Carbon Dioxide is innocent - peer-reviewed.

That's it!

The Game is up!

The hoax has been exposed and the Alarmists must hand back their research grants and find a new line of work. Al Gore and the IPCC must hand back their Nobel Peace Awards. Michael Mann must smash his hockey stick for the final time.

In the peer-reviewed journal "International Journal of Modern Physics B" (link) Q.-B. LU from the Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada has detailed a research paper
“Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” said Qing-Bin Lu. (link)

Michael Bastach writing in the Daily Caller: (link)
Lu’s study runs counter to the long-standing argument that carbon dioxide emissions were the driving force behind global warming. Recently scientists warned that carbon concentrations were nearing the 400 parts per million level. Scientists say that carbon dioxide levels must be lowered to 350 ppm to avoid the severe impacts of global warming. 
Lu notes that data from 1850 to 1970 show carbon emissions increasing due to the Industrial Revolution. However, global temperatures stayed constant.


  1. Anthony Watt - "While plausible, due to the fact that CFC’s have very high [Global Warming Potential] numbers, their atmospheric concentrations compared to CO2 are quite low, and the radiative forcings they add are small by comparison to CO2"

    This sums it up, the concentration is far too low to drive any kind of climate change and there is no human signal in the climate trend to begin with.

    This smells like an attempt to twist or divert the debate from their collapsing, baseless CO2 models to another industrial byproduct.

    1. The GHE relies on properties that are not available to CO2 at the conditions normal to earth's surface, like latent heat of evapouration. Water has this property, and actually cools the surface when water is evapourated from it, but this does not fall into the description of the GHE as relied upon by climate scientists. The normal description of the GHE is re-radiation of the radiated surface LIR to increase the surface temperature, ie, heat transfer from cold to hot. This function violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If it were to be true than machines od greater than 100% efficiency would be possible and free power using this effect. This notion is patently ridiculous.

    2. Oh come on, John Marshall. I smell a Dragon Slayer. You guys are either genuinely scientifically illiterate, or are trolls designed to undermine the sceptical movement by trying to make us all look stupid.

      Heat transfer from warmer objects to cooler objects does NOT violate the 2nd Law. Energy moves in all directions. NET energy transfer will obviously be from warm to cold (duh) but that's not the point. Have you seriously not seen Anthony Watts' debunking of your ignorant claims (the experiment involving a bulb and mirror)?

    3. It's "evaPORated", for Christ's sake...

  2. Yes it is in a peer reviewed publication, and the peers are ripping it to prices.

  3. There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been technologically reviewed by Ph.D physicists . Ph.D. Chemical engineers and others. The experiment is found on the web-site http:// click on the blog tab, page 3. It is titled "The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist"

  4. Welp! I guess we know what NOT to blame now.

  5. I can't help but wonder if CFC's also resulted in the Egyptian Old kingdom warming, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warmings as well. Did Cleopatra use aerosol deodorants? Did the Romans use spray starch? Maybe the Vikings had fly spray? Yup, it had to have been the CFC's.

  6. I actually don't believe this one either because the basis is world temperature records which have all been manipulated except UAH satellite, RSS radiosonde and CET rural England which show no significant warming at all "globally". The correlation between CFC's and adjusted temps data is BS

  7. Hmm, I think there are a few issues with the study, 1st being that CFCs would not explain the ending of the Little Ice Age, since they were invented in the late 1800's.

    2nd, there would not be the concentrations to explain the warming in the late 1800's to early 1900's.

    3rd, the 1940's -1970's saw flat if not dipped temperatures at a time when CFC usage and output was exploding. TV's, fridges, AC, etc. The temps should have been going up.

  8. The blog and some commenters claim that the global temperature is not rising; however, all geologists and climate scientists know that the global temperatures have risen overall about 0.8 degrees Celsius since records started in the 1870's. We can't deny that fact. The real issue is why the global temperatures have risen. William Teach mentioned the ending of the Little Ice Age. This was not due to anything but the climate cycle which is affected by multiple, complicated systems. The increase in global temperatures is, in part, a product of the ending of the Little Ice Age. It's just how the world works.

    Now on to the issue of CO2. In earth's history, after warming takes place CO2 levels rise (notice I said AFTER warming CO2 rises). This is a common misconception. So, because the Little Ice Age ended, the earth warmed and CO2 levels rose naturally. But, this is the case when humans aren't pumping out CO2 like crazy. Here is a link to an interesting youtube video showing the CO2 levels throughout history Notice that after the industrial revolution, CO2 levels rose extravagently more than should be expected with normal warming of the earth (hmm.. I wonder what could have caused that?). Also, Cleanwater mentioned that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas which is just downright false. It is a greenhouse gas (not a large effect, but a greenhouse gas nonetheless). No, past warming was not caused by CO2 (really it is the opposite), but that's not to say that if we keep going about our business not caring about the crazy CO2 levels we produce it won't cause warming of the earth. It will. We should probably try and do something about that.

  9. Fran├žois Gervais "l'innocence du CO2" unfortunately I do not know if there is any translation in englis


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!