New Climate Study ‘Slays’ Greenhouse Gas Theory CO2 Claims
Climate skeptic blog, No Trick Zone, highlights an important new study that’ Thoroughly Disassembles The CO2-Drives-Climate Assumption In One Fell Swoop’ adding further weight to the mass of research curated at Principia Scientific International, exposing the fatal flaws in the greenhouse gas theory.
Kenneth Richard writes:
“Not only does CO2 have no discernible effect on climate, but any alleged anthropogenic role within the hypothetical greenhouse effect is not detectable either.
In recent decades there has been a concerted effort to assert it is “settled” science to characterize variability in the atmospheric CO2 concentration – assumed to be modulated by human activity – as the predominant factor in both climate change and the so-called greenhouse effect.
Science, however, is never truly settled.
A new Frontiers study succinctly unsettles this prevailing paradigm with surgeon-like precision. In under 20 pages the authors deliver a cogent critique of the CO2-drives-climate presumption. A few of the key points include:
• CO2 only contributes about 4-5% to the greenhouse effect, whereas water vapor and clouds contribute 95%.
• Of that 4-5% greenhouse effect contribution from CO2, just 4% of that can be attributed to human activities (i.e., fossil fuel emissions). Thus, about 96% of the 4% contribution from CO2 can be attributed to natural processes.
“WV [water vapor] and clouds (for which WV is responsible) dominate the ARE [atmospheric radiative effect], while CO2 contributes only 4-5% to it. Also, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only 4% of the total, with the vast majority (96%) being natural. Additionally, evidence suggests that changes in temperature precede those in CO2 concentration, thus challenging the assumption that CO2 drives temperature.”
• As Fig. 10 in the study indicates, observed changes in the atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot be demonstrated to have exerted any effect in altering longwave radiation measurements, much less the surface temperature. A hypothetical doubling the CO2 concentration [NC-RAGs, or non-condensing radiatively active gases] “results in a temperature increase of zero”.
“[W]hile the role of CO2 in photosynthesis is important in biochemical terms, it becomes negligible in terms of its contribution to the surface energy balance.”
“[T]he observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 [from 300 ppm to 420 ppm] has not altered the ARE [atmospheric radiative effect or greenhouse effect] in any discernible way.”
The above study by of the Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece, aligns well with Principia Scientific International’s highly-rated important first book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory – both emphasizing a rejection of the mainstream greenhouse gas/climate change paradigm. Here’s a breakdown of where they agree and how:
1. CO₂ Has No Significant Role in Climate Regulation
-
Article: Claims CO₂ only contributes 4–5% to the greenhouse effect, and just 4% of that is anthropogenic. Concludes human emissions are negligible.
-
Book: Argues CO₂ has no discernible effect on climate and that the greenhouse gas theory itself is fundamentally flawed.
✅ Agreement: Both assert CO₂’s influence is either negligible or effectively zero, undermining the idea that human emissions drive climate change.
2. Water Vapor and Clouds Dominate the Climate System
-
Article: States water vapor and clouds are responsible for ~95% of the so-called greenhouse effect.
-
Book: Also emphasizes water vapor as the primary climate regulator and dismisses CO₂’s role.
✅ Agreement: Both elevate water vapor/clouds as the true drivers of atmospheric energy balance.
3. Temperature Changes Precede CO₂ Changes
-
Article: Notes evidence that temperature changes lead CO₂ changes, not the other way around.
-
Book: Highlights the same point, often referencing ice-core records where CO₂ lags temperature.
✅ Agreement: Both challenge the “CO₂ drives warming” causality by flipping the order of influence.
4. Convection vs. Radiation
-
Article: Argues heat transfer in the atmosphere is dominated by convection, not radiation—similar to a real greenhouse versus the misapplied “greenhouse effect” analogy.
-
Book: Makes a parallel case, asserting that atmospheric processes are misunderstood when cast primarily in terms of radiation and CO₂ trapping heat.
✅ Agreement: Both critique the “greenhouse” metaphor, contending that convection and atmospheric mass are the real drivers of temperature gradients.
5. Atmospheric Mass and the Lapse Rate as Key Factors
-
Article: Uses Mount Kilimanjaro’s summit-to-base temperature gradient to illustrate that atmospheric pressure and mass (lapse rate) explain Earth’s temperature profile, not CO₂.
-
Book: Repeatedly makes the case that the lapse rate and atmospheric physics explain Earth’s surface temperatures, not radiative gases.
✅ Agreement: Both attribute the 36 K Earth-surface “greenhouse effect” warming to pressure/altitude effects rather than radiative greenhouse gases.
6. Rejection of “Settled Science”
-
Article: Critiques the idea that CO₂-driven climate science is “settled,” calling it a dogma contradicted by observational evidence.
-
Book: The entire premise of Slaying the Dragon is to dismantle the orthodoxy of climate consensus, especially the greenhouse gas theory.
✅ Agreement: Both position themselves as challenging an entrenched, politically motivated orthodoxy.
Conclusion
Both the latest study and the ‘Slayers’ book converge on the core rejection of the greenhouse gas theory. They argue that:
-
CO₂’s role is negligible or nonexistent,
-
water vapor and atmospheric physics dominate climate processes,
-
mainstream climate science is based on a flawed premise,
-
and convection/pressure explain observed temperature gradients better than radiative forcing models.
The new paper essentially provides a scientific update (via the Koutsoyiannis & Tsakalias 2025 paper) that reinforces the same arguments the Slayers laid out in their book. It can be seen as a continuation or corroboration of the key climate thesis extolled by Principia Scientific International.
About John O’Sullivan: John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). He is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted skeptic climatologist Dr Ball in defeating UN climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the multi-million-dollar ‘science trial of the century‘. From 2010 O’Sullivan led the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists who complied the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ debunking alarmist lies about carbon dioxide plus their follow-up climate book. His most recent publication, ‘Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon’ broadens PSI’s critiques of mainstream medical group think and junk science.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
There is no water vapor in the atmosphere.! A phase chart for water shows at sea level water does not exist as a gas below 100C and yet water will evaporate into the atmosphere down to -30 C,
Reverse the process using a tea kettle, The water escapes the kettle as an invisible gas, then on cooling, become visible liquid droplets.- As they continue to cool the droplets again become invisible, They are not evaporating, becoming a gas, by losing energy and reaching a lower temperature. Water does not have one boiling point when gaining energy and another boiling point when losing energy. The energy in the visible droplets is forming liquid crystals with the positive hydonium ions surrounded by a negatively charged shell, formed from water molecules combining with a hydroxyl ion. It is this negatively charged outer shell that causes the water crystals to rise in the atmosphere and form clouds. These clouds grow by in increasing altitude, maintaining a flat bottom, as the crystals grow from the increase in hydroxyl ions due to the increased absorption of IR radiation. The increase in the negative charge results in the surface of the Earth having a positive charge under thunder clouds as the electrons on the surface are repelled by the increasing negative charge of the water crystals . When the liquid crystals reach their second melting point, the charges in the crystal neutralize producing rain {liquid water} before the water can become a gas (100 C + 590 calories} which explains why water. with a molecular weight less than O2 or N2. is concentrated in the troposphere instead of being at the top of the atmosphere.
Reply
Crackpot
| #
I disagree that science is never settled. If your theory doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong, like forever. That much can be settled. Both Einstein and Feynman said this. You can never be sure your theory is right, only that it hasn’t been proven wrong yet.
That day came for the greenhouse gas hypothesis in 1909 with RW Wood’s controlled experiment, which greatly exaggerated the claimed cause (back-radiation) with no effect. That they still hold to it is no surprise: Disproof came in the 1600’s for autogenesis with Francesco Redi’s experiment, followed up by Pasteur for microbes. Life comes only from life, but anything-but-God “scientists” still hang on to the idea life came from lifeless ooze, and they still hang on to their superstitious fear of God’s airborne plant food, which is all it is.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
I have been using the doubling the CO2 rate argument to show how irrelevant CO2 is at the 430-ppm level since a doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm is postulated to generate a warm forcing of about 3.7 W/m2 against the Total Global Average Downwelling of about 508 W/m2 it becomes quickly clear the change is irrelevant to the so called “heat” budget.
It is the Sun/Ocean Dynamo that dominates the Weather processes.
Reply
Crackpot
| #
The “greenhouse gas effect” is not small and irrelevant – it is completely nonexistent.
Science is experiment. Period. Not just Wood’s experiment, but the many thousands of controlled experiments and experiences that gave rise to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which “back-radiative forcing” utterly violates.
Once a theory is disproved experimentally, a true scientist changes it. The warmists didn’t do that. They impune and lie and cherry-pick climate, because there’s money and revenge in it.
Arguing climate is a red herring. You cannot possibly isolate variables in the global climate or especially the paleoclimate. So don’t fall for it.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Crackpot,
The “greenhouse” effect is the result of the transmission of energy converting from convection to conduction. When gas molecules collide there is no restriction on the transfer of energy while with conduction the bonds between the molecules of the solids or liquids inhibits the transfer of energy from the gas molecules to the atoms in the other medium.
This can be demonstrated with stacked chambers constructed of the same materials. When the gas in the bottom chamber is heated it will transfer energy to the material separating the two chambers. The conversion of convection to conduction will inhibit the transfer of energy from the gas to the upper chamber creating a warmer layer of gas at the top of the bottom chamber.
The upper chamber will be heated by the materials separating the chambers and the means of transfer will convert from conduction to convection. The gas will then transfer energy to the top of the upper chamber where it will once again convert convection to conduction. Since the bottom of the second chamber is the same material as the material as the top of the chamber, it will set the rate of transfer of energy and there will not be a layer of warm gas at the top of the second chamber.
Herb
Reply