and amusing sense of style.

  11. darkins

    Because scientists are silicon based ai fake life.

  12. Johnno

    Speaking of methane, the USA has fired the first official open-air whatchugonnado shot of WWIII at Nord Stream 2.

    I guess the Italian elections and promises of more in Europe seeking to normalize relations with Russia for gas and cheaper living expenses really made Brandon the Buggerer and Ursula the Wicked Witch of the WEF pee themselves… So no pipeline therefore means the belligerent animals in their pens will now vote correctly given that she has taken up her tool and cracked their plumbing.

    Thankfully, nothing was flowing through it because Germany refused to certify it on the USA’s behalf and their own people’s demise, so only residual quantities left in the pipe are leaking out and polluting the sea and the air.

    Poland is very happy, because they have their own pipe set up just in time, and they have openly thanked the USA for this step, and I guess they don’t expect the Russians to ever retaliate similarly… But my guess is that Putin the Restrained will wait until after the former provinces are officially back in Russia before acting.

    Farewell everyone in Europe… The Annihilation of Nations is about to commence, and Frankie the Questionable yet still lives alongside Benedict the Partial-Abdicator.

  13. Uncle Mike

    How can you say the Empire blew up the Nords? What, with some sort of high tick sub-launched submersible? Obviously it was a Ukrainian in a rowboat chucking dynamite into the Baltic Sea.

    “Are we on the target, Bob? Well, heave them sticks overboard, and I’ll row like hell. Stroke, stroke.”

  14. arthur Foyt

    It’s quite simple:
    1) Governments now have a new revenue source and political control with “carbon taxes” and
    2) All grant money on climate research is handed out only to support co2/AGW propaganda and
    3) Party supporters (contractors) will be handed lots of Federal money for new EV development and infrastructure (while kicking a lot back into supporting those politicians).

    It was never about “the science” so much as keeping money flowing within the political clique.

  15. C-Marie

    And so, let is look to and put all dependence on God our Father, Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, and to the Holy Spirit, for their leading and guiding in all ways, for everything. Let us keep doing our part in prayer and encouragements, as God shows is to do.

    God bless, C-Marie

  16. William Wallace

    I concluded that environmentalists hate the oil industry for numerous reasons. As vehicles with internal combustion engines became more efficient, they were left with Carbon as their main exhaust components. Demonizing Carbon was the easiest way to convince people to hate the oil industry.

  17. They hate people, too. Our bodies are electrochemical fuel cells ;), after all. They also seem to be folk who hate created life, for all of it works equivalently.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *