The Truth About Global Warming Can Be Found If You Look


Read "Slaying the Sky Dragon, Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory" for a good education on global warming and climate change and how the scam got started.

Available on Amazon.com

Updated: June 13, 2024

Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it is the truth.
That is what has happened with the human caused global warming myth promoted by Al Gore and The U.N. Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC).

After reading the documents and watching the videos below, I am convinced that CO2 from human emissions or simply CO2 does NOT cause climate change or global warming.

CO2 is a colorless, tasteless and harmless gas that facilitates photosynthesis so we can live on this planet.

Don't take my word for it! Read the science for yourself, below.

Scroll down.  There is a lot here.

Climate change alarmism is not based on science. It is based on money, politics, brainwashing, groupthink, and conditioned reflex as Pavlov did with his dogs.

Note: You my want to jump to the conclusions in some papers due to complexity of math throughout.


First, lets get this straight ...

"Carbon dioxide does not cause climate change
No gas causes warming

The green movement’s climate-change scheme is based upon the false notion that carbon dioxide and other gases cause global warming. They do not.

We don’t have to guess about this. We have empirical and scientific proof.

It proves that no gas — not carbon dioxide, methane, or even humid atmospheric air — retains temperature from day to day."

This is a true scientific test because it observes actual measurements of the atmosphere. Any high school class can repeat these observations over a school year."


See the following two articles for the origins of the AGW Scare tactic.
Man made Global Warming: The Story & the Reality
By Tom Tamarkin - March 24, 2021
"One of the early purposes of climate alarmism was to stimulate the reduction of the worldwide population over an extended period, under the ultimate control of a single worldwide government.
It is predicated on the fictitious notion of man-produced climate change...
The plan was and perhaps still is to use climate change as a socially accepted reason to force the abandonment of the cheap, abundant energy produced by fossil fuel and nuclear generation.
To maintain a population of over 7.5 billion human beings requires massive amounts of food and energy.
    o Energy is the key.
    o It takes energy to raise, harvest, produce and transport food.
    o And it takes still more energy to provide for man's comfort and mobility.
Reducing the amount of available energy by a significant factor assures that sustainable conditions are only available for a similarly reduced population.
Such conditions are ripe for tyrannical socialistic control through a unified worldwide government...


The Club of Rome and Rise of “Predictive Modelling” Mafia

By Matthew Ehret on November 28, 2022.

"While much propaganda has gone into convincing the world that eugenics disappeared with the defeat of Hitler in 1945, the reality, as I discussed in my previous article The Revenge of the Malthusians and the Science of Limits, is far removed from this popular fantasy.
In that piece, I reviewed the origins of cybernetics as a new “science of control” created during World War II by a nest of followers of Lord Bertrand Russell who had one mission in mind.This mission was to shape the thinking of both the public as well as a new managerial elite class who would serve as instruments for a power they were incapable of understanding."


Could CO2 Be Convicted Of Overheating The Planet In A Criminal Court?

“​​CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another … Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so … global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”



Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
"The "human-caused global warming" hypothesis and the computer calculations that support it are in error. They have no empirical support and are invalidated by numerous observations."
Read this comprehensive analysis of global warming/climate change.  You may not need to read further.



The Cold Truth
written and directed by MARTIN DURKIN
produced by TOM NELSON

See the real science and why so many scientists promote the lie that humans cause global warming and climate change. 1hr 20min



The Elusive Greenhouse Effect
Dan Fauth, BS Civil Engineering, University of Colorado 2015

"Again, the theory of the Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect is proven to be false and impossible. ScienceBlogs refutation to the claim that the Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LOT[Law Of Thermodynamics] is thus shown to be nothing but deception or sophistry more commonly known as BS. In conclusion, the Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect is purely BS."



The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere - Ferenc Mark Miskolczi - November 2014

He concludes:
“Unfortunately the Nobel Laureate IPCC is not a scientific authority, and their claim of the consensus and the settled greenhouse science is meaningless. The quantitative results of this paper massively contradict the CO2 greenhouse effect based AGW hypothesis of IPCC.”
“In our view the greenhouse phenomenon, as it was postulated by J. Fourier (1824), estimated by S. Arrhenius (1906), first quantified by S. Manabe and R. Wetherald (1967), explained by R. Lindzen (2007), and endorsed by the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (2014), simply does not exist.”



Canadian Astrophysicist Joseph Postma explains for a better understanding of what's going on with the promotion of fraudulent stories of humans causing global warming and climate change.  He covers the subject in depth from the errors in alarmist pseudoscience to consequences and reasons for the politics of the big lie. No fancy production, just the facts.
1 hour and 10 minutes.



Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher.

Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering

"It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around"



The following statements are made based on evidence found in the articles on this page.

  • The “greenhouse effect” is solely a consequence of gravity. - Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot and Feynman - gravitational compression of the air
  • There are no experiments that show CO2 can warm the atmosphere or the earth.  However, there are experiments that show it cools the earth.
  • The geologic record shows changes in temperature always precede changes in CO2 levels.
  • Climate change is caused by solar cycles and planetary positional cycles.
  • Cloud cover on average is over about 30% of the earth at any time. Changes cause fluctuations in temperature. Clouds reflect sunlight keeping the atmosphere cooler during the day than without them and warmer at night by slowing cooling.  A desert with low moisture content, is hotter during the day and colder at night with larger temperature swings than an area with higher moisture levels in the air.

There is no climate catastrophy.  The 0.8 degree celsius rise in temperature over the past 170 years is well within normal fluctuations.  I have to ask, when has the climate not changed in the history of the earth? 

Humans have always adapted.  Today, we live in areas from northern Canada to the southern tip of South America. People adapt very well.

My opinion:

AGW is all political, promoted by the United Nations to advance a global governance and monetary redistribution system.  The Global Warming initiative is a vehicle to this end.  It is not about saving the planet.  The IPCC scientists are paid to create evidence that burning fossil fuels is heating the atmosphere.  If they are successful in convincing the governments of the world of that, they will take your freedom and tell you what you can eat, where you can go and how much money you can make.

Our government thinks they should take trillions of our dollars and give them to other countries in the name of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Due to the empirical and derived data showing cooling for the last 8,000 years and history of glacial periods, I would say that we should be preparing for the coming glacial period that will be 10º to 15º F colder than present temperatures.  I'm guessing, that will kill about 50% of the earths population.  Now, that's a real crisis!

Food for Thought:
    Why didn't the earth overheat back when CO2 was 2,000 ppm, 3,000 ppm, 6,000 ppm?  It's only 400 ppm, now.
    Why didn't high levels of CO2 prevent past ice ages?
    What caused the medieval warm period that was followed by a medieval cold period known as the little ice age?
    Why does the graph of Vostok ice core data show temperature rises before CO2 rises and falls before CO2 falls?

Certainly, we have more pressing problems on which to spend 500 billion dollars;  Like securing our borders, curing disease, housing and feeding the poor, creating job opportunities, real infrastructure, beefing up our defenses, making sure our elections are honest, planning for the next ice age(it is coming) ...

There is too much evidence that CO2 based AGW is a hoax to create fear in people and allow the government/statists to gain more control and grow the government.
The only alleged scientists supporting AGW as an existential crisis are the ones working for the IPCC.

See what causes climate change below these articles on properties of CO2

CO2 cannot do what the IPCC says it does.
One very important property of CO2 that everyone must understand is that it is a very poor absorber and emitter of infrared(IR) radiation. A little terminology here, “a black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence”-Wikipedia. The IPCC says that CO2 acts as a black body with the highest absorbancy rating of 1. That is not true as pointed out by Hoyt Hottel in 1954, Bo Leckner in 1972 and Nasif Nahle in 2011.  They calculated the absorbancy of CO2 to be 0.002, relative to a black body.  That is that it absorbs only 2/1000 of the IR striking it.  This is far too little for it to do anything to the atmosphere.
Nasif S Nahle - Fluid Dynamics, Theoretical Physics, Cosmology, Quantum Physics and Mathematical Physics, states as much in his conclusion: “Accepting that carbon dioxide is not a black body and that the potential of the carbon dioxide to absorb and emit radiant energy is negligible, I conclude that the AGW hypothesis is based on unreal magnitudes, unreal processes and unreal physics.

See his short essay at

Anthropogenic Global Warming, proposed by the IPCC, simply does not exist. The hypothesized greenhouse gas effect does not exist.  CO2 does nothing to warm the atmosphere or cause climate change. CO2 is not a source of heat.

CO2/Carbon Dioxide really acts as a coolant in the gas mix of the atmosphere.
Nasif S. Nahle explains experiments demonstrating that when combined with the other IR active gases in the atmosphere, CO2 reduces the ability of the atmosphere to absorb IR radiation. He also points out Hoyt Hottel discovered that below 33C/92F the emissivity of CO2 was almost zero. Because of the reduction in absorptivity , more radiation escapes to space thus cooling the atmosphere and the earth. It does not cause heating as the AGW alarmists say.



February 25, 2010
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory By Alan Siddons
"An idea has been drummed into our heads for decades: that roughly 1% of the atmosphere's content is responsible for shifting the earth's surface temperature from inimical to benign. This conjecture has mistakenly focused on specifically light-absorbing gases, however, ignoring heat-absorbing gases altogether. Any heated atmospheric gas radiates infrared energy back toward the earth, meaning that the dreadful power we've attributed to light-absorbing molecules up to now has been wildly exaggerated and must be radically adjusted -- indeed, pared down perhaps a hundred times. Because all gases radiate the heat they acquire, trace-gas heating theory is an untenable concept, a long-held illusion we'd be wise to abandon."



No “Greenhouse Effect” is possible from the way IPCC define it.
By John Elliston, AM, FAusIMM(CP)

"The IPCC definition of “Greenhouse Effect” in Report No. 4, 2007, is wrong and no “Greenhouse Effect” is possible from the way IPCC define it. Radiant energy reaching the Earth from the Sun is the only source of heat to maintain or vary global climate."



"In these papers, we show that carbon dioxide does not influence the atmospheric temperatures. This directly contradicts the greenhouse effect theory, which predicts that carbon dioxide should increase the temperature in the lower atmosphere (the “troposphere”), and decrease the temperature in the middle atmosphere (the “stratosphere”).
It also contradicts the man-made global warming theory, since the the basis for man-made global warming theory is that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause global warming by increasing the greenhouse effect. If the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, then man-made global warming theory doesn’t work." - Connolly


New Study: The Rising-CO2-Causes-Warming Perception Not Supported By Real-World Observation
Article by Kenneth Richard on 18. September 2023

Change in temperature causes change in CO2, not the other way.

"Clearly, the results […] suggest a (mono-directional) potentially causal system with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. Hence the common perception that increasing [CO2] causes increased T can be excluded as it violates the necessary condition for this causality direction."

Read the study here:

A “Simple Experiment on Global Warming” to debunk the Radiative Greenhouse Effect, Climate Science, and Peer ReviewPosted on 2021/11/22
by Joseph E Postma

"Carbon dioxide interacts with photons having a wavelength which falls into three, fairly narrow bands from 2.7 to 15 μm. The reaction can be best described as diffusion of these photons - not absorption as photons are emitted almost immediately with a slight Stoke’s shift. These photons are emitted in a random direction and do not transfer thermal energy to the molecule. As I discussed earlier, these photons cannot transfer thermal energy back to the surface as a general rule and will eventually find their way into space or be absorbed by water vapor or dust in the atmosphere. If absorsorption occurs in the atmosphere, then the surface has still cooled and thermal transport is away from the surface in the same manner as any heat sink." - Joseph Postma



See Astrophysicist Willie Soon interviewed by Tucker Carlson on climate and fossil fuels.  CO2 does nothing to the atmosphere and fossil fuels are not from fossils as previously believed.  Hydrocarbons are found on Saturn and other planetary bodies.  Were there dinosaurs on Saturn?

48 minutes.


"About greenhouse gases
The IPCC back-radiation mechanism cannot have an influence on the temperature of the Earth’s surface

Already in 2018, in an article in two parts (here et here), Georges Geuskens declared that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere could have no influence on the temperature of the Earth’s surface. Based on experimental data, he explained that due to inelastic collisions between the molecules of the atmosphere, the back-radiation mechanism imagined by certain climatologists did not have time to take place in the lower layers of the atmosphere and could therefore have no influence on the climate." - August 11, 2023  Roland Van den Broek - Civil Engineer


Note: The web site at the 2 links above,(here et here), are in French.  Your browser should be able to translate them to your language.


The following paper shows that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere.

Time Dependent Climate Energy Transfer: The Forgotten Legacy of Joseph Fourier
December 2023
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA

Joseph Fourier discussed the temperature of the earth in two similar memoires (reviews) in 1824 and 1827. An important and long neglected part of this work is his description of the time dependence of the surface energy transfer. In particular, he was able to explain the seasonal time delays or phase shifts between the peak solar flux and the subsurface temperature response using his theory of heat published in 1822. This is clear evidence for a non-equilibrium thermal response to the solar flux. Diurnal and seasonal phase shifts occur in both the ocean and land temperature records. These phase shifts provide important additional information about the time dependent energy transfer processes that determine the surface temperature. Unfortunately, starting with the work of Pouillet in 1836, this time dependence was neglected and replaced by an equilibrium average climate. It was assumed, incorrectly, that the surface temperature could be determined using average values for just the solar and IR flux terms. This approach created CO2 induced global warming as a mathematical artifact in the simplistic equilibrium air column model used by Arrhenius in 1896. Physical reality was abandoned in favor of mathematical simplicity. The equilibrium assumption is still the foundation of the fraudulent climate models in use today. In order to move beyond the pseudoscience of radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity to CO2 it is necessary to follow Fourier and restore the time dependence to the surface energy transfer. A change in flux produces a change in the rate of cooling (or heating) of a thermal reservoir, not a change in temperature.


"Back radiation" Cannot heat the earth as the IPCC says.
"Matter can only be heated by absorbing radiation from a hotter body
containing higher frequencies of oscillation, with higher amplitudes of oscillation at each and every frequency of oscillation. This is why Earth cannot be heated in any way by its own radiation."
Peter L Ward, U.S. Geological Survey retired
See paragraph 2 in the Conclusions ...

Backradiation cannot warm the surface of the earth as the IPCC claims.
Through a series of real time measurements of thermal radiation from the atmosphere and surface materials during nighttime and daytime, I demonstrate that warming backradiation emitted from Earth’s atmosphere back toward the earth’s surface and the idea that a cooler system can warm a warmer system are unphysical concepts. - Nasif S Nahle

Physicist Richard Feynman Discredits Greenhouse Gas Theory
Written by hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk on April 3, 2017.

Physicist Richard Feynman proved the Maxwell gravito-thermal greenhouse theory is correct & does not depend upon greenhouse gas concentrations.

The great physicist Richard Feynman adds to three other giants of physics, Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot, who have explained the “greenhouse effect” is solely a consequence of gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density, and heat capacities, and is not due to “trapped radiation” from IR-active or ‘greenhouse’ gas concentrations.


A little history from 2009 . . .

An Inconvenient Voice: Dr. Alan Carlin   Dr. Carlin is an Environmental Protection Agency veteran who recently wrote a damaging report, warning that the science behind climate change was questionable at best, and that we shouldn’t pass laws that will hurt American families and hobble the nation’s economy based on incomplete information. See also Dr Carlin's website https://carlineconomics.com/


They don't want to save the planet, they want to control it.

UN’s Top Climate Official: Goal Is To ‘Intentionally Transform the Economic Development Model’



Here's the history of how the U.N. IPCC and their science became corrupted:



Timothy Casey B.Sc (Hons.) documents the errors in the hypothesis of the “Greenhouse Effect” starting with mistakes of Arrhenius in 1896 and through physics shows that CO2 effectively does nothing to warm the atmosphere.



Climate Change Reality Review for City State and National Leaders
Updated on May 11, 2019 by Robert Kernodle, Independent Researcher
A pragmatic view on climate change that all should read.

Joseph E Postma, M.Sc. Astrophysics, explains what's wrong with the IPCC assessment of the climate.    You could just read his latest book "The Layman's Guide to the Greatest Scientific Fraud in History".
See his website

Be sure to read parts 1 through 5.  Get to the next post at the top of the page

and a real explanation of how solar radiation impacts earth



Doug Cotton explains what's wrong with the IPCC science and what really causes atmospheric warming and cooling.  Hint: It's the yellow ball in the sky.  Read all the linked pages for a complete understanding.


CONNOLLY & CONNOLLY, SEP 2019:  "If this simple extrapolation is applied, then the models will no longer imply that the atmospheric temperature profiles are driven by the greenhouse gas concentrations. This is because they will be using Einstein’s laws (or Kirchoff’s law) for thermodynamic equilibrium conditions instead of Schwarzchild’s equation for non-thermodynamic equilibrium."



There is no climate emergency, say over 1600 scientists.
See their message to the public.

A study of empirical atmospherical radiosonde data over a period of 61 years from 1948 to 2008 states "The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming". --Ferenc M. Miskolczi 2010


"The Greenhouse Theory argument should have ended the minute the emissivity of carbon dioxide was determined. It indicates clearly that C02's ability to absorb and transmit infrared heat waves is so negligible that it can be considered to be a big zero."
Clifford A. Dunlop BScAg., MSc.

"it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas"
Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity
Robert Ian Holmes, Science & Engineering Faculty, Federation University, Mt Helen, Ballarat, Australia

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
"A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse effect. There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods, flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand, continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical statistics. In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science." --Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf D. Tscheuschner 2009

A Compilation of the Arguments that Irrefutably Prove that Climate Change is
driven by Solar Activity and not by CO2 Emission

The length of day changes over a period of about 40-50 years as a effect of galactic vacuum density waves affecting the core of the sun.

See the following two articles for the origins and original reason for the start of Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda scare.
Man made Global Warming: The Story & the Reality
By Tom Tamarkin - March 24, 2021

This kind of analyses shows a strange “multiplication” of the heat transferred from the surface to the atmosphere and from the atmosphere to the surface which is unexplainable from a scientific viewpoint. The authors of those diagrams adduce that such increase of energy in the atmosphere obeys to a “recycling” of the heat coming from the surface by the atmosphere as if the atmosphere-surface were a furnace or a thermos and the heat was a substance.Such “recycling” of heat by the atmosphere does not occur ..."


Law of thermodynamics says a cold object cannot heat a warm object.

Absorption and re-emission process

When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon it changes to a vibrational mode for the three atoms making up the molecule. This mode depends on the energy of the photon absorbed which must be in one of a limited number of energy levels due to there being a limited number of geometrical vibrational modes available.

On return of an energised molecule to its ground state, it may emit a photon of the original absorbed wavelength (energy) in an arbitrary direction. Otherwise the energised molecule may collide with another atmospheric molecule causing it to emit radiation at a longer wavelength, lesser energy, than that absorbed with the balance of the energy becoming kinetic energy of motion of the pair of colliding molecules or no radiation, merely a transfer of state to kinetic energy.

In every case the total energy involved does not change. There is no additional energy created by the action so there is no heating generated by the CO2 molecule. Any change of kinetic energy becomes part of the normal convective process of cooling the Earth’s surface.

The laws of thermodynamics mandate that heat cannot flow from cold to hot so the return of some radiation back towards the Earth cannot cause surface heating as it is only a fraction of the energy being emitted from the surface. It is not heat from a hotter source so there is no surface heating as proposed by the Greenhouse Effect."

 "All glacial periods start with high levels(300ppmv) of CO2.  If CO2 causes warming, why did the temperatures drop so as to cause glaciers to cover the northern continents?  CO2 took 5 or 6 thousand years to drop after each glacial period started.  It almost dropped to a level too low to sustain photosynthesis, which would have ended all life on earth."

Listen to Dr Ian Plimer, Geologist, speak on the earths climate.  He is one of the smartest guys I've read on the topic.  Geology cannot be ignored in discussion of the climate.  Sun cycles and earth orbit cycles cause climate change and water regulates the maximum and minimum temperature.

He gives several talks on the subject. Search for Ian Plimer on youtube.com

A well thought out hypothesis based on observation as to why CO2 cannot affect equilbrium temperature of the atmosphere
    -- Stephen Wilde
  "Instead of transferring more energy from Solar Diabatic Loop (SDL) to Atmospheric Adiabatic Loop (AAL) the effect of changes in the proportion of radiatively active gases would simply be to adjust the speed of the AAL by changing the height within the vertical column at which Kinetic Energy = Potential Energy.
  So, on those grounds, more GHGs could not affect equilibrium temperature because they provoke an equal and opposite system response to any effect they might have on the transfer of energy through the planetary system.
  That is why established science does not list the radiative features of constituent gases as one of the factors that influence the equilibrium temperature of planets with atmospheres."
Stephen Wilde explains in laymens terms on his website ...


 CO2 cannot do what the IPCC says it does.  This research shows that CO2 has virtually no affect on the climate temperature.  Climate change is driving CO2, not the other way around. 

The following chart shows lack of correlation of temperature with CO2.

"At these present CO2 levels, even substantial CO2 mitigation at enormous cost will also have minimal cooling impact & not worth even contemplating.  These very important facts are little known in the wider community and the fear and panic being generated is completely unfounded. " --Dr Robert Fagan



"This analysis has shown that the greenhouse effect arising from the dominant long wavelength CO2 absorption band emanating from the Earth’s surface at 288.5 degrees K cannot cause warming of the surface."

Global warming depends on the thermal emission from the earth surface. It is
practically not affected by the change of the CO2 concentration.


Davis, W.J. 2017. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature for the last 425 million years. Climate 5: 76; doi: 10.3390/cli5040076.
Writing by way of introduction to his work, Davis (2017) notes that "a central question for contemporary climate policy is how much of the observed global warming is attributable to the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 and other trace greenhouse gases emitted by human activities."
"the most accurate quantitative empirical evaluation to date of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature."
As noted by the author, the most striking observation from the visual comparison is the "apparent dissociation and even an antiphasic relationship" among the two variables.

500 Million Years of Unrelatedness between Atmospheric CO2 and Temperature
Get the Unrelatedness research paper

"The CO2 hypothesis forecasts the global temperature to increase whenever the atmospheric CO2 concentration goes up, if not counteracted by any other known climatic phenomena, such as, e.g., volcanic eruptions. Whenever a situation like the present occurs, with increasing atmospheric CO2 and essentially stable (or decreasing) global temperatures over several years without known counter effect, the hypothesis is falsified." -


See the homepage as well.

Then, there's outright fraud

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.

The stunning statistical fraud behind the global warming scare

What about ocean acidification?
"In conclusion, claims of impending marine species extinctions driven by increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration do not appear to be founded in empirical reality, based on the experimental findings we have analyzed above."

Facts about Climate from the Heartland Institute

The Climate Crisis is Over

Climate alarmism does not exemplify the honest pursuit of science.  Pseudo-scientific evidence or arguments, undisclosed or falsified data, are lodged within an enveloping political narrative and best understood in this fuller context.  The surest way to understand climate alarmism is as self-interested politics. 

The Real News about Climate: CO2 Is No Threat

When the oceans warm they release CO2 into the atmosphere.  That's where it's been coming from.  The warming is from solar radiation, that's all.

NASA data in a 1992 report on earth's IR radiation showed no radiation in the frequency that CO2 can absorb, 14-16 micron wave length, being emitted from the earth.  That indicates that there is no more to be absorbed making it impossible for more CO2 to cause warming.  See charts on the left.

See the NASA report by Steven D. Lord 1992, 194 pages on the NASA website.
Scroll down and click on the link titled 19930010877.pdf  to get the report file.
See the graphs on pages 114-115 of the pdf file, also to the left.
Notice the flat line at the bottom.  No emission in that wave length.

Humans did not create all the additional CO2 since 1780.  Most is natural.
"Far too many people, including scientists, incorrectly assume the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is correct about climate change. They incorrectly think undesirable climate events prove our CO2 caused these events, which is not only nonsense but also logically invalid because events do not prove their cause."

According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

Vostok ice core data show that temperature rises before CO2, so CO2 cannot be causing rising temperature.

This post compiles several independent proofs which refute those reasserting the “consensus” view attributing all additional atmospheric CO2 to humans burning fossil fuels.

By the Numbers: CO2 Mostly Natural

Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

"CO2, water, and CH4 (methane) and some other minor gases are so-called “greenhouse gases” because they absorb infrared energy.  However, be careful to avoid the common misunderstanding that the earth and its atmosphere behave like a garden greenhouse; that is not true.

... the sun heats the earth, then the earth heats the atmosphere.  The atmosphere is not heating the earth.  According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy only flows from higher energy earth to the lower energy atmosphere.  Earth (oceans and land) heat the air, not the reverse.

This is NOT to say that humans do not affect temperature and climate in other ways, such as building cities, roads, planting or cutting forests and fields, etc.  This IS to say that AGW, the hypothesis of human-caused global warming by the contribution of a mere 0.004% of the total CO2 emissions, is scientifically wrong. The human contribution to global warming is statistically insignificant, so tiny it is unmeasurable in the real world; the hypothesis of human-caused global warming/climate change has been falsified by real world observations and experiments."  Select the following link to read the whole article:

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming

Mainstream climate science claims CO2 molecules “slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface” like a blanket does. And yet the rate at which a CO2 molecule retains or slows down heat loss is, at most, a negligible 0.0001 of a second. A CO2 concentration of 300 ppm versus 400 ppm will therefore have no detectable impact.

Physicist: CO2 Molecules Retain Heat Just 0.0001 Of A Second, Thus CO2-Driven Warming ‘Not Possible’


Climate change is caused by solar cycles and planetary positional cycles that warm or cool the oceans and land surface which in turn govern our local and global temperatures.

See the graphs in the next article.

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.


"the Sun’s activity in screening cosmic rays affects clouds and, ultimately, the Earth’s energy budget with concomitant climatic effects."






"solar cycle and the cold periods were linked"



A solar maximum with a stronger magnetic field blocks more cosmic particles that help in low warm cloud formation, thus reducing those clouds that block the sun allowing more sunlight through to heat the oceans.  The reverse happens during a solar minimum creating more low warm clouds that block sunlight cooling the oceans.  Because it takes a long time to heat or cool the oceans due to there massive volume, there is a lag of some time period after more or fewer clouds are forming for the atmosphere to warm up or cool down.
Combine solar minimums with Milankovich cycles and you may have the conditions to kick off another glacial period.  Glaciers are formed of lots of unmelted snow.  To get that snow, the oceans had to be warm enough for evaporation to create clouds that precipitate as snow.
As the oceans cover 71% of the earth, they most likely are the main factor in heating or cooling the atmosphere.
A warm ocean heats the atmosphere via evaporation and conduction, a cool ocean just doesn't heat it as much.
At the same time the warmer tropical ocean emits CO2, very possibly, more than is absorbed by cooler oceans during a warm period like our modern one.
So CO2 concentration rises with warmer ocean comprising a larger area than cooler oceans.

The recent 40 year grand solar maximum has just ended in 2018 according to NASA and others that watch solar events.  The oceans are warmer now, so there will be a time lag before cooling is felt.

Next is very plausibly a cause of "Climate Change", There is a lot of evidence presented.

"The resulting mantle displacement is central to this model and explains how this mechanism is responsible for the planet's variable climate change history ..."
"The evidence shown in this model suggests that the observed increase in ocean warming that has been widely attributed to anthropological atmospheric CO2, is actually due to a strain energy response from the slow and periodic displacement of the mantle which began with a gradual increase in activity just prior to the generally accepted end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. These sporadic pulses of thermal content moved gradually from the crust/mantle boundary into the deep ocean where it was then transported through PDO, ENSO and AMOC circulations to the surface where it then warmed the atmosphere. "
Plate Tectonics: a history of a changing climate through geologic forcing

Variations in solar irradiance are widely believed to explain climatic change on 20,000- to 100,000-year time-scales in accordance with the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, but there is no conclusive evidence that variable irradiance can be the cause of abrupt fluctuations in climate on time-scales as short as 1,000 years. We propose that such abrupt millennial changes, seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon.

The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change


What to expect in a Grand Solar Minimum. How does an increase in galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate and also tectonic activity?


"Our experimental results show that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere is completely independent of greenhouse gas concentrations. This directly contradicts the greenhouse effect theory, which predicts that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations should cause the lower atmosphere to heat up (“global warming”)."

The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere

During at least the time period when water vapor (WV) and carbon dioxide (CO2) have been accurately measured worldwide, 1988-now, and apparently for centuries, WV increase has been responsible for the human contribution to Global Warming with no significant net contribution from CO2 or any other greenhouse gases.

Water Vapor vs CO2 for Planet Warming

It seems like every day, reports of climate change become more apocalyptic. Few politicians express any doubt in the notion that human activity is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. Indeed, quite the opposite is the norm.

Why I Don't Fear Climate Change And You Shouldn't Either

A new paper has been published recently in the journal “Environment Pollution and Climate Change,” was written by Ned Nikolov, a Ph.D. in physical science, and Karl Zeller, retired Ph.D. research meteorologist. The paper argues that the basic science behind Global Warming is incorrect.

Many people mistakenly assume that 90-95% of scientists agree that recent climate change is “mostly human-caused”. The reality is that there is a wide range of views among the scientific community about the causes of recent climate change.

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming.This website  describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution. - Dr. Roy W. Spencer

"Explore our extensive library of facts and detailed data to empower yourself with knowledge, educate friends and family, and join us in our love for CO2."
Lots of facts about CO2 and the climate

"Extreme variations in local weather and the seasons make it easy for people to mutter “greenhouse effect”, and blame everything on carbon dioxide. Along with other man-made gases, such as methane, carbon dioxide has received a bad press for many years and is uniformly cited as the major cause of the greenhouse effect. This is simply not correct."

The climatic effects of water vapour – Physics World

"Scientists are increasingly tuning out the claims that the Earth’s temperatures are predominantly shaped by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or that future climate is destined to be alarmingly warm primarily due to the rise in trace atmospheric gases.  Instead, solar scientists are continuing to advance our understanding of solar activity and its effect on the Earth system, and their results are progressively suggestive of robust correlations between solar variability and climate changes."


It was a money making scheme first:


CO2 heats the atmosphere…a counter view

"The main point is that every time you hear or read that “CO2 heats the atmosphere” , that “energy is trapped by CO2” , that “energy is stored by green house gases” and similar statements , you may be sure that this source is not to be trusted for information about radiation questions ."


More CO2 Will Have Little To No Impact On Global Warming

Gary Novak, Evolution Physiologist, Independent Scientist
On Science and the Climate
Complete refutation of AGW.

"What this website is about is the methodology of science, not the opinions of scientists. All real science is a methodology, not an opinion. The most significant methodology of science is mathematics. So the starting point of this criticism is mathematics which proves errors in physics."

"One molecule in 2,500 in the atmosphere is never going to have the slightest influence over climate."


News article:  https://climatechangedispatch.com/physics-prof-concludes-doubling-co2-adds-just-0-5c-cannot-affect-climate/
The paper from the above news article:
 "Saturation of infrared radiation by the realistic CO2 content of the atmosphere of 0.03 % being reached within approximately 1% according to Table 1, any further increase of the CO2 content does not substantially increase the absorption of radiation, and accordingly does not affect the climate on earth."
Articles referenced by the above article:
Challenging the Greenhouse Effect Specification
and the Climate Sensitivity of the IPCC


The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'

Some facts about greenhouse and global warming
Unfortunately there's a lot of rubbish available on the 'net giving rather misleading descriptions of Earth's natural 'greenhouse effect' and of the probable consequences of human-generated emissions adding to this effect.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide And Climate



A Simple Alternative Model for the Estimation of the Carbon Dioxide Effect on the Earth's Energy Balance

Within the approximations used in the model, a doubling the CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere would lead to an increase of the surface temperature by about +0.5 to 0.7 °C, hardly an effect calling for immediate drastic changes in the planet's energy policies.

Anthropogenic CO2 warming challenged by 60-year cycle "focus on earth greening and benefit for crops yields of the supplementary photosynthesis, further minimizing the consequences of the tiny anthropogenic contribution to warming."


The slight warming is no crisis ...

What your congressional representatives need to know before authorizing hundreds of billions of tax dollars to be spent on the myth of Anthropogenic Climate Change ...

Dissenting voices are important in the debate ...

There is no climate crisis.  In fact, more CO2 will be beneficial.
William Happer, Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University on CO2

"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today. "

"The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
- https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Academia is filled with scientific literature that contradicts the position of those who believe climate change is unprecedented. In 2020 alone, over 400 peer-reviewed scientific papers took up a skeptical position on climate alarmism. These papers—and hundreds from previous years—address various issues related to climate change, including problems with climate change observation, climate reconstructions, lack of anthropogenic/CO2 signal in sea-level rise, natural mechanisms that drive climate change (solar influence on climate, ocean circulations, cloud climate influence, ice sheet melting in high geothermal heat flux areas), hydrological trends that do not follow modeled expectations, the fact that corals thrive in warm, high-CO2 environments, elevated CO2 and higher crop yields, no increasing trends in intense hurricanes and drought frequency, the myth of mass extinctions due to global cooling, etc.

The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees.
Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.
This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic warming of the climate in coming years.
The one-sided political treatment of CO2 as a pollutant that should be radically reduced must be corrected in light of the indisputable scientific evidence that it is essential to life on Earth.
Without CO2, we die.


There is no consensus on climate change, but that it does change. The problem with the research is that to get government grants to support themselves, researchers find the politically popular result. They tune their climate models to show that result. "Consensus for GHGT is very small, limited to UN IPCC and a few governments."

9,000+ PHD credentialed scientists signed a petition stating that Anthropogenic Global Warming was false. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

"The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC."  Read the petition ...


Well respected Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy says global temperatures would have still risen without the industrial revolution – essentially dismissing the claim that man is responsible for climate change.

- https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/845901/climate-change-natural-global-warming-evidence-jennifer-marohasy

Historic average temperatures have ranged from 85º F to 50º F over the past 600 million years. Presently 59º F. We are coming out of a cold period, so it is natural for temperatures to rise. 175M years ago when CO2 was about 2000 ppm, it was a nice 77ºF, 10ºC warmer than today, where it had been for most of the past 600M years with CO2 as high as 7000 ppm.
- C.R. Scotese https://climateilluminated.com/history/climate_history.html

CO2 is not the driver of temperature. Cycles of the planets and solar output cause climate change. Warming will continue until about 2050, then start to turn cooler.  By 2400 the next Little-Ice-Age will be upon us. It is shown that this 934 year cycle matches warm and cold periods.
- P.A. Semi -
http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf pg48

CO2 levels follow temperature change. CO2 has been up when Temperatures were down, but charts of Vostok ice core data show that it follows temperature change for the last 450k years.  Temperature goes up then CO2 follows.  Temperature goes down then CO2 follows.  Question: If high levels of CO2 in the past were not able to prevent the cooling going into a glacial period, how could it be responsible for warming the atmosphere?
- http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

The more CO2 there is the less the warming impact it has(IPCC formula courtesy Monckton 2017). It could be doubled with very little effect on temperature. In the past, CO2 has been as much as 20 times today's level. Plants will grow much faster (more food for everyone). The optimal amount of CO2 for plants is 1500 ppm. Note that if CO2 levels drop below 150ppm, plants will cease to grow and so will all animal life on earth.

"AGW hypothesis: Carbon dioxide, a weak greenhouse gas, begins warming the planet. This warming evaporates water and so puts water vapor into the atmosphere which amplifies the warming effect. This is called a positive feedback."

"At first look, this proposition seems logical and reasonable. But other properties of water vapor reduce temperatures and the net effect is a strong negative feedback. A positive feedback tends to destabilize a system, whereas, a negative feedback tends to keep a system in check. Just think for a minute, if water vapor had a net positive feedback effect, this planet would have had run-away global warming long ago. That alone should falsify the positive feedback hypothesis."

When the surface warms, the water cycle cools it. The water cycle cools the surface much like an air conditioner cools your house. Water absorbs heat from the surface and is then converted to vapor which rises to an elevation where it condenses in to droplets forming clouds and releasing that heat to the upper atmosphere. Most of this heat is radiated out to space, not back to Earth. Rain then begins the cycle again. The more water vapor in the air, the more cooling occurs with the water cycle, so there is no runaway heating.  According to Greenhouse Gas Theory, the tropics should be burning up because of the high amounts of water vapor, but they're not. The temperatures there are no worse than Washington DC in the summer, about 90º F.  That's because of the cooling effect of water vapor.
- https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC7202867,
- https://sciencing.com/evaporation-cause-cooling-5315235.html

The warmer it is, the more plants and animals thrive. Cold kills far more than heat. Crops fail and life dies during cold periods. See "little ice age of the middle ages". Climatologists call warm periods "climate optimums" because life thrives during them.

Read the latest report from The Global Warming Policy Foundation:https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/02/Goklany-EmpiricalTrends.pdf

From the report, page 32:
"10. Conclusion
While climate may have changed for the warmer:
• Most extreme weather phenomena have not become more extreme, more deadly, or more destructive.
• Empirical evidence directly contradicts claims that increased carbon dioxide has reduced human wellbeing. In fact, human wellbeing has never been higher.
• Whatever detrimental effects warming and higher carbon dioxide may have had on terrestrial species and ecosystems, they have been swamped by the contribution of fossil fuels to increased biological productivity. This has halted, and turned around, reductions in habitat loss."