25 Simple Bullet Points Proving CO2 Does Not Cause Global Warming: by a Geologist, for a Change (Dr Roger Higgs)

Dr Roger Higgs, Geoclastica Ltd, Technical Note 2019-11, 6th April 2019, on ResearchGate (LINK HERE)

We urgently need to expose the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ fallacy being forced upon your children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces by schools, universities, governments and mainstream media worldwide, and to denounce it in scrupulously truthful terms easily understood by the public, including those youngsters themselves.

Here are the 25 bullet points proving CO2’s innocence:

1) Geologists know climate change unrelated to atmospheric CO2 occurred throughout Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history. Yet the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no geologists among the hundreds of appointed authors of its Fifth Assessment Report of 2014 and its Sixth Report due in 2022 (see my Technical Note 2019-10). Thus IPCC incredibly lacks both geological input and long-term perspective.

2) IPCC’s very existence relies on public belief in manmade or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) by CO2 emissions. Moreover its appointed authors, mostly government and university researchers, are nearly all biased by strong vested interests in AGW, i.e. reputations (publications, lectures) & continuance of salaries & research grants. Similarly, major universities have abandoned their scientific impartiality & integrity by hosting research institutes mandated to confirm & act on AGW, e.g. Grantham Institute (Imperial College), Tyndall Centre.

3) The often-repeated ‘97% consensus among scientists that global warming is man’s fault’ (CO2 emissions) is untrue. It refers in fact to surveys of just a relatively small group of ‘climate scientists’ (a fairly new type of scientist, with strong incentives for bias; see Bullets 2 & 15), moreover only those who are ‘actively publishing’.

4) ‘Climate change denier’ & ‘global warming denier’ are despicable & dishonest terms for ‘AGW doubters’. No educated person disputes global warming, as thermometers measured 1°C rise from 1850 to 2016 (with pauses).

5) The ‘Greenhouse Hypothesis’, on which IPCC’s belief in AGW is based, is that atmospheric gases trap heat. But this old (19th century) notion is merely an idea, not a hypothesis, because it is untestable, impossible to prove in a laboratory as no experimental container can imitate Earth’s uncontained, well-mixed atmosphere.

6) IPCC computer models are so full of assumptions as to be extremely unreliable, e.g. forecast warming for 1995 to 2015 turned out to be 2-3 times too high ! A likely reason is that the greenhouse idea is nonsense, as explained in recent publications by several scientists. See Bullet 19 for an equally drastic failure of IPCC models. See also: and

7) For about 75% of the last 550 million years, CO2 was 2 to 15 times higher than now. Evolution flourished, CO2 enabling plant photosynthesis, the basis of all life. Extinction events due to overheating by CO2 are unknown. !!

8) Through the last 12,000 years (our current Holocene interglacial period), CO2 was a mere 250 to 290 ppm (parts per million), near plant-starvation level, until about 1850 when industrial CO2 emissions began, making CO2 climb steeply. Nevertheless CO2 today it is still only 412ppm, i.e. under half of one-tenth of 1% of our atmosphere

9) Until man began adding CO2 about 1850, warming (determined from ‘proxies’ like tree rings) since the 1600AD Little Ice Age peak was accompanied by slowly rising CO2 (measured in ice cores). A simple explanation is CO2 release by ocean water, whose CO2-holding capacity decreases upon warming.

10) Supporting this sign that CO2 is a consequence, not cause, of global warming, a published study of 1980-2011 measurements showed that changes in warming rate precede changes in CO2’s growth rate, by about a year.

11) Since the 1850 start of man’s additions, CO2’s rise has generally accelerated, without reversals. In stark contrast, the post-1850 to present-day continuance of warming out of the Little Ice Age was interrupted by frequent small coolings of 1-3 years (some relatable to ‘volcanic winters’), plus two 30-year coolings (1878 to 1910, 1944 to 1976), and the famous 1998 to 2013 ‘global-warming pause’ or ‘hiatus’ (Wiki).

12) This unsteady modern warming instead resembles the unsteady rise of the sun’s magnetic output from 1901 toward a rare solar ‘Grand Maximum’ peaking in 1991, the first in 1700 years !

13) Modern warming reached a peak in February 2016. Since then, Earth has cooled for 3 years (now April 2019).

14) The ‘Svensmark Theory’ says increased solar magnetic flux warms Earth by deflecting cosmic rays, thus reducing cloudiness, allowing more of the sun’s warmth to heat the land and ocean instead of being reflected. In support, a NASA study of satellite data spanning 32 years (1979-2011) showed decreasing cloud cover.

15) Vociferous IPCC-involved climate scientist Dr Stefan Rahmstorf (Wiki) of the German government’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, recipient of a US$1 million personal research grant from a private foundation, wrongly said in his 2008 article ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’: “there is no viable alternative … [to CO2 as driver of modern warming from 1940 to 2005 because] … different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase” during that period. Yet nine years earlier, in 1999, famous physicist Dr Michael Lockwood (Wiki; FRS) wrote, in ‘A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field During the Past 100 Years’, published in prestigious Nature journal: “the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964” and 2.3 since 1901 !! See for yourselves the striking overall 1964-91 climb in solar-magnetic output, recorded by the strong overall fall in detected neutrons (proportional to cosmic rays), in graph 3 here:

16) Lockwood showed averaged solar magnetic flux increased 230% from 1901 to 1995, i.e. more than doubled ! The final peak value was 5 times the starting minimum value ! Bullets 17 & 18 likewise back Svensmark’s theory…

17) … after the previous solar Grand Maximum (4th century, long before industrial CO2), in the next decades Earth warmed to near or above today’s temperature. Then ‘sawtooth’ cooling proceeded, through the Dark Ages and ‘Medieval Warm Period’, into the Little Ice Age, paralleling a 1,000-year unsteady solar decline; and …

18) … before that, between 8000 and 2000BC, Earth was occasionally warmer than today for hundreds if not thousands of years, as shown by tree rings, shrunken glaciers, etc.. Then unsteady cooling from 3000BC into the Little Ice Age paralleled unsteady solar decline following the Holocene’s ‘super-Grand’ Maximum near 3000BC.

19) This 4,500-year cooling contradicts IPCC computer models that instead predict warming by the simultaneous (slow) rise in CO2. This is the ‘The Holocene Temperature Conundrum’ of Liu et al. (2014). See also Bullet 6.

20) Embarrassingly for AGW promoters, the 8000-2000BC warm interval (Bullet 18) was already, ironically, named the ‘Holocene Climatic Optimum’, before today’s CO2/AGW hysteria began. The warmth probably benefitted human social development. Indeed, it was cold episodes, bringing drought and famine, that ended civilisations.

21) Cross-correlating post-1880 graphs of solar-magnetic flux versus Earth’s temperature suggests a 25-year time-lag, such that the 2016 peak temperature corresponds to the 1991 solar peak. The lag is probably due to the ocean’s high thermal inertia due to its enormous volume and high heat capacity, hence slow response to warming.

22) IPCC, ignoring the possibility of such a time-lag, claims that simultaneous global warming (until 2016) and solar weakening (since 1991) must mean that warming is driven by CO2 !

23) The last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago was warmer than our Holocene interglacial. Humans and polar bears survived ! CO2 was then about 275ppm, i.e. lower than now (Bullet 8).

24) The simultaneous rise of temperature & CO2 is a ‘spurious correlation’. Warming’s real cause was a solar build-up to a rare Grand Maximum, which man’s industrialisation accompanied by chance. So IPCC demonising CO2 as a ‘pollutant’ is a colossal blunder, costing trillions of dollars in needless & ineffectual efforts to reduce it.

25) Global cooling now in progress since February 2016 can be predicted to last at least 28 years (i.e. to 2044), matching the sun’s 28-year decline from 1991 to today, and allowing for the 25-year time-lag (Bullet 21).

Inescapable conclusion: the IPCC is wrong − the sun, not CO2, drove modern global warming.


Contact: [email protected] for literature sources for any of the aforementioned ‘Inconvenient Facts’

Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift

Related posts

17 Thoughts to “25 Simple Bullet Points Proving CO2 Does Not Cause Global Warming: by a Geologist, for a Change (Dr Roger Higgs)”

  1. Anonymous

    So we just need more clouds to cool things down?

    Amazing. When Mt St Helens blew its top we had two below average temp summers in a row.

    1. Svd

      Sadly, this list is highly questionable. Clouds can have an effect, but they are very complicated things and it’s not as easy as you say. It depends on the altitude, source, location and composition, for example.

      1. So, you question the entire list, because you feel clouds are too complex to talk about.
        How much do you guys get paid to defecate all over the internet?
        “..clouds can have an effect…”, Really? It depends all all sorts of “for examples” you say.
        Care to explain in actual words? Or is your task just to poop on others’ work, someone else will think up the irrelevancies, lies and obfuscations needed to prove that clouds are just symptoms of climate change?


    Simple and straight to the point.
    Times are finally changing and real facts will emerge, while fake pseudo science news,
    will simply start to float around and dissolve like snow in the sun.
    Thank you

  3. Svd

    Wow, and filtering out critical comments. You are really committed to keeping your readers uninformed.

  4. Nicky

    Interesting. But you should probably use links to the relevant material you reference and to back up some of your claims with more evidence (even if it’s on this same website). This would give the article much more weight than what it currently has.

  5. Charles Higley

    “8) Through the last 12,000 years (our current Holocene interglacial period), CO2 was a mere 250 to 290 ppm (parts per million), near plant-starvation level, until about 1850 when industrial CO2 emissions began, making CO2 climb steeply.”

    This one is wrong, as it depends on ice core data that is patently not empirical. Ice cores are seriously stressed and damaged during extraction and lose 30–50% of the contained gases. Taking this as empirical is just wrong. If you back calculate 40% loses, past CO2 has been higher than now many time in the last 12,000 years.

    Also, as human CO2 emissions increase logarithmically and atmospheric CO2 continue to go up linearly, it is clear that we are having to effect on CO2. To pretend that our industrial revolution has increased CO2 also denies the fact that the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 years and thus has a transient effect. Furthermore, if you look realistically at CO2, our contribution is tiny compared to the up to 50-times more CO2 dissolved in the oceans.

  6. Graham Lewis

    So there are no geologists on IPCC panel I bet there are no astronomers or astrophysicists either .
    Being a keen astronomer I studied the Maunder cycles as well
    I believe we won’t have to wait too long for the truth to out.

  7. NCPatriot24

    Take notice of the upcoming onslaught of climate change/global warming disinformation that will be churned out by the complicit media centers. They have published a roadmap for all ‘reporters’ to follow in their effort to continue the brainwashing of the uninformed, unsuspecting public. Their distortions should be regarded as criminal and disputed with facts such as covered in this article. True scientific records and facts have, and always will continue to prove wrong the unqualified statements. Their goal is never openly discussed and should be revealed. It is nothing more than a scam to establish a ‘vehicle’ to ‘sell’ the carbon tax credit system where trillions of dollars will be extracted from individuals and businesses that will flow through their untraceable coffers.

    1. Fred

      So you’re another faketriot? Interesting that this website will publish this type of comment but not anything that actually refutes this stupid article. Your comment is just nonsense. Connedspiracy bullshit.

  8. Anonymous

    Now I have the ammunition to attack the climate alarmists. Thank you.

    1. Fred

      Uh, no you don’t. The article is full of utter nonsense and misleading, irrelevant claims. You will not convince anyone with this garbage, certainly not anyone who is actually properly informed.

  9. Kirt Griffin

    On point#3 another issue is that the question in the survey was, since 1850, from what you have read has the planet warmed and is man partly responsible. Not mostly and no mention of catastrophic.

  10. Wanda

    I’ll continue to trust the scientists, not the fossil fuel industry.

    1. Cap Allon

      Just not this scientist though — Dr Roger Higgs?

  11. JR

    Whoever published this must be a moron to post such crap. This article and claims is pure garbage. Easily defeated with anyone with a functioning mind. READ THE SCIENCE and you will know that these claims are false, facetious, irrelevant and UNRELATED to the warming now being experienced.

    1. Roger Payne

      Characteristic if our times is how “Science” and “the science” (there is no such thing) are words which have taken on a kind of God-given absolutism, like a religious doctrine. But like all human endeavour, scientific knowledge is limited not only by the limitations of our minds, but also times, environment, politics of all kinds, fashion, shifts in gained or lost knowledge. The UN IPCC itself has stated it is not really about climate, but centralised world government and management of money distribution, with the “idea” of global warming that they “hit on” as a tool – clearly stated at the Club of Rome by its founding first Director Maurice Strong, of Marxist persuasion. He also stated it was the responsibility of them to bring about the collapse of industrial civilisation. Hence our current severe crises.

Leave a Comment