CO2’s Role In The Great ‘Climate Change’ Deception

Written by Climate Change Dispatch

World history is replete with imaginary gods and demons that man has blamed for conditions and events beyond human control.

From 1300 AD to 1880, the Northern Hemisphere experienced a cooling period called the “Little Ice Age.”

During that period, many people irrationally believed that the cold temperatures were caused by witches. During the preceeding Medieval Warm Period, witches had been blamed for ‘cooking the weather’. As a result, many witches were identified, tried, and executed.

One hundred years later, people began to complain that the weather was becoming “too warm.” Man’s imagination then again created a new demon to blame for the warmer weather: anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2).

Demon adherents proclaim that if atmospheric CO2 is not immediately reduced to pre-industrial levels, the glaciers will melt, and our coastal cities will be submerged by rising seas.

Unfortunately, the irrational belief that anthropogenic CO2 will lead to future catastrophe, has become a “mass movement” with all the hallmarks of a religion. See, “The True Believer,” by Eric Hoffer (1951).

Computer “climate models” now blame CO2 for the warmer weather and issue dire predictions of impending doom if CO2 levels are not reduced.

Al Gore, the CO2 oracle, and Greta Thunberg, the child prophet, tell their “true believer” followers that burning fossil fuels is sinful and, if not stopped, will result in future catastrophe.

Those “true believers” have closed their minds to opposing views and refuse to acknowledge any information that does not fit the imaginary climate disaster scenario.

They also ignore the harsh reality that modern world economies are based upon massive infrastructures, completely dependent upon fossil fuels that can never be replaced by windmills and solar panels. (Anyone for a battery-powered aircraft?)

Finally, they treat the thousands of scientists, who inform us that the CO2 molecules now being added to the atmosphere have not had, and will not have, any adverse effect whatsoever on the climate, as though they did not exist.

As a matter of scientific fact, only natural forces beyond human control can increase the average temperature of the Earth.

Modern science teaches us that increases and decreases in global temperatures over decades, centuries, and millennia have been, and still are, solely the result of a combination of natural heating and cooling forces that are all beyond human control:

  1. Changes in the radiation intensity of the Sun (sunspots, mass coronal ejections, etc.).
  2. Changes in the Earth’s orbit and its tilt to the sun.
  3. Changes in the radiation and heating of the oceans and land by the Earth’s molten core.
  4. The aerosol effects of volcanos blocking sunlight.
  5. The albedo effects of constantly changing clouds, ice, and snow (including the volume of cosmic rays that may affect cloudiness).

All of the many heating and cooling periods the Earth has experienced for millions of years – before the industrial revolution – were solely the result of those natural and uncontrollable heating and cooling forces.

The climate models, however, are programmed on the assumption that additional atmospheric CO2 causes global temperatures to increase.

In reality, however, ancient ice-core data demonstrates that rising global temperatures always precede increases in atmospheric CO2 by several hundred years – not vice versa, as the climate models falsely predict.

Consequently, claims that the recent minuscule increase of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is the sole “cause” of the current warming trend are scientific fraud.

Modern-day climatologists can roughly approximate changes in average global temperatures and have concluded that since 1960, the average temperature of the Earth has increased by about 1-degree Celsius.

See also  Dr Bhakdi – “Covid-19 Vaccines Are Killing People By Causing an Autoimmune Attack of Killer Lymphocytes”

During that same period, they have also found that the CO2 content of the atmosphere, as measured at Mona Loa, has increased from 0.031 percent to 0.041 percent.

Or, in terms of additional molecules, the number of CO2 molecules in a cubic meter of air has risen by 100 parts per million (ppm), from 310 in 1960 to 410 ppm today. [The atmosphere is composed of 78 percent nitrogen, 20 percent oxygen, one percent argon, and 0-4 percent water vapor. The remaining one percent of the atmosphere is comprised of “trace gases:” 0.04 percent carbon dioxide, 0.00182 percent neon, and 0.000175 percent methane.]

The correlation of the tiny 0.01 percent increase in CO2 with the modest one-degree increase in temperature over the last 60 years would normally be dismissed as a mere coincidence. Indeed, the scientific method demands that all other possible causes be evaluated and dismissed before designating a simple correlation as a “cause.”

“True believers,” however, including the climate modelers themselves, simply disregard any other more likely natural causes. That total disregard for all other possibilities, probabilities, and contrary views constitutes scientific fraud.

The trace gas CO2 does NOT act as a “blanket” to increase the Earth’s temperature. Many proponents of a CO2 catastrophe liken the effect of the additional 100 ppm CO2 molecules to an insulating blanket that increases the Earth’s temperature.

Those trace CO2 molecules, however, neither form a “blanket,” “trap heat,” nor send heat back to the surface. Only water vapor can “trap latent heat” for a short time until the vapor condenses, and the heat is radiated to space. [“Heat” is defined as the kinetic movement of molecules. “Radiation” is defined as the energy force that causes kinetic movement].

All of the gases comprising the atmosphere are constantly moving the radiant energy emitted by the Earth’s warm surface, per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, up and out to the vacuum space by conduction, convection, and radiation.

In that massive continuous process, the additional 100 ppm of anthropogenic CO2 molecules are only along for the ride like a few new feathers on a bird. While those CO2 molecules do absorb “fingerprint” IR radiation at the narrow IR 15-micron band, that absorption is an integral part of the basic natural cooling process.

It raises the CO2 molecule’s kinetic motion, which is instantaneously transferred to all surrounding molecules by conduction and radiation. Accordingly, the additional 100 ppm CO2 molecules create NO additional “heat” in the atmosphere.

Nor do they “delay” the emission of radiation to space. They merely participate in the constant transfer of kinetic and radiative energy, by atmospheric molecules, from the surface through the atmosphere to outer space.

The Rise of the CO2 Imaginary Climate Model Demon.

In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate Energy Committee that “the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”

People around the world began to talk about how the “greenhouse effect” from anthropogenic CO2 was creating rising temperatures across the planet. That same year, the United Nations established the Intgovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to study the causes and effects of “global warming.”

The IPCC then developed a contingent of “general circulation climate models” (GCMs) that formed the basis of its First Climate Assessment in 1990. The operators of those mysterious computer models, just like the Wizard of Oz, then announced with – “certainty”:

Emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses: carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapor, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it.

No one, of course, was in a position to challenge the pronouncements of the climate model wizards because no one knew how the models were programmed.

See also  Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) Part 2

We later learned that the working hypothesis for programing the models was simply the unfounded assumption that the 1-degree rise in average temperature since 1960 was the result of the additional anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

Those 100 ppm new CO2 molecules, in turn, purportedly caused water vapor to increase – an assumption that is conveniently impossible to validate with actual measurement.

The “climate model wizardry” then makes the further assumption, again without evidence, that a doubling of CO2 (300 ppm to 600 ppm) will reduce the radiation leaving the atmosphere by 3.4 watts per square meter, thereby increasing the Earth’s temperature.

The computer models, of course, performed as intended and predicted catastrophe unless man-made CO2 and other greenhouse gases were reduced.

They couldn’t do anything else, they were programmed to reach that conclusion.

All of the so-called “science” that now predicts climate catastrophe is based solely on the predictions of those faulty IPCC models. No other basis in actual physical “science” exists to support the dire predictions.

The international campaign to designate anthropogenic CO2 as the primary cause of current and future global warming culminated in 1997 in a U.N. sponsored conference in Kyoto, Japan. At that time, many nations, including the United States, signed an agreement requiring drastic reductions of man-made greenhouse gases in the future.

Scientific Opposition to the IPCC’s CO2 Climate Model Deception.

The Kyoto agreement sparked a countermovement by scientists who believed that the minuscule 0.01 percent increase in CO2 since 1960 had nothing to do with the one-degree increase in average world temperature over the same 60-year period.

Most scientists viewed that gradual increase in temperature simply as part of the earth’s normal cycles between warm and cold periods and the much longer cycles of glaciation and glacier retreat.

Therefore, in 1998, Arthur B. Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and Frederick Seitz, Past President of the National Academy of Sciences USA, circulated the following petition to thousands of scientists urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto Agreement:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

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 Petition was ultimately signed by 31,487 scientists and is fully set forth on the website, where all signatories are listed under various categories. The Exemplar Petition on the website is signed by Dr. Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb.

Since 1998, no organization has attempted to circulate a counter-petition containing any “scientific evidence” demonstrating that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming trend. That is because there is no such “scientific evidence” – only conjecture by the climate modelers.

See also  China Pursues ‘Brain Control’ Weaponry in Global Arms Race

The IPCC, however, paid no attention to the Petition and, in 2007, issued its Fourth Assessment which elucidated the purported basis of its hypothesis that man-made CO2 was leading the world to climate catastrophe.

The IPCC asserted that the increased average temperature of the Earth was caused by “back radiation” from the minuscule 100 parts per million of CO2 molecules that man has added to the atmosphere since 1960.

According to the Assessment, those molecules absorb a certain spectrum of infrared radiation from the surface and purportedly “re-radiate” that spectra back to the surface where it is again absorbed by the Earth to increase the temperature of the atmosphere. A diagram by one of the IPCC’s lead authors illustrated that fictitious process.

The Scientific Take-Down of the Imaginary CO2 Climate Model Demon.

In 2009, two distinguished German physicists published a paper that disproved the IPCC’s unsupported hypotheses of “back radiation.” See Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics, by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, Vol. 23, No. 3, (2009) and rebuttal in the same Volume at pp. 1333-59.

Since that time, G&T’s falsification of the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis has never been effectively challenged by any reputable physicist. On the contrary, many eminent scientists from all over the world have published papers confirming G&T’s basic conclusions.

See, for example;

Slaying the Sky Dragon, various authors (2011);

Observations on ‘Backradiation’ During Daytime and Nighttime, by Professor Nasif Nahle, Principia Scientific International (2011);

Refutation of the Greenhouse Effect Theory on a Thermodynamic and Hydrostatic Basis, by Alberto Miatello, Principia Scientific International (2012);

Is No “Greenhouse Effect” Possible From The Way That IPCC Define It?, by John Elliston, Principia Scientific International (2015) [“The presence of GH gases does not change the energy input. If the absorbed energy input remains unchanged, the output of energy cannot change.”];

Role of Greenhouse Gases in Climate Change, by Martin Herzberg, Alan Siddons, and Hans Schreuder, Energy and Environment, Vol. 28, Issue 4 (2017);

The Layman’s Guide to the Greatest Scientific Fraud in History, by Joseph E. Postma (2019).

Sky Dragon Slayers Victory Lap, various authors (2019);

Bottom line: The imaginary CO2 climate model demon is based upon a demonstrably false physical hypothesis that has been disproved by many eminent scientists worldwide.

Nevertheless, millions of people have adopted the “religious belief” that burning fossil fuels is a sin that will lead to a glacial melt and sea-level rise catastrophe. Therefore, it is long past time that the new “CO2 Climate Change religion” be recognized for what it is – nothing more than sophisticated climate model fraud.

See more here:

Bold emphasis added

Header image: Facebook

About the author: Don Crockett served the U.S. Department of Energy as an attorney for more than 30 years. During that time, he dealt with many technical and scientific issues such as nuclear waste and the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is the cause of the Earth’s current warming period.

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Related posts