The CO2 Myth

CO2, i.e. carbon dioxide is the gas of life; the food of plants. Yet CO2 is also presented as the key protagonist in the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic (i.e. man made) climate change. We are repeatedly told that our carbon-based lifestyles are driving climate change resulting in a climate “emergency”.

“Climate emergency” has become a mantra and one that is presented as fact. Anyone who dares to question the narrative is labelled a “climate change denier” and often faces ridicule. Climate scientists who challenge the narrative can be professionally marginalised, ostracised and censored. But what if CO2 is not the problem that the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Economic Forum (WEF), the climate alarmists, many politicians and local councillors as well as every corporation and business that has signed up to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) would have us believe it is? 

Shouldn’t we be asking ourselves, “Is CO2 really a problem?”

What if the scientific argument with respect to CO2 is flawed? Well it is! Let us explain why with the help of a climate scientist.

What is the Relevance of 0.7°C Warming Mentioned in the Movie?

The overarching goal of the Paris Agreement is to hold “the increases in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels”. In latter years, that number has reduced to 1.5°C as a consequence of the position taken by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC claims that crossing the threshold of 1.5°C significantly increases the risks of far more severe climate change impacts such as more frequent and severe droughts, heatwaves and rainfall. World leaders have embraced this reduced threshold. The IPCC further claim that in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C, greenhouse gas emissions (of which CO2 is one) must peak before 2025 at the latest and decline 43% by 2030. The real-world data shows that, contrary to what we are led to believe, the planet is not heading towards catastrophic warming and that CO2 emissions are not dangerously high.

Only Theory

Scientists, both realists and alarmists, present theories using climate modelling.

CLIMATE MODELS = OPINION

CLIMATE MODELS ≠ FACT

CLIMATE MODELS ≠ EVIDENCE

In science, theory has to match observation: i.e. real world data is required to prove the theory.

Let us consider both the alarmist theory and the realist theory against observed data.

The graph below shows the actual measured temperature rise that has occurred since 1979, (the green line) compared to the average modelled temperature rise (the red line) over the same period i.e. observation versus theory.

It is evident from this graph that the actual measured temperatures i.e. the observed real-world data (the green line) do not match the average modelled temperatures (the red line). The modelled data from the climate alarmists has systematically predicted higher temperatures than have actually occurred i.e. warming of the planet has not taken place. Therefore, the theory of the climate alarmists is wrong.

The graphs below show the modelling of the climate realists theory of heat leaving Earth as a consequence of CO2, compared to the real-world data taken from satellites in the two geographical areas: the Sahara and the Mediterranean. The vertical axis shows the heat leaving Earth whilst the horizontal axis shows the frequency.

It is evident from the graphs that the real world data from satellites matches the theory of the climate realists. Thus, the theory of the climate realists is correct.

Consequently, climate realists can say with confidence that if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere were to double then Earth would only warm by 0.7°C.  This number, 0.7°C, is significantly lower than the 1.5°C threshold identified by the IPCC so there is no need for alarm!

The real-world data shows that, contrary to what we are led to believe, the planet is not heading towards catastrophic warming and CO2 emissions are not dangerously high.

It should, therefore, be obvious as to why it is critical to expose the flawed science which places CO2 as the central cause of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. If we fail to do so, then any and all Net Zero policies, no matter how extreme, will be justified on the basis that they are saving the planet from disastrous warming when in reality the reverse is true: they will inflict harm on the people and the planet. Our future depends on us exposing the CO2 myth.

Important Note: 

“Hypothesis” and “theory” are two scientific terms that are often used interchangeably, however, they have very different meanings.

“Hypothesis” is an educated guess about something observable. It is a new idea that a scientist puts forward prior to carrying out any research. You can find the dictionary definition here.

“Theory” is an explanation for something observable that is supported by data. Scientific theories are confirmed by experiments and testing. The dictionary definition can be found here.

So is the relentlessly propagated climate emergency narrative “science” to inform the people or “propaganda” intended to instil fear in the people such that they will accept Net Zero policies that will serve to impoverish them?

The revised eleventh edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines “science” in the following way:

“the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”.

The Oxford English dictionary define “propaganda” in the following way:

“The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a particular cause or point of view, often a political agenda.” 

Chris Morrison (Environment Editor, Daily Sceptic) agrees with us – it’s propaganda. You can read his report by clicking on the image.

Chris Packham’s BBC Series Warning of “Mass Extinction” by CO2 is Propaganda, Not Science