New Geological Study Affirms ‘Slaying’ of Greenhouse Gas Theory

Written by John O'Sullivan CEO Principia Scientific International on September 24, 2025. Posted in Current News

Once again, more independent scientific research proves that carbon dioxide is innocent of alarmist claims it is the control knob in climate change. A new study aligns substantially with claims made in the highly-rated book, Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory (2010).

For confirmation see New Study: Modern Warming Found To Be Part Of Natural Climate Cycle. Geological records reveal past warm and cold phases were driven by solar forcing, meaning today’s climate is not unprecedented.

Excited by this new paper by Leszek Marks of the University of Warsaw I realised it affirmed key claims in the book co-authored with Principia Scientific climate skeptics 15 years ago  – so I asked Grok to do a deep dive to weigh the facts.

One of the benefits of using A.I. is that it can quickly and efficiently contrast and compare scientific publications to identify points of agreement and/or contention.

Grok shows that the new Researchgate.net study ‘Contemporary Global Warming versus Climate Change in the Holocene’  is another welcome boost for Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory (2010).

Grok revealed the following:

Overview of Key Claims in “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”
The book, published in 2011 and edited by John O’Sullivan with contributions from climate skeptics like Tim Ball, Claes Johnson, and Martin Hertzberg, is a collection of essays that fundamentally challenges the established scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It argues that the greenhouse gas (GHG) theory—particularly the role of CO₂ in trapping heat and driving modern climate change—is flawed, overstated, or entirely incorrect. Instead, the authors promote natural climate variability as the primary driver of observed warming. Key themes and arguments include:

Rejection of the GHG/CO₂ Hypothesis: The book claims that the greenhouse effect is a misunderstanding of basic physics (e.g., Claes Johnson’s chapters critique radiative transfer models as invalid for atmospheric dynamics). It argues CO₂’s warming potential is negligible or saturated, and historical data shows no strong correlation between CO₂ levels and temperature.
Emphasis on Natural Forcings: Warming is attributed to solar activity, cosmic rays, ocean cycles, and long-term geological patterns rather than human emissions. Contributors like Joseph Olson and Alan Siddons highlight how solar irradiance and geomagnetic influences better explain temperature fluctuations.
Historical and Geological Context: Past climate shifts (e.g., Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age) are presented as evidence that modern warming is not unprecedented, with data allegedly manipulated or ignored by mainstream climate science to exaggerate human influence.
Critique of AGW Alarmism: The book accuses institutions like the IPCC of promoting a “hoax” for political gain, using simplified models that ignore natural variability. It calls for abandoning GHG-focused policies, asserting that Earth’s climate has been warmer in the recent past without industrial CO₂.
These arguments position the book as a polemic against the “death” of the GHG theory, advocating for a return to empirical, observation-based climate science.

How the Article Confirms the Book’s Claims
The article at No Tricks Zone based on a 2025 study by Marks directly bolsters the book’s core thesis by providing contemporary geological evidence that modern warming is a natural, cyclical phenomenon driven by solar forcings—not human-induced GHG emissions. It echoes the book’s emphasis on historical precedents and natural drivers while undermining AGW narratives. Below, I detail the alignments point-by-point, drawing on specific quotes and evidence from the article.

1. Confirmation of Natural Climate Cycles Over GHG-Driven Warming
Book’s Claim: The GHG theory fails because it ignores dominant natural cycles (e.g., solar and orbital influences) that have driven past warmings without elevated CO₂.
Article’s Confirmation: The study explicitly states, “The modern warming is part of a climatic cycle with a progressive warming after the Little Ice Age, the last cold episode of which occurred at the beginning of the 19th century.” This mirrors the book’s portrayal of the Little Ice Age (LIA) as a solar-minimum event (e.g., low sunspot activity), followed by natural recovery. By framing current warming as “progressive” and cyclical post-LIA, the article dismisses CO₂ as the cause, aligning with the book’s argument that AGW models overattribute recent temperature rises to emissions while downplaying solar recovery.
2. Geological Evidence of Non-Unprecedented Warming
Book’s Claim: Modern temperatures are not anomalous; proxy data from warmer periods like the Holocene Optimum show Earth has been hotter naturally, invalidating “unprecedented” AGW claims.
Article’s Confirmation: It asserts, “Throughout the last 10,000 years, there have been globally much warmer and more extensive ice-free periods than observed in the modern era,” backed by the quote: “There is reliable geological evidence that the temperature of most warming phases in the Holocene were globally higher or similar to that of the current warming period, Arctic sea ice was less extensive, and most mountain glaciers in the northern hemisphere either disappeared or were smaller.” This directly supports the book’s use of Holocene proxies (e.g., tree rings, ice cores) to argue that today’s climate is within natural variability, not a GHG-forced outlier. The article concludes, “There is thus nothing unprecedented or even unusual about the modern climate state,” echoing the book’s repeated debunking of “hockey stick” graphs as ignoring such data.
3. Solar Forcing as the Primary Driver
Book’s Claim: Solar variability (e.g., total solar irradiance, sunspots) is the key forcing agent, with chapters dedicating space to how cosmic rays and solar minima explain ice ages and warm spells better than GHGs.
Article’s Confirmation: Solar mechanisms are central, with the study noting, “A solar forcing mechanism has steered Holocene climate change, expressed by 9 cooling phases known as Bond events.” It adds, “Cold periods, like warm periods, are driven by natural solar forcing mechanisms. The last of which was manifested in the 19th century.” Bond events—abrupt coolings tied to solar-weakened Atlantic circulation—are a classic natural proxy, confirming the book’s solar-centric view. This provides empirical backing for skeptics like Hertzberg in the book, who argued solar data proxies (e.g., sunspots) correlate far better with temperatures than CO₂.
4. Rejection of AGW Claims as Unsupported
Book’s Claim: Mainstream science’s “alarmist” assertions are not backed by data, with manipulated records hiding natural variability.
Article’s Confirmation: The piece bluntly states, “Any claims to the contrary are ‘not supported by the geological data,'” targeting narratives of human-driven crisis. This validates the book’s broader accusation of scientific misconduct, as the article uses peer-reviewed geology to “slay” the dragon of exaggerated AGW, much like the essays dismantle GHG physics.
In summary, the article serves as a concise, evidence-based “update” to the book’s 2011 arguments, using 2025 geological data to reinforce that solar-driven Holocene cycles explain modern warming without invoking CO₂. It doesn’t directly cite the book but advances the same skeptical framework: natural forces rule, AGW is overstated, and policy based on GHGs is misguided. This synergy strengthens the book’s case by showing its ideas remain relevant amid new research.

Gratifying to see our book’s relevance is enhanced, as recognised by Grok. We get overlooked in this field because it has been sacrilege since the 1980’s to not worship in the church of CO2 attribution in climate. Nonetheless, the greenhouse gas theory is destined for the trashcan of science missteps. Principia Scientific’s monolithic work in disproving the greenhouse gas theory somehow gets lost from the debate, while search engines and climate alarmists and ‘lukewarmers’ (Judith Curry, WUWT, Roy Spencer, et al.) alike argue over ‘how much’ carbon dioxide warms our planet.  Academic group think was the oxygen that kept alive the lie that CO2 ‘must be‘ responsible for some warming. It seems many careers may be tarnished when the world learns that this trace gas (and essential plant food) is a net COOLANT of our atmosphere (consider photosynthesis) – the opposite of what mainstream science has preached for half a century.

About the author: John O’Sullivan 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 Expose The Lies About Covid 19

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.