Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
When the Australian government set up a “Senate select committee to investigate misinformation and disinformation in climate science and energy”, I didn’t find out until a few hours before the deadline for submissions from the general public. Things were made a little more complicated by the fact that I was travelling overseas at the time, with only a mobile phone to prepare a submission on.
When the Australian government set up a “Senate select committee to investigate misinformation and disinformation in climate science and energy”, I didn’t find out until a few hours before the deadline for submissions from the general public. Things were made a little more complicated by the fact that I was travelling overseas at the time, with only a mobile phone to prepare a submission on.
It was a reasonable assumption that the government was not going to let any submission from the public sway them away from their position that anything that even questioned climate “science” was just misinformation or disinformation. So in a sense, sending in a submission was a waste of effort. On the other hand, if they didn’t receive submissions that challenged their position, then they would obviously claim that they were justified when they subsequently brought in legislation banning climate “misinformation” – which surely is their objective (or something like that). I therefore felt that it was important that I send in a submission, and hopefully many others have too.
The submission had to refer to a specific clause or clauses in the terms of reference, but apart from that there were few restrictions.
I have now been advised that my submission has been received, but goodness knows whether anyone in government will actually read it. Anyway, this is it:
– – –
I refer to The Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, and specifically to the terms of reference item (a) the prevalence of [] misinformation and disinformation related to climate change [];
My name is Michael Jonas, I live at Exeter, NSW, my qualification is an MA in Mathematics at Oxford University UK, and I have spent much time over the last few decades investigating climate science from a mathematical perspective. Please note that this is very relevant because (i) climate models are a mathematical construct, and (ii) science is founded on mathematics (it is a well-known maxim in science that if the maths is wrong then the science is wrong).
I have particular expertise and interest in computer modelling, having been involved in the design and development of computer models before the IPCC was created.
My main points:
– Scepticism based on maths or science is routinely dismissed as misinformation. – This avoids scrutiny where scrutiny is needed. – Everything should be treated on its merits in open and free discussion.
Misinformation
Scepticism about climate change is routinely classlfied as misinformation by those who promote the mainstream position on climate change. This very conveniently gets them out of having to justify their position in an open and free discussion. The foundations of their position are shaky (see below) and would be exposed in an open discussion. As the US Supreme Court judge, Louis Brandeis, said about exactly this kind of situation in 1913, “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”.
The simple fact is that a lot of the misinformation about climate change comes from its proponents.
Climate models
As I said above, these are a mathematical construct, so are within my area of expertise. I have examined aspects of the climate models and have documented in a published paper how they are mathematically invalid – their structure is the structure used in the short term calculations of weather models, but mathematically this structure cannot work for the climate. A totally different structure is needed for the longer term nature of climate. The paper is titled “General circulation models cannot predict climate” and is accessible at
This study draws on Chaos Theory to investigate the ability of a General Circulation Model to predict climate. The conclusion is that a General Circulation Model’s grid-level physical processes and parameterisations cannot predict climate beyond maybe a few weeks. [] The longer the timescale is, the less relevant the grid-level physical processes and parameterisations in a General Circulation Model become. [] A General Circulation Model calculates weather at each time step and this is then amalgamated into a final prediction of climate. This process is back to front. A realistic long term climate model would calculate climate and then weather would be deduced from the climate.
Clouds
Another area that I investigated was the overall behaviour of clouds. The question that I asked myself was: in which part of climate physics are the climate models most likely to be most wrong? The answer was in the behaviour of clouds. Mathematical analysis of the data showed that cloud behaviour was not dependent on CO2, whereas the IPCC reports and the climate models that they are based on all showed cloud behaviour being dependent on CO2. This makes an enormous difference to the models’ outcomes, because about half of all the models’ predicted warming comes from clouds and is attributed to CO2. If instead, as I found, cloud behaviour is independent of CO2, then the predicted warming from CO2 is halved and becomes quite benign. Nothing to worry about at all
My paper is titled “Clouds independently appear to have as much or greater effect than man-made CO2 on radiative forcing”. It is accessible at
The patterns of behaviour of clouds, both for cloud area and cloud optical thickness, are studied over the period of available data, 1983 to 2017. There was a decrease in cloud cover over the study period, while global surface temperatures increased. The patterns of clouds and temperature indicate that the cloud cover decrease could not have been caused by the increased surface temperature. [] The climate models, which have zero or negative cloud impact on radiative forcing independently from CO2, need to take this into account in order to avoid over-estimating the influence of CO2.
Summary
I find it quite distressing that ideas stemming from genuine mathematical and scientific analyses that cast doubt on the mainstream climate message are routinely dismissed as misinformation, when much of the mainstream climate message could itself quite reasonably be classified as misinformation.
What we need to do to rectify the situation is to stop using the term “misinformation” and instead to have an open and free discussion about all aspects of the climate.
If we can do this, I am confident that we will find that climate change is far less of a threat than it is thought to be, and is actually quite benign.
The headline states “Climate change is turbo-charging Somalia’s problems”, and the article goes on to claim that “In 2022 the country experienced its worst drought for 40 years – an event scientists estimate was made 100 times more likely by human-caused climate change.” The claim about droughts is false and absurd. According to the official World Bank Climate Portal data, the 2022 drought was not unusually severe, and many previous droughts in the 20thC were much worse. The data can be see here: https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/somalia/climate-data-historical And the annual rainfall graph is here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/09/22/75480/ Far from droughts getting worse in Somalia, rainfall trends have been increasing since the 1980s due to global warming. In particular the catastrophic droughts of the 1970s and 80s were part of the Great Sahel drought, which killed 100,000s in sub Saharan Africa. Scientists at the time found that the drought was the result of global cooling. For instance, NOAA published an article in 1974 “Climate: Key to the World’s Food Supply”, which stated: “In the Sahelian zone of Africa …. are enduring a drought that in some areas has been going on for more than six years now, following 40 years of abundant monsoon rainfall. And the drought is spreading into Ethiopia and Somalia. Many climatologists have associated this drought with a global cooling trend.” http://web.archive.org/web/20171006183045/http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/journals/noaa/QC851U461974oct.pdf#page=5 A proper climate journalist would have been aware of this, unlike Rowlatt who is merely an activist with no climate qualifications whatsoever. His claim that the drought was 100 times more likely due to climate change is based on worthless computer modelling, which clearly disproved by the actual data that Rowlatt should have reported instead
You claim: “But it is “likely” that a higher proportion of tropical cyclones across the globe are reaching category three or above, meaning they reach the highest wind speeds, according to the UN’s climate body, the IPCC” But this is what the IPCC actually say: “There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency- or intensity-based metrics” They do go on to say “It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances and the frequency of rapid intensification events have increased globally over the past 40 years.” However, NOAA clearly state that such short-term trends are meaningless: “A number of measures of Atlantic hurricane activity have increased since 1980, but in the of case of metrics where much longer records are available, trends since 1980 are not representative of longer (e.g., century-scale) trends. “ NOAA also say: “There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for changing observing capabilities over time), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.” https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ Your report also includes a grossly misleading chart, labelled “Major Atlantic hurricanes over last century”. This shows a large rise in the number in recent years. However, this increase is due to the fact that satellites can now spot these hurricanes in mid-ocean. In years prior to the 1990s, many major hurricanes occurred but were never actually spotted. It is also a fact that until recent years hurricane hunter aircraft were unable to enter the strongest hurricanes as they were not robust or powerful enough. Again, therefore meteorologists in those days were unable to measure wind speeds.
You claim climate change has brought extreme weather from hurricanes to month-long droughts. You then list a few random weather events but fail to provide evidence that these are anything other than natural events. Nor that such events have been getting more frequent or extreme over time. The report highlights typhoons, stating climate change may be increasing intensity. Yet last year the number of global Tropical Cyclones and the strongest ones were both below average. Nor does the official data show them becoming more powerful over time. (Fig 1). There is a section on heatwaves in Asia, which again fails to offer evidence they were in any way unusual. There is a reference to a heatwave in Delhi last May & June, yet the official temperature record from the Indian Met Office for those months last year shows temperatures were not unusually high there. (Fig 2) Another section of your report addresses the drought in the Amazon, but the World Bank Climate Portal states that rainfall there has increased by 5% in the last 30 years: (Fig 3) https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country-profiles Whatever the cause of last year’s drought, it is not part of any longer-term trend and therefore cannot be “climate-related”. Finally, you highlight floods in Nigeria, Chad and Sudan. It is true the climate in these countries is now wetter than 40 years ago, but the 1970s and 80s marked the Great Sahel Drought across this swathe of Africa. Since then, rainfall has returned to levels seen before 1970. The wetter climate has nothing to do with global warming, as implied. (Fig 4) Throughout your report, you base your claims on Weather Attribution Models. However, computer models are not evidence of anything and can be manipulated to provide whatever results are desired. That is why they are widely derided by the wider scientific community. The Figures referenced are here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/01/02/bbc-extreme-weather-complaint/
I have contacted the ECU to ask why these complaints have not been dealt with.
When I had the same problem last year, they apologised and said they had a backlog because some of their staff were working at home!
I suspect the real reason is that they cannot disprove my complaints.
The UK Net Zero by 2050 Policy was undemocratically adopted by the UK government in 2019. Yet the science of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ is well known and there is no reason to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or nitrous oxide (N2O) because absorption of radiation is logarithmic. Adding to or removing these naturally occurring gases from the atmosphere will make little difference to the temperature or the climate. Water vapor (H2O) is claimed to be a much stronger ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2, CH4 or N2O but cannot be regulated because it occurs naturally in vast quantities.
The UK Net Zero by 2050 Policy was undemocratically adopted by the UK government in 2019. Yet the science of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ is well known and there is no reason to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or nitrous oxide (N2O) because absorption of radiation is logarithmic. Adding to or removing these naturally occurring gases from the atmosphere will make little difference to the temperature or the climate. Water vapor (H2O) is claimed to be a much stronger ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2, CH4 or N2O but cannot be regulated because it occurs naturally in vast quantities.
This work explores the established science and recent developments in scientific knowledge around Net Zero with a view to making a rational recommendation for policy makers. There is little scientific evidence to support the case for Net Zero and that greenhouse gases are unlikely to contribute to a ‘climate emergency’ at current or any likely future higher concentrations. There is a case against the adoption of Net Zero given the enormous costs associated with implementing the policy, and the fact it is unlikely to achieve reductions in average near surface global air temperature, regardless of whether Net Zero is fully implemented and adopted worldwide. Therefore, Net Zero does not pass the cost-benefit test. The recommended policy is to abandon Net Zero and do nothing about so-called ‘greenhouse gases’. [Topics are shown below with excerpted contents.]
1. Introduction
The argument for Net Zero is that the concentration of CO2 in air is increasing, some small portion of which may be due to human activities and that Net Zero will address this supposed ‘problem’. The underpinning consensus hypothesis is that the human emission of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ will increase concentrations of these gases in the atmosphereand thereby increase the global near surface atmospheric temperature by absorbance of infrared radiation leading to catastrophic changes in the weather. This leads to the idea that global temperatures should be limited to 2°C and preferably 1.5°C to avoid catastrophic climate change (Paris Climate Agreement, 2015).
A further hypothesis is that there are tipping points in the climate system which will result in positive feedback and a runaway heating of the planet’s atmosphere may occur (Schellnhuber & Turner, 2009; Washington et al., 2009; Levermann et al., 2009; Notz & Schellnhuber, 2009; Lenton et al., 2008; Dakos et al., 2009; Archer et al., 2009). Some of these tipping point assumptions are built into faulty climate models, the outputs of which are interpreted as facts or evidence by activists and politicians. However, output from computer models is not data, evidence or fact and is controversial (Jaworowski, 2007; Bastardi, 2018; Innis, 2008: p.30; Smith, 2021; Nieboer, 2021; Craig, 2021). Only empirical scientifically established facts should be considered so that cause and effect are clear.
From the point of view of physics, the atmosphere is an almost perfect example of a stable system (Coe, et al., 2021). The climate operates with negative feedback (Le Chatelier’s Principle) as do most natural systems with many degrees of freedom (Kärner, 2007; Lindzen et al., 2001 & 2022). The ocean acts as a heat sink, effectively controlling the air temperature. Recent global average surface temperatures remain relatively stable (Easterbrook, 2016; Moran, 2015; Morano, 2021; Marohasy, 2017; Ridley, 2010) or warming very slightly from other causes (Sangster, 2018) and the increase in temperature from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0°K (Frank, 2010; Statistics Norway, 2023) and is less than predicted by climate models (Fyfe, 2013). This shows the difference between the consensus view and established facts.
The results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2. Dagsvik et al. 2024
The IPCC has produced six major assessment reports (AR1 to 6) and several special reports which report on a great deal of good science (Noting that the IPCC does not do any science itself but merely compiles literature reviews). The Summaries for Policy Makers (SPM) are followed by most politicians. Yet the SPM do not agree in large part with the scientific assessment by the IPCC reports and appear to exaggerate the role of CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gases’ in climate change. It appears that the SPM is written by governments and activists before the scientific assessment is reached which is a questionable practice (Ball 2011, 2014 and 2016; Smith 2021).
Other organizations have produced reports of a similar nature and using a similar literature (e.g. Science and Public Policy Institute; The Heartland Institute; The Centre for the Study of CO2; CO2 Science; Global Warming Policy Foundation; Net Zero Watch; The Fraser Institute; CO2 Coalition) and arrived at completely different conclusions to the IPCC and the SPM (Idso et al., 2013a; Idso et al., 2013b; Idso et al., 2014; Idso et al., 2015a, 2015b; Happer, et al., 2022). There are also some web pages (e.g. Popular Technology) which list over a thousand mainstream journal papers casting doubt on the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as a source of climate change. For example, a recent report by the CO2 Coalition (2023) states clearly Net Zero regulations and actions are scientifically invalid because they:
“Fabricate data or omit data that contradict their conclusions.
Rely on computer models that do not work.
Rely on findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are government opinions, not science.
Omit the extraordinary social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels.
Omit the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 emissions to Net Zero.
Reject the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.
Net Zero, then, violates the tenets of the scientific method that for more than 300 years has underpinned the advancement of western civilization.” (CO2 Coalition, 2023; p. 1)
With such a strong scientific conviction the entire Net Zero agenda needs investigating. This paper reviews some of the important science which supports and undermines the Net Zero agenda.
2. Material Studied
A literature review was carried out on various topics related to greenhouse gases, climate change and the relevant scientific literature from the last 20 years in the areas of physics, chemistry, biology, paleoclimatology, geology etc. The method used was an evidence-based approach where several issues were critically evaluated based on fundamental knowledge of the science, emerging areas of scientific investigation and developments in scientific methods. The evidence-based approach is widely used (Green & Britten, 1998; Odom et al., 2005; Easterbrook, 2016; Pielke, 2014; IPCC, 2007a; IPCC 2007b; Field, 2012; IPCC 2014; McMillan & Shumacher, 2013).
Evidence-based research uses data to establish cause and effect relationships which are known to work and allows interventions which are therefore expected to be effective.
3. Greenhouse Gas Theory
The historical development of the greenhouse effect, early discussions and controversies are presented by Mudge (2012) and Strangeways (2011). The explanation of the greenhouse effect or greenhouse gas theory of climate change is given in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis (IPCC, 2007, p. 946):
“Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to some gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect.”
This is plausible but does not necessarily lead to global warming as radiation will be emitted at longer wavelengths in other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum where greenhouse gases do not absorb radiation potentially leading to an energy balance without increase in temperature. To further complicate matters the definition continues with the explanation:
“Thermal infrared radiation in the troposphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude at which it is emitted. In the troposphere, the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19°C in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect.”
This sort of statement is not comprehensible to the average person, makes no sense scientifically and is immediately falsified by recent research (Seim and Olsen, 2020; Coe etal., 2021; Lange et al., 2022, Wijngaarden & Happer, 2019, 2020, 2021(a), 2021(b), 2022, Sheahen, 2021; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009; Zhong & Haigh, 2013). It also contradicts the work of Gray (2015 and 2019) and others and has been heavily criticized (Plimer, 2009; Plimer, 2017; Carter, 2010).
3.1 The Falsifications of the Greenhouse Effect
There are numerous falsifications of the greenhouse gas theory (sometimes called ‘trace gas heating theory’, see Siddons in Ball, 2011, p.19), of global warming and/or climate change (Ball, 2011; Ball, 2014; Ball, 2016; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009; Hertzberg et al, 2017; Allmendinger, 2017; Blaauw, 2017; Nikolov and Zeller, 2017).
Fundamental empirically derived physical laws place limits on any changes in the atmospheric temperature unless there is some strong external force (e.g. increased or decreased solar radiation). For example, the Ideal Gas Law, the Beer-Lambert Law, heat capacities, heat conduction etc., (Atkins & de Paula, 2014; Barrow, 1973; Daniels & Alberty, 1966) all place physical limits on the amount of warming or cooling one might see in the climate system given any changes to heat from the sun or other sources.
3.1.1 The Ideal Gas Law
PV = nRT (1)
The average near-surface temperature for planetary bodies with an atmosphere calculated from the Ideal Gas Law is in excellent agreement with measured values suggesting that the greenhouse effect is very small or non-existent (Table 1). It is thought that the residual temperature difference of 33K between the Stephan-Boltzmann black body effective temperature (255K) on Earth and the measured near-surface temperature (288K) is caused by adiabatic auto-compression (Allmendinger, 2017; Robert, 2018; Holmes 2017, 2018 and 2019). An alternative view of this is given by Lindzen (2022). There is no need for the ‘greenhouse effect’ to explain the near surface atmospheric temperature of planetary bodies with atmospheric pressures above 10kPa (Holmes, 2017). The ideal gas law is robust and works for all gases.
3.1.2 Measurement of Infrared Absorption of the Earth’s Atmosphere
It is now possible to calculate the effect of ‘greenhouse gases’ on the surface atmospheric temperature by (a) using laboratory experimental methods; (b) using the Hitran database (https://hitran.org/); (c) using satellite observations of outgoing radiation compared to Stephan-Boltzmann effective black body radiation and calculated values of temperature.
The near surface temperature and change in surface temperature can be calculated. The result is that climate sensitivity to doubling concentration of CO2 is (0.5°C) including 0.06°C from CH4 and 0.08°C from N2O which is so small as to be undetectable. Most of the temperature change has already occurred and increasing CO2, CH4, N2O concentrations will not lead to significant changes in air temperatures because absorption is logarithmic (Beer-Lambert Law of attenuation) – a law of diminishing returns.
Figure 1. Delta T vs CO2 concentration
The important point here is that the Ideal Gas Law, the logarithmic absorption of radiation and the theoretical calculations by Wijngaarden & Happer (2020 and 2021), Coe et al., (2021) based on the Beer-Lambert Law and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law show that there is an upper limit to the temperature change which can occur by adding ‘greenhouse gases’ to the atmosphere if the main source of incoming radiation (the Sun) does not change over time. The upper limit is ~0.81°C.
3.1.3 Other Falsifications
Many climatologists ignore the well-established ideas of the Ideal Gas Law, Kinetic Theory of Gases and Collision Theory which explain the interaction of gases in the atmosphere (Atkins & de Paula, 2014; Salby, 2012; Tec science). For example, it is difficult for CO2 to retain heat energy (by vibration, rotation, and translation) as there are 1034 collisions between air molecules per second per cubic meter of gas at a pressure of 1 atmosphere (~101.3kPa) and on each collision, energy is exchanged leading to a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (similar to a normal distribution) of molecular energies across all molecules in air (Tec science). The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution has been experimentally determined (Atkins & de Paula, 2014). Thus, the major components of air (nitrogen and oxygen) retain most of the energy, cause evaporation of water vapor by heat transfer (mainly by conduction and convection) and emit radiation at longer wavelengths. The small concentration of CO2 in air (circa 420ppmv) cannot account for large changes in the climate system which have occurred in the past (Wrightstone, 2017 and 2023; Ball, 2014). Plimer (2009 and 2017) presents a great deal of geological scientific evidence which covers paleoclimatology concluding that:
“There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere behaves neither as a greenhouse nor as an insulating blanket preventing heat escaping from the Earth. Competing forces of evaporation, convection, precipitation, and radiation create an energy balance in the atmosphere.” (Plimer 2009: p.364).
Ball (2014) summarizes a great deal of the geological science:
“The most fundamental assumption in the theory that human CO2 is causing global warming and climate change is that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. The problem is that every record of any duration for any period in the history of the Earth exactly the opposite relationship occurs temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. Despite that a massive deception has developed and continues.” Ball (2014: p. 1).
This statement agrees with many other scientists working in geology, earth sciences, physics and physical chemistry as can be seen in cited references in books (Easterbrook, 2016; Wrightstone 2017 and 2023; Plimer, 2009; Plimer 2017; Ball, 2014; Ball,2011; Ball, 2016; Carter, 2010; Koutsoyiannis et al, 2023 & 2024; Hodzic, and Kennedy, 2019). Easterbrook (2016) uses the evidence-based approach to climate science and concludes that:
“Because of the absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, the main argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests largely on computer modelling.” Easterbrook (2016: p.5).
The results of the models are projected far into the future (circa 80 to 100years) where uncertainties are large, but projections can be used to demonstrate unrealistic but scary scenarios (Idso et al., 2015b). The literature that is used for the IPCC reports appears to be ‘cherry picked’ to agree with their paradigms that increasing CO2 concentrations leads to warming. They ignore the vast literature in climatology, atmospheric physics, solar physics, physics, physical chemistry, geology, biology and palaeoclimatology much of which contradicts the IPCC’s assessment in the summary for policymakers (SPM).
The objective of the IPCC was to find the human causes of climate change – not to look at all the causes of climate change which would be the sensible thing to do if the science were to be used to inform policy decisions. However, there is no experimental evidence for a significant anthropogenic component to climate change (Kaupinnen and Malmi, 2019) which leaves genuine scientists and citizens concerned about the role of the IPCC.
3.1.4 Anthropogenic CO2 and the Residence time of Carbon Dioxide in Air
There is a suggestion (IPCC) that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is different for anthropogenic CO2 and naturally occurring CO2. This breaks a fundamental scientific principle, the Principle of Equivalence. That is: if there is equivalence between two things, they have the same use, function, size, or value (Collins English Dictionary, online). Thus, CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from, and each molecule will behave physically and react chemically in the same way.
The figures above illustrate how exaggerated claims are made for CO2 based on the false assumption that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for long periods and can affect the climate. These results are enough to falsify the ideas of anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 and shows how little human activity contributes to CO2 emissions and concentrations in air. The argument is clear, that if the fictitious greenhouse effect were real for CO2 the human contribution would have no measurable effect upon the climate in terms of global average surface temperature.
The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is between 3.0 and 4.1 years using the IPCC’s own data and not the supposed 100 years or 1000 years for anthropogenic CO2 suggested by the IPCC summaries for policy makers (Harde, 2017) which contravenes the Equivalence Principle (Berry, 2019).
“These results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO2 during the industrial era followed, not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emission. The results are consistent with the observed lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes (Humlum et al., 2013; Salby, 2013), a signature of cause and effect.” (Harde, 2017a: 25).
It is well-known that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 5 years (Boehmer-Christiansen, 2007: 1124; 1137; Kikuchi, 2010). Skrable et al., (2022), show that accumulated human CO2 is 11% of CO2 in air or ~46.84ppmv based on modelling studies. Berry (2020, 2021) uses the Principle of Equivalence (which the IPCC violates by assuming different timescales for the uptake of natural and human CO2) and agrees with Harde (2017a) that human CO2 adds about 18ppmv to the concentration in air. These are physically extremely small concentrations of CO2 which suggest most CO2 arises from natural sources. It can be concluded that the IPCC models are wrong and human CO2 will have little effect on the temperature.
4. Conclusions
Like many other researchers it was assumed there was robust science behind the greenhouse gas theory and that Net Zero was essential to achieve, but after investigation it now appears that the greenhouse gas theory is questionable and has been successfully challenged for at least 100 years (Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009). Much better explanations for planetary near surface atmospheric temperatures are available based on robust, empirically derived scientific laws such as the Ideal Gas law.
Better assessments of the potential increase in temperature with doubling CO2 concentrations are available and the calculated increase is small ~0.5°C (Coe et al., 2021; van Wijngaarden & Happer, 2019, 2020 and 2021; Sheahen, 2021; Schildknecht, 2020) and will remain very small with increased CO2 concentration because the infrared CO2 absorption bands are almost saturated and absorption follows the logarithmic Beer-Lambert law (Figure 1). Much of the work using the Hitran database has been tested against satellite measurements of the outgoing radiation from the Earth’s atmosphere and the calculations are in almost perfect agreement (Sheahen, 2021).
This suggests that the physicists are correct in their assessment of the likely very small increase in atmospheric temperature and therefore there is a strong case against Net Zero as it will have no discernible effect on temperature and the cost of Net Zero is huge. Therefore, the Net Zero project does not pass the cost-benefit test (Montford, 2024b; NESO, 2024). That is the costs are disproportionately high for little or no benefit. Thus, the correct response to a non-problem is to do nothing. The monies being wasted on Net Zero should be spent for the benefit of citizens (e.g. education, health care, public health, water infrastructure, waste processing, economic prosperity etc.). There are many other pressing public health problems from burning fossil fuels which should be addressed (e.g. air pollution especially particulates and carbon monoxide).
Better calculations of the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentrations are available and it is small ~18ppmv (Skrable et al., 2022; Berry, 2020; Harde 2017a & 2017b; Harde, 2019; Harde 2014). The phase relation between temperature and CO2 concentration changes are now clearly understood; temperature increases are followed by increases in CO2 likely from outgassing from the ocean and increased biological activity (Davis , 2017; Hodzic and Kennedy, 2019; Humlum, 2013; Salby, 2012; Koutsoyiannis et al, 2023 & 2024).
“In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.” Alimonti etal. 2022: 111.
Many researchers are addressing the ‘CO2 and climate change problem’ by suggesting decarbonization and other approaches such as Net Zero. CO2 is more than likely not the temperature control and has a very minor to negligible role in global warming (The Bruges Group, 2021; De Lange and Berkhout, 2024; Manheimer, 2022; Statistics Norway 2023; Lindzen and Happer, 2024; Lindzen, et al., 2024).
The scientific literature was examined and found to provide several alternative views concerning CO2 and the need for Net Zero. The objectives of this paper have been achieved and the conclusions can be briefly summarized:
CO2 is a harmless highly beneficial rare trace gas essential for all life on Earth due to photosynthesis which produces simple sugars and carbohydrates in plants and a bi-product Oxygen (O2). CO2is therefore the basis of the entire food supply chain (see Biology or Botany textbooks or House, 2013). CO2 is close to an all-time low geologically (Wrightstone, 2017 and 2023) and controls on CO2 emissions and concentrations in air should be considered as very dangerous and expensive policy indeed. Net Zero is not necessary and should be abandoned.
The greenhouse gas theory has been falsified (i.e. proven wrong) from several disciplines including paleoclimatology, geology, physics, and physical chemistry. CO2 cannot affect the climate in such small concentrations (~420ppmv or ~0.04%) and basing government policy on output from faulty climate models will prove to be very expensive and achieve nothing for the environment, public health, or the climate.
“There is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2 greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus, it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.” (Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009: 354).
The oceans contain approximately 50 times as much CO2 as is currently present in the air (Easterbrook, 2016; Wrightstone, 2017 and 2023) and as such Henry’s Law will work to maintain the dynamic equilibrium concentration in air over the longer term as the ocean will absorb and outgas CO2(Atkins & de Paula, 2014). Net Zero will, therefore, achieve nothing for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. If the volcanic sources of CO2 are as Kamis (2021), the IPCC and others suggest many times the human contribution, then Net Zero will have no measurable effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Net Zero should, therefore, be abandoned.
The contribution to greenhouse gases, especially CO2, attributable to humans is extremely small, almost negligible (~4.3% or ~18ppmv total accumulation) and half is absorbed by the ocean and biomass. Other naturally occurring so-called greenhouse gases are present in very small/negligible quantities (e.g. CH4, N2O). The systematic attempts to eliminate these trace gases from the atmosphere by reducing industrial output, reducing farming, eliminating fossil fuel use, and changing the way human civilization lives is totally unnecessary – again the ‘do-nothing strategy’ is strongly recommended.
The sciences have been largely ignored by politicians and activists. There have been numerous failings of governments to take notice of scientific findings and they have succumbed to unnecessary pressure from activist groups (including the United Nations and the IPCC). Net Zero is just one example where costly efforts by governments will achieve nothing and not address the real problems of air pollution, public health, or economic well-being of citizens.
“There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world’s climate is in any way disturbed.” (Société de Calcul Mathématique SA, 2015:3).
Circular reasoning is used by the climate modelers. That is, the fictitious greenhouse effect is built into the models such that when the parameter of CO2concentration is increased then the temperature output of the models increases, producing models which run relatively hot compared to natural variability. This reduces the so-called greenhouse effect to little more than a ‘fudge factor’ or ‘parameter’ within models which essentially gives you the answer that you set out to prove. This circular reasoning is hardly scientific enquiry and with data ‘homogenization’ and infilling of missing data begins to look rather peculiar. Climatologists need to recognize these issues, address the real reasons for climate change and offer genuine solutions to any real problems.
The claim of consensus is completely unscientific in its approach (Idso et al, 2015a). Noting that 31,000 US scientists and engineers signed the petition protest (Robinson et al., 2007), recently 90 Italian scientists wrote an open letter to the Italian government (Crescenti et al., 2019), and 500 climatologists and scientists signed an open letter to the UN Secretary General (Berkhout, 2019). All explaining that CO2 is not the cause of climate change. There are thousands of academic papers and books questioning anthropogenic climate change with good data.
Many other concerned individuals have looked at the evidence for anthropogenic climate change based on CO2 and found it wanting (e.g. Davison, 2018; Rofe, 2018).
“If in fact ‘the science is settled’, it seems to be much more settled in the fact that there is no particular correlation between CO2 level and the earth’s temperature.” (Manheimer, 2022).
and
“If you assume the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are right about everything and use only their numbers in the calculation, you will arrive at the conclusion that we should do nothing about climate change!” (Field, 2013).
The academic literature in science offers numerous and far better explanations for climate change than the fictitious greenhouse effect. Researchers should recognize this fact and start to look at dealing with the real causes of climate change. Net Zero is an enormously expensive solution to a non-problem and has no obvious redeeming features. The Net Zero policy is not financially sustainable and should be abandoned.
Yes, it’s the same old pack of lies they roll out every year, trying to convince that global health is suffering because of climate change.
You only have to read the first paragraph to understand that this is a political document, not a serious scientific one.
And sure enough, they claim to have found “record-breaking threats” to health and even survival:
Each year is the same – they ignore real world data, which positively shows the opposite to be true, and instead concoct increasingly obscure and dubious ways to satisfy their agenda.
The idea, of course, that the world’s climate has changed so much since 2015 is itself absurd – but that does not stop the Lancet from saying it has!
They start by claiming that heat-related deaths have increased since the 1990s, but there is no mention of the fact that cold-related deaths have decreased by many more. They claim that heat exposure has reduced labour productivity, forgetting that, thanks to mechanisation, productivity has rocketed and workers are therefore less exposed to heat stress.
They claim that extreme precipitation has increased since 1960, but this is not derived from real world data, which is far too sparse to make such bold claims. Instead it is all based on computer modelling.
To be fair, the IPCC also claim that the number of heavy rainfall events has been increasing, but significantly also tell us that they can find no global trends in floods. In many places heavy rainfall is welcomed because it alleviates drought. Try telling the Indians that they had too much rainfall during this summer’s monsoon. As for those who suffered during the Dust Bowl years in the US, they would have given their right arm for a few storms.
IPCC AR6
It is the same with drought. Apparently 48% of the world’s landmass was affected by at least 1 month of extreme drought last year, up from 15% in the 1950s. But droughts build up over a period of months and even years, not one single month. It is plainly ridiculous to use such a metric – I wonder why they did?
And as with extreme precipitation, the Lancet study does not use actual rainfall data, but computer models which can be programmed to come up with any results you want, because the real world data they would need simply does not exist for most of the world.
But where we do have actual precipitation data, the IPCC only find that although some regions have seen an increase in droughts, while others have seen fewer:
And so it goes on. Apparently there are more sand storms, but again this is gleaned from computer models, a “state-of-the-art multimodel reanalysis ensemble”.
Malaria, we are told, is being spread by global warming, despite the fact that the number of new cases has been steadily dropping, with the exception of COVID affected 2020:
But the biggest joke of all must be this:
The mind boggles!
If they really were concerned about global health, there is plenty or incontrovertible, real world data which they could use, instead of their phoney models.
Around the world people live longer, child mortality is much lower, fewer live in extreme poverty or are undernourished. They live healthier lives, thanks to better access to clean water, medicines and healthcare. The children are better education, and technology is transforming people’s lives.
Thanks mainly to fossil fuels food output hits new records year after year. Meanwhile in contrast to the Lancet’s claims of desertification, the planet is greening because of increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
YOU probably saw stories last week claiming that Thursday July 6 was the hottest day on Earth in the history of human civilisation. Climate scientists said that the global average temperature was precisely 17.23 deg C. Yes, not 17.22 or 17.24C.
Some went as far as to claim that it was the hottest day for 125,000 years.
YOU probably saw stories last week claiming that Thursday July 6 was the hottest day on Earth in the history of human civilisation. Climate scientists said that the global average temperature was precisely 17.23 deg C. Yes, not 17.22 or 17.24C.
Some went as far as to claim that it was the hottest day for 125,000 years.
Naturally the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt attempted to trick the public into thinking that because we had some sunny weather last month, the whole world must be burning up.
The idea that we can measure the world’s temperature to a hundredth of a degree is of course ridiculous. Indeed the very concept of a global temperature is unscientific, because there is no such thing.
The calculations behind this claim are, you won’t be surprised to learn, based on computer modelling. The models go back only to 1979, when satellite data became available. This was a time when there had just been three decades of global cooling and a massive expansion of Arctic sea ice. It is little wonder that temperatures have increased since.
Prior to the satellite era, much of the world had little or no reliable temperature data, so we have no idea at all what temperatures were then, particularly in the early 20th century and before.
It is summer, so inevitably some places are hot. But the map of temperature anomalies behind the claim tells a totally different story to the one peddled by the BBC. Across the world as a whole, there is the usual mix of above and below temperatures:
The only exception is around Antarctica, where, as Climate Reanalyzer explain, weather patterns in the southern hemisphere have brought warmer air than usual. Because polar regions are so dry, a small change in heat produces a large swing in temperature, whereas it requires much more energy change to produce the same size swing in temperatures in the mid-latitudes. This is because water has a much higher heat capacity than air. Think, for instance, of the Sahara Desert, and how temperatures fall away dramatically at night because the dry air holds so little heat there.
Although average global temperatures may have increased because of the warm air brought to the Antarctic, the overall heat content of the Earth’s atmosphere has not changed at all.
As for the claim that it is now warmer than any time in the history of human civilisation, this is self-evidently bogus. There is an abundance of evidence that the world’s climate was much warmer than now for most of the last 10,000 or so years since the last Ice Age ended.
Studies of treelines, tree rings, ice cores, glaciers, ocean sediments, stalactites and many other proxies all point to the same thing – a Holocene optimum, which lasted up to maybe 5,000 years ago. This was followed by the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods, and the Little Ice Age, which was probably the coldest era since the Ice Age and which ended during the 19thC.
This evidence comes from all around the world. Even, for instance, in New Zealand:
Is there any other branch of science where so-called scientists can simply make up fairy tales and pass them off to a corrupt media as fact?
BP and another waste of energy
SINCE 1952, BP has published its Annual Statistical Review of World Energy. In BP’s words, this is ‘a constant source of objective, comprehensive – and, most importantly – trusted data to help industry, governments and commentators make sense of developments in global energy markets’.
It is slightly concerning, therefore, that the Energy Institute is not quite the professional body that BP makes out, but a lobby group for Net Zero. According to its website, its objective is ‘creating a better energy future for our members and society by accelerating a just global energy transition to net zero’. Its president is Juliet Davenport, founder of Good Energy, a renewable energy company; senior positions are occupied by other lobbyists for renewables. Whether the review is quite as objective, comprehensive and trusted going forward remains to be seen!
Nevertheless this year’s edition provides the same categories of data as previous ones. The story can be summed up in a handful of charts.
First, emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise, a seemingly relentless trend, arrested only during the lockdowns of 2020. Last year saw yet another record high. Emissions now stand 5 per cent higher than in 2015, when the world’s politicians supposedly agreed to save the planet in Paris.
Whilst emissions in OECD countries have fallen by 1,287million tonnes since 2011, they have increased by 3,790million tonnes in the rest of the world. The UK’s total emissions are tiny in comparison.
Despite repeated claims of whopping increases in renewable capacity, fossil fuels continue to dominate, still increasing year-on-year. Meanwhile wind and solar account for only a tiny 5 per cent of the world’s energy:
And as our final chart illustrates, the small reduction in fossil fuel consumption in OECD countries has been offset by a six times larger increase in the rest of the world. Again we see that the increase in wind and solar energy has been tiny in comparison.
It has been evident all along that the world’s poorer countries were not prepared to sacrifice their public’s standards of living on the altar of climate change. This means the provision of abundant, reliable and cheap energy that only fossil fuels can supply.
Global warming campaigners are pushing the notion that we just had the “hottest ever” three days in recorded history.
The warming-compliant media picked up the “hottest ever” line and ran with it.
Global warming campaigners are pushing the notion that we just had the “hottest ever” three days in recorded history.
The warming-compliant media picked up the “hottest ever” line and ran with it.
We posted a serious debunking at CFACT.org. The Daily Caller’s Nick Pope explains that in order to come up with their “hottest ever” hype, warming campaigners turned to “a data tool from the University of Maine which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has warned is not as dependable as traditional observational data.”
Reality not hot enough for ya? You can always scare everyone with an agenda-driven computer analysis!
CFACT’s Marc Morano called it “weaponizing weather” on Fox and posted that “Biden’s EPA reveals the 1930’s had more severe heatwaves in USA than present day.”
Climate data expert Tony Heller posted the graph above and tweeted, “the five hottest July’s in the U.S. were 1936, 1901, 1934, 1930 and 1931.”
Do you think Team Warming will be able to airbrush the searing heat of the 1930s and “the great dust bowl” that resulted out of our collective consciousness?
Greenpeace co-founder, and close CFACT friend, Patrick Moore shared the graph above, which reminds us that on a geological time scale we’re actually living in a “coldest ever” period for the Earth.
Reporters should start doing their jobs, fully vet these “hottest ever” claims, and ask those who made them the tough questions that will cool down the hype.
This report really does undermine the credibility of the claims. The idea that global temperatures could shoot up by 0.22C in the space of three days is physically impossible, El Nino or not. And given that it is all based on computer modelling and used as a propaganda tool makes the whole thing worthless.
The world’s average temperature has reached a new high for the third time in a week, unofficial records show.
Data analysed by a group of US scientists shows the global average temperature on Thursday was 17.23C.
It breaks the 17.01C record set on Monday, surpassed just a day later when the average temperature reached 17.18C.
The temperature readings come from a tool called Climate Reanalyzer. Scientists at the University of Maine use a combination of readings from surface, air balloon and satellite observations as well as computer modelling to assess average global temperatures.
The readings are not an official government record, but they are closely watched as an indicator of how temperatures are fluctuating.
On Thursday the US weather service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it could not confirm records that come partly from computer simulations, according to Associated Press.
This report really does undermine the credibility of the claims. The idea that global temperatures could shoot up by 0.22C in the space of three days is physically impossible, El Nino or not. And given that it is all based on computer modelling and used as a propaganda tool makes the whole thing worthless.
Meanwhile back in the real world, satellites continue to indicate that global temperature anomalies last month were well below the 1998 and 2016 El Nino peaks:
You must be logged in to post a comment.