Sorry If this Challenges Your Firm Beliefs!

Global Warming – The Hypothesis 19th June 2021 

{This Note is not concerned with Climate Change and the political events from Circa 1975 and  Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris.} 

a) The Global Warming hypothesis states that atmospheric anthropological carbon dioxide (AACD) influences global warming, and the natural emanation of carbon dioxide has no  effect.  

b) The corollary is that the increase in the total atmospheric carbon dioxide since the industrial  revolution, from about 200 ppm to 420 ppm today, has been entirely as a result of  anthropological carbon dioxide generation. This corollary has recently been extended by an  assertion that all the AACD does not recycle, remaining permanently in the atmosphere (?). 

There has been no scientific paper presented to date which provide empirical evidence to support the  hypothesis, an hypothesis which forms the basis for “Emissions (meaning AACD) Reduction”.  Thus, the foundation of current AACD Emissions Reduction proposals had no tested scientific basis,  until the occurrence of the global GFC 2008 and COVID19 2020~21 with their atmospheric  consequences. 

Particularly, the COVID19 virus pandemic provided an unbiased, empirical, real-time data, global scientific laboratory experiment to allow involuntary testing of the hypothesis and the corollary, at a  significant level.  

The COVID19 experimental period, commencing February 2020, has experienced a direct reduction in the production of CO2 from petroleum-based carbon fuels of more than 7% (IEA). Further fossil  fuel coal carbon dioxide reduction has occurred through reduced economic activity. 

NASA/NOAA records the hourly concentration of total atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa, altitude about  3,300 metres above sea-level, on the island of Hawaii, on a continuous basis; its charting of total  atmospheric CO2 being used for input to future climate modelling software, the basis of claim for the  AACD hypothesis and Paris projections. The data is publicly available. 

Examination of the daily record over the last fifteen months (q.v.) reveals no detectable variation in  total global CO2 levels, either in the ‘steadiness’ of the daily charting, or any sub-duction of the CO2  graph, which would support the corollary. (The IEA recorded a 2% AACD reduction for the 2008  GFC. Again, the CO2 global data record failed to provide any support for the hypothesis on that  occasion. 2008 is 12 years earlier than today’s reduction, a sufficiently lengthy period to deny ‘a wait  and see’ period for a non-condensable, circulating globally, gas. 

The COVID19 Pandemic, as a consequence of the measured results of atmospheric carbon dioxide  for a period of more than 15 months, supported by the 2008 GFC lack of change then or later,  provides the first empirical science to save mankind from the long term economic distortions being  thrust upon it. The hypothesis of relating climate change to AACD and man’s carbon footprint is now  capable of rejection using the same published scientific measurement bases established by the  ‘Global Warming’ polity. 


i. There is neither a detectable nor measurable relationship between AACD and total  atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the short or medium term; and 

ii. The Global Warming hypothesis is therefore empirically unproven; and 

iii. As any effect of AACD on total CO2 cannot be measured, it cannot be managed; the  political fiat to move to net zero-carbon has no scientific support base; and 

iv. Come 2030 or 2050 the atmospheric global carbon dioxide data available will show no  variation from its natural level; and 

v. Whatever human activity effects global climate, it is not fossil fuel CO2 created.

vi. There is now a business known as CLIMATE CHANGE. It has no scientific base.

vii. It may be noted that global temperature has been rising slowly by 1 degree C over 100 years  as part of a natural cycle. Gas levels from basic physics, when temperature, as an  independent variable, rises, gases are discharged from fluids and solids, seas and rocks.

One thought on “Sorry If this Challenges Your Firm Beliefs!

  1. Very good commentary, thank you.
    I am inclined to the view that the Climate Change business, as you put it, is more like a religion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s