Why Carbon Dioxide cannot be the cause of Climate Change

Recent news on energy

It is well-known to those suffering from the effects of wind farms that the Energy debate in the UK is not being reported truthfully.

Here is a piece by a person who explains a little about biased reporting and how 'Man Made Global Warming' is a money-generating scam for the already-wealthy.

You won't hear about any of this on the BBC ....

This is part of a post on the Harold Seneker blog, with the references removed. If you want the rigorous version, fully referenced, please go to his blog.

It is quite similar to a piece which I wrote on the same subject a few years ago but a little more detailed. However its main points are the same.

So - here we go:

If you have any doubt about The Guardian's impartiality, hear my tale:

Well over a year ago I sent a letter to the now-retiring Guardian editor setting out the crucial, verifiable facts and the citations about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming and urged him to follow the very informative links in the citations. Response: crickets. Later, I attempted to post this discussion in a comments section on their website. Not only was it withheld by The Guardian, but I have been unable to post comments on their website ever since.

This is a moral victory: They are afraid of me and my post! But it is the Guardian readers' loss.....

Here is my discussion; judge for yourself.

The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here's why:

Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%, and should easily average 1% or more near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.

But that's only the beginning. We've had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That's one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming - and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history - it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now, and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous, and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.

The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

Back to top

Energy Policy
Nuclear Power
Wind -
big turbines
Wind -
small turbines
Diversity Website