[System]
You are a **scientific‐rigor auditor**. You will receive the parsed contents of a research paper. Your job is to identify **only** those errors or flaws that directly undermine the **scientific validity** of the paper’s methods, analyses, or conclusions.

Your sole focus is to identify flaws—such as errors in experimental design, data integrity, calculations, statistical inference, or reproducibility—that directly call into question the validity of a specific claim, paragraph, or the paper as a whole.

**Do not** report issues that are purely presentational, rhetorical, stylistic, or related to citation practices.

---

After you’ve done a **detailed walkthrough** of the paper, output exactly in this format—no extra keys or commentary:

```
<analysis>
{detailed walk‑through of how you checked each section/figure and why you flagged (or did not flag) any flaw}
</analysis>

<response>
{
  "has_error": <true|false>,
  "errors": [
    {
      "location": "Section 2.1",
      "description": "Claim that ‘all X are Y’ is contradicted by citation [5], which shows examples of non‑Y X."
    },
    {
      "location": "Figure 3",
      "description": "XAxis labeled ‘Time (s)’ but units appear to be milliseconds; scale bar mismatches caption."
    }
    // …more entries…
  ]
}
</response>
```

- **Do not** include any other keys or prose outside these two tagged blocks.
- **Do not** report stylistic or citation issues.
- Be as precise as possible about **where** (section ID or figure/table) and **what** the scientific flaw is.
- Each description for the errors must be rooted in a scientific rationale explaining why it is 'wrong' (not how it could be improved).

Begin your analysis now.

[User]
1.
In the UK the Net Zero policy (meaning net zero emission of carbon dioxide, CO₂) has been undemocratically imposed on the UK population in the name of saving the planet from an imaginary ‘climate emergency’. The fight back by UK citizens has begun (Not a lot of people know that, 2019) because of the enormous cost associated with decarbonizing the energy system (circa £3 trillion or more) and the significant changes proposed to the way we live (i.e. Electric vehicles - banning the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles, including hybrids; banning installation of new gas boilers for central heating - forcing consumers to invest in heat pumps) (Hughes, 2024; Montford, 2022; Montford 2024a; Montford 2024b; NESO; 2024. Travers, 2020). In Switzerland the electorate rejected further strengthening of the CO2 Act (Switzerland, 2021).

2.
The UK Net Zero by 2050 Policy was undemocratically adopted by the UK government in 2019. Yet the science of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ is well known and there is no reason to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), or nitrous oxide (N₂O) because absorption of radiation is logarithmic. Adding to or removing these naturally occurring gases from the atmosphere will make little difference to the temperature or the climate. Water vapor (H₂O) is claimed to be a much stronger ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO₂, CH₄ or N₂O but cannot be regulated because it occurs naturally in vast quantities. This work explores the established science and recent developments in scientific knowledge around Net Zero with a view to making a rational recommendation for policy makers. There is little scientific evidence to support the case for Net Zero and that greenhouse gases are unlikely to contribute to a ‘climate emergency’ at current or any likely future higher concentrations. There is a case against the adoption of Net Zero given the enormous costs associated with implementing the policy, and the fact it is unlikely to achieve reductions in average near surface global air temperature, regardless of whether Net Zero is fully implemented and adopted worldwide. Therefore, Net Zero does not pass the cost-benefit test. The recommended policy is to abandon Net Zero and do nothing about so-called ‘greenhouse gases’.

3.
The Net Zero agenda in the UK was adopted based on the Climate Change Act (2008) and sets legally binding targets to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in the UK by at least 80% by 2050, from 1990 levels. The law requires that other greenhouse gases are also reduced and that climate change risks are adapted to. The Act (2008) requires the Government to set five-year emissions reductions targets, known as ‘carbon budgets’. In 2019, the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 was passed which increased the UK’s commitment to a 100% reduction in emissions by 2050. A further amendment in 2022 incentivized the transition away from fossil fuels with subsidies of so-called ‘clean energy’ for businesses. This is the UK Net Zero project.

4.
The economic consequences of pursuing Net Zero are thought to be devastating for the UK with estimates of costs up to £1.4 trillion for the UK alone offset by £1.1 trillion potential but dubious savings giving a net cost of £321 billion (385.2bn USD) or a cost of £10bn a year rising to £50bn a year according to the UK Climate Change Committee (https://www.theccc.org.uk/publications/). Recent reports (NESO, 2024) clearly show that Net Zero does not pass the cost-benefit test (Montford, 2024b) and is likely to cost each household in the UK £78,000 to decarbonise power generation and £58,000 to decarbonise road transport between now and 2050. With investment costs alone of £40bn per annum to 2050. All this expenditure, ~£300,000 per household in total, will be paid for by taxpayers, consumers, and businesses or through national debt for future generations to pay for (Sasse, 2021).

5.
Keywords: net zero, greenhouse gases, near surface atmospheric temperatures

6.
Correspondence: Michael Simpson, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 1FL, UK. E-mail: m.simpson@sheffield.ac.uk

7.
URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v17n6p137

8.
doi:10.5539/jsd.v17n6p137

9.
Michael Simpson¹

This will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable in society the most, increasing household bills by several thousand pounds a year.

The UK is a few very small islands (total area: 241,930 km²; with less than 1% of the world’s population at ~70m) and emits about 1% (0.327 Peta grams or 0.043% of all CO₂ sources equivalent to approximately 0.042ppmv) which is negligible. Noting that half of all CO₂ emitted to the air per annum is lost to the ocean and biomass.

With such wide-ranging policies and enormous costs for pursuing an all-electric approach, eliminating fossil fuels, excessive investment in and subsidy of unreliable, intermittent, and variable output from renewables and Net Zero by 2050 one would have thought the science would be overwhelming and readily available in the public domain. The ‘science’ has never been discussed by UK politicians to our knowledge, but one would have thought this would be essential before embarking on such a high-cost project as Net Zero.

The argument for Net Zero is that the concentration of CO₂ in air is increasing, some small portion of which may be due to human activities and that Net Zero will address this supposed ‘problem’. The underpinning consensus hypothesis is that the human emission of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ will increase concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere and thereby increase the global near surface atmospheric temperature by absorbance of infrared radiation leading to catastrophic changes in the weather. This leads to the idea that global temperatures should be limited to 2°C and preferably 1.5°C to avoid catastrophic climate change (Paris Climate Agreement, 2015). A further hypothesis is that there are tipping points in the climate system which will result in positive feedback and a runaway heating of the planet’s atmosphere may occur (Schellnhuber & Turner, 2009; Washington et al., 2009; Levermann et al., 2009; Notz & Schellnhuber, 2009; Lenton et al., 2008; Dakos et al., 2009; Archer et al., 2009). Some of these tipping point assumptions are built into faulty climate models, the outputs of which are interpreted as facts or evidence by activists and politicians. However, output from computer models is not data, evidence or fact and is controversial (Jaworowski, 2007; Bastardi, 2018; Innis, 2008: p.30; Smith, 2021; Nieboer, 2021; Craig, 2021). Only empirical scientifically established facts should be considered so that cause and effect are clear.

From the point of view of physics, the atmosphere is an almost perfect example of a stable system (Coe, et al., 2021). The climate operates with negative feedback (Le Chatelier’s Principle) as do most natural systems with many degrees of freedom (Kärner, 2007; Lindzen et al., 2001 & 2022). The ocean acts as a heat sink, effectively controlling the air temperature. Recent global average surface temperatures remain relatively stable (Easterbrook, 2016; Moran, 2015; Morano, 2021; Marohasy, 2017; Ridley, 2010) or warming very slightly from other causes (Sangster, 2018) and the increase in temperature from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0°K (Frank, 2010; Statistics Norway, 2023) and is less than predicted by climate models (Fyfe, 2013). This shows the difference between the consensus view and established facts.

There are a variety of problems in this area such as poor quality data (Marohasy, 2017; Booker, 2009; Plimer 2009; Plimer, 2017; Plimer, 2021; Wallace et al., 2017), unjustified data adjustments, infilling missing data to make the data fit the theory (Connolly et al., 2021; Nieboer, 2021) and homogenization of known poor quality weather station data with good quality data all of which are unknown in science. Tampering with data is fraudulent and the known bad data should have been excluded but this is apparently routinely used in climatology and raises questions about the consensus view (Marohasy, 2017; Marohasy 2020; O’Neill, et al., 2022; Wallace et al., 2017). Some 96% of US weather stations were found to be incorrectly or poorly sited (e.g. near artificial sources of heat such as air conditioning outlets, on concrete pads, close to buildings or car parks, in urban heat islands etc.) leading to artificial increases in measured temperatures in the USA (Watts, 2009; Watts, 2022; Fall et al., 2011). Loss of Russian weather stations from the data set (Booker, 2009; Drake, 2010), instrument changes, re-location of weather stations, population growth and land-use changes artificially increased calculated global average temperatures. These are basic mistakes in data collection, data handling, data analysis and are misleading.

There has been no increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes, strength of hurricanes or forest fires (Pielke, 2014; Curry, 2019; Watts & Taylor, 2022), no increase in extreme weather events (Alimonti et al., 2022; Alimonti & Mariani, 2024), a negative relationship between vulnerability and wealth (Formetta & Feyen, 2019) and all in agreement with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) views on the science which leads to questions about how the climate may be changing (Field et al., 2012; Pachauri, 2007 & 2014; Solomon et al., 2007; Stocker et al., 2013).

The IPCC has produced six major assessment reports (AR1 to 6) and several special reports which report on a great deal of good science (Noting that the IPCC does not do any science itself but merely compiles literature reviews). The Summaries for Policy Makers (SPM) are followed by most politicians. Yet the SPM do not agree in large part with the scientific assessment by the IPCC reports and appear to exaggerate the role of CO₂ and other

‘greenhouse gases’ in climate change. It appears that the SPM is written by governments and activists before the scientific assessment is reached which is a questionable practice (Ball 2011, 2014 and 2016; Smith 2021).

Other organizations have produced reports of a similar nature and using a similar literature (e.g. Science and Public Policy Institute; The Heartland Institute; The Centre for the Study of CO2; CO2 Science; Global Warming Policy Foundation; Net Zero Watch; The Fraser Institute; CO2 Coalition) and arrived at completely different conclusions to the IPCC and the SPM (Idso et al., 2013a; Idso et al., 2013b; Idso et al., 2014; Idso et al., 2015a, 2015b; Happer, et al., 2022). There are also some web pages (e.g. Popular Technology) which list over a thousand mainstream journal papers casting doubt on the role of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases as a source of climate change. For example, a recent report by the CO2 Coalition (2023) states clearly Net Zero regulations and actions are scientifically invalid because they:

- "Fabricate data or omit data that contradict their conclusions.
- Rely on computer models that do not work.
- Rely on findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are government opinions, not science.
- Omit the extraordinary social benefits of CO₂ and fossil fuels.
- Omit the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO₂ emissions to Net Zero.
- Reject the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO₂.

Net Zero, then, violates the tenets of the scientific method that for more than 300 years has underpinned the advancement of western civilization.” (CO2 Coalition, 2023; p. 1)

With such a strong scientific conviction the entire Net Zero agenda needs investigating. This paper reviews some of the important science which supports and undermines the Net Zero agenda.

A literature review was carried out on various topics related to greenhouse gases, climate change and the relevant scientific literature from the last 20 years in the areas of physics, chemistry, biology, paleoclimatology, geology etc. The method used was an evidence-based approach where several issues were critically evaluated based on fundamental knowledge of the science, emerging areas of scientific investigation and developments in scientific methods. The evidence-based approach is widely used (Green & Britten, 1998; Odom et al., 2005; Easterbrook, 2016; Pielke, 2014; IPCC, 2007a; IPCC 2007b; Field, 2012; IPCC 2014; McMillan & Shumacher, 2013). Evidence-based research uses data to establish cause and effect relationships which are known to work and allows interventions which are therefore expected to be effective.

Double checking of facts was a major undertaking. The readability and accessibility for the non-scientist was also thought to be important and so well referenced books, literature reviews and official reports summarizing the current knowledge in the area were used (Watts et al., 2022; Nieboer, 2021; Koonin, 2021, Moran, 2015; Morano, 2021; Wrightstone, 2017 and 2023; Marohasy, 2017; Marohasy, 2020; Booker, 2009; Plimer, 2009; Plimer, 2017; Plimer, 2021; Ball, 2014; Ball, 2011; Ball, 2016; Carter, 2010).

The scientific method is based on the idea that testable hypotheses can be put forward, tested against data and observation, and falsified (Popper, 1935). This is normal practice in the physical sciences (Chalmers, 1982, 2002, 2013). Noting that it only takes one sound piece of research to falsify a theory (i.e. prove it wrong). For example, it is now common practice for research papers to state that it is essential to reduce CO₂ emissions or greenhouse gas emissions without citing any supporting scientific literature or evidence. To a scientist this is unacceptable and should be challenged. This approach and the obsession with politically driven targets such as keeping global warming to 2°C or 1.5°C impose artificial constraints on scientists and policy makers and drown out rational debate and use of evidence to the contrary.

The historical development of the greenhouse effect, early discussions and controversies are presented by Mudge (2012) and Strangeways (2011). The explanation of the greenhouse effect or greenhouse gas theory of climate change is given in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis (IPCC, 2007, p. 946):

“Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface, by the atmosphere itself due to some gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides;

including downward to the Earth's surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect."

This is plausible but does not necessarily lead to global warming as radiation will be emitted at longer wavelengths in other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum where greenhouse gases do not absorb radiation potentially leading to an energy balance without increase in temperature. To further complicate matters the definition continues with the explanation:

"Thermal infrared radiation in the troposphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude at which it is emitted. In the troposphere, the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19°C in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth's surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect."

This sort of statement is not comprehensible to the average person, makes no sense scientifically and is immediately falsified by recent research (Seim and Olsen, 2020; Coe etal., 2021; Lange et al., 2022, Wijngaarden & Happer, 2019, 2020, 2021(a), 2021(b), 2022, Sheahen, 2021; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009; Zhong & Haigh, 2013). It also contradicts the work of Gray (2015 and 2019) and others and has been heavily criticized (Plimer, 2009; Plimer, 2017; Carter, 2010).

There are numerous falsifications of the greenhouse gas theory (sometimes called 'trace gas heating theory', see Siddons in Ball, 2011, p.19), of global warming and/or climate change (Ball, 2011; Ball, 2014; Ball, 2016; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009; Hertzberg et al, 2017; Allmendinger, 2017; Blaauw, 2017; Nikolov and Zeller, 2017). Fundamental empirically derived physical laws place limits on any changes in the atmospheric temperature unless there is some strong external force (e.g. increased or decreased solar radiation). For example, the Ideal Gas Law, the Beer-Lambert Law, heat capacities, heat conduction etc., (Atkins & de Paula, 2014; Barrow, 1973; Daniels & Alberty, 1966) all place physical limits on the amount of warming or cooling one might see in the climate system given any changes to heat from the sun or other sources.

This law was obtained from experimental work on gases and is well established (Atkins & de Paula, 2014). Further work gave the Molar Mass Ideal Gas Law (Robert, 2018; Holmes, 2017, 2018 and 2019) as:

$$ PV = nRT \tag{1} $$

$$ T = PM/pR \tag{2} $$

Where:

T = average near-surface atmospheric temperature in Kelvin
P = average near-surface atmospheric pressure in kPa (kilo Pascal)
n = is the number of moles of a real gas
M = average near-surface atmospheric mean molecular weight
R = gas constant (m³ K⁻¹ mole⁻¹ kg) = 8.314
V = volume in m³
p (rho) = Average near-surface atmospheric density in kg m⁻³

The Ideal Gas Law can be used to make predictions of the near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with an atmospheric pressure greater than 10kPa given a few variables which are known for that planetary body. This approach debunks the commonly held view that Venus has a high temperature due to the greenhouse effect which is due to the very high concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere (96.5% CO₂, 3.5% nitrogen with trace amounts of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, argon, and helium). The Ideal Gas Law predicts a high atmospheric temperature for Venus simply because the atmospheric pressure is so great (90 times that of Earth).

The average near-surface temperature for planetary bodies with an atmosphere calculated from the Ideal Gas Law is in excellent agreement with measured values suggesting that the greenhouse effect is very small or non-existent (Table 1). It is thought that the residual temperature difference of 33K between the Stephan-Boltzmann black body effective temperature (255K) on Earth and the measured near-surface temperature (288K) is caused by adiabatic auto-compression (Allmendinger, 2017; Robert, 2018; Holmes 2017, 2018 and 2019). An alternative view of this is given by Lindzen (2022). There is no need for the 'greenhouse effect' to explain the near surface atmospheric temperature of planetary bodies with atmospheric pressures above 10kPa (Holmes, 2017). The ideal gas law is robust and works for all gases.

Sources: adapted from Robert, HI (2018); R = gas constant (m³ K⁻¹ mole⁻¹ kg) = 8.314. For Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune the pressure chosen (101.3 kPa) is high in the atmosphere. These gas giants do not have a defined surface. See Nasa and wikipedia entries for these planetary bodies. Notes: (1) Venus: 96.5% supercritical carbon dioxide, 3.5% Nitrogen, with 150ppmv Sulphur dioxide. (2) Titan: 95% Nitrogen, 5% methane. (3) Jupiter is mostly Hydrogen, temperature calculated at 1 atmosphere (101.3kPa). (4) Neptune: NASA give two values for mean molar mass, 2.53 and 2.69gmol⁻¹. (5) Mars, the method is inaccurate due to the very low and variable atmospheric pressure. Pressures were measured at the Viking 1 landing site and varied between 690Pa (0.68% of the Earth’s atmospheric pressure) and 900Pa (0.89% of the Earth’s atmospheric pressure) according to the season. Only in atmospheres of over 10kPa is strong convection and troposphere/tropopause and the associated thermal gradient formed (see Lapse rate) (Holmes, 2018).

It is now possible to calculate the effect of 'greenhouse gases' on the surface atmospheric temperature by (a) using laboratory experimental methods; (b) using the Hitran database (https://hitran.org/); (c) using satellite observations of outgoing radiation compared to Stephan-Boltzmann effective black body radiation and calculated values of temperature.

Seim and Olsen, (2020) performed laboratory experiments to try and determine the effect of CO₂ concentrations on surface air temperatures and found only a very slight effect from back-scattered radiation. Coe, et al., (2021) used the Hitran database to calculate the fraction of the earth’s radiated energy absorbed and radiated into space by differing concentrations of CO₂, H₂O, CH₄ and N₂O (i.e. the most abundant and supposedly most powerful

‘greenhouse gases’). The near surface temperature and change in surface temperature can be calculated. The result is that climate sensitivity to doubling concentration of CO₂ is (0.5°C) including 0.06°C from CH₄ and 0.08°C from N₂O which is so small as to be undetectable. Most of the temperature change has already occurred and increasing CO₂, CH₄, N₂O concentrations will not lead to significant changes in air temperatures because absorption is logarithmic (Beer-Lambert Law of attenuation) – a law of diminishing returns.

The IPCC reports radiative Forcing (Watts per square meter) as:

Forcing (F) = 5.35Log(Cₜ/C₀)                                         (3)

and that temperature change is:

Delta(t) = Lambda x Delta(F)                                         (4)

Where Lambda is thought to be 0.4 to 0.5; Cₜ is the concentration (ppmv) and C₀ is the starting concentration (ppmv).

This gives Figure 1, which shows that between 400ppmv and 800ppmv of CO₂ the cumulative expected temperature change is 0.64°C (Lambda = 0.4) and 0.81°C (Lambda = 0.5) which is negligible and certainly not cause for alarm or for declaring a ‘climate emergency’. However, there are many other variables which affect temperatures, the ocean is a huge heat sink which moderates the global air temperature and absorbs CO₂ (Henry’s Law). Cloud cover can have significant effects on air temperatures and provide negative feedback in the climate system.

Wijngaarden & Happer (2020 and 2021) and Schildknecht, (2020) have done a similar analysis to that of Coe et al., (2021) using the Hitran database but then compared their calculations with satellite observations of outgoing radiation and obtained a near perfect match (Sheahen, 2021). This point is important as the scientific method requires agreement between observations (the satellite measurements of outgoing radiation across a wide range of frequencies) and calculated values from theoretical constructs such as absorption (Beer-Lambert Law) and emission (Stephan-Boltzmann equation) across the same range of frequencies. Wijngaarden & Happer (2020 and 2021) experimented by calculating doubling CO₂ concentrations and found only a very small increase in temperature due to the near saturation of the CO₂ absorption bands. This means that adding more CO₂ to the atmosphere in both theoretical and practical terms will make negligible difference to the global average surface temperature. This is in line with other scientists’ assessments (Table 2).

| Delta(t) °C | Concentration of CO₂ (ppmv)                |
| ----------- | ------------------------------------------ |
| 0.9         |                                            |
| 0.8         |                                            |
| 0.7         |                                            |
| 0.6         |                                            |
| 0.5         |                                            |
| 0.4         |                                            |
| 0.3         |                                            |
| 0.2         |                                            |
| 0.1         |                                            |
| 0           | 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 |

Figure 1. Delta T vs CO₂ concentration

Orange: Lambda = 0.5 (upper curve)
Blue: Lambda = 0.4 (lower curve)

The important point here is that the Ideal Gas Law, the logarithmic absorption of radiation and the theoretical calculations by Wijngaarden & Happer (2020 and 2021), Coe et al., (2021) based on the Beer-Lambert Law and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law show that there is an upper limit to the temperature change which can occur by adding ‘greenhouse gases’ to the atmosphere if the main source of incoming radiation (the Sun) does not change over time. The upper limit is ~0.81°C.

Recent reports show that achieving Net Zero (emissions of greenhouse gases) will have a negligible effect on temperature ~0.28°C from heat transfer calculations (Lindzen & Happer, 2024; Lindzen, et al., 2024).

Following a careful analysis of the so-called 'greenhouse effect' and the IPCC's attribution of 80% of warming to water vapor (~5% in air) and 20% to CO₂ (~0.04% in air) it was concluded that:

The application of the fundamental principles of physics (i.e. thermal conductivity and isochoric thermal diffusivity (which measures the ability of a material to conduct thermal energy relative to its ability to store thermal energy; high values means heat transfers quickly) and thermodynamics in a rigorous way clearly demonstrates that doubling CO₂ concentrations leads to negligible changes in thermal conductivity, isochoric thermal diffusivity, and heat capacity of air and as such these changes will be lost within the measuring inaccuracy and uncertainties and can hardly affect the physical properties of the atmosphere. For example, it was concluded that the effect of back radiation from water vapor is 200 times that of CO₂ (Lightfoot & Mamer, 2017):

"Thus, if CO₂ has any effect on atmospheric temperature and climate change, we show it is negligible." [p. 661] and "The sun controls the water vapor concentration in the atmosphere and it in turn controls the back radiation and atmospheric temperature and, hence, the climate. The effects of back radiation on Earth's atmospheric temperature is up to 200 times larger than that of CO₂ and works opposite to it. It overrides the effect of CO₂ such that the CO₂ contribution to atmospheric temperature is so small as to be negligible." (Lightfoot & Mamer, 2017: p. 670)

This view is supported (Nikolov and Zeller, 2017) concluding that:

"…the so-called 'greenhouse back radiation' is globally the result of the atmospheric thermal effect [adiabatic auto-compression] rather than a cause for it." (Nikolov & Zeller, 2017: p. 1).

The greenhouse gas theory has been refuted finding:

"The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the (false) assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behavior of gases, i.e. the atmosphere. …Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which support abandoning the [greenhouse gas] theory as a whole." (Allmendinger, 2017: p.1).

Using a simple model of the atmosphere Blaauw (2017):

"…demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse [gas] theory. …The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system's energy transfers… the model reproduces the global warming calculated trend in the surface temperature [and] agrees well with the observational data from AD1750 to AD 2000." (p.468).

"If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO₂ as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would manifest itself as a new kind of 'superinsulation' violating the conventional heat conduction equation." (Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009, p.280).

Benestad (2017) suggests the falsification by Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2009) has been refuted by Halpern et al., (2010) and Smith (2008) but fails to mention the robust rebuttal of the supposed refutation by Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2010) which added greater detail and criticism of the misconceptions inherent in the greenhouse

gas theory thus rendering it false.

Many climatologists ignore the well-established ideas of the Ideal Gas Law, Kinetic Theory of Gases and Collision Theory which explain the interaction of gases in the atmosphere (Atkins & de Paula, 2014; Salby, 2012; Tec science). For example, it is difficult for CO₂ to retain heat energy (by vibration, rotation, and translation) as there are 10³⁴ collisions between air molecules per second per cubic meter of gas at a pressure of 1 atmosphere (~101.3kPa) and on each collision, energy is exchanged leading to a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (similar to a normal distribution) of molecular energies across all molecules in air (Tec science). The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution has been experimentally determined (Atkins & de Paula, 2014). Thus, the major components of air (nitrogen and oxygen) retain most of the energy, cause evaporation of water vapor by heat transfer (mainly by conduction and convection) and emit radiation at longer wavelengths. The small concentration of CO₂ in air (circa 420ppmv) cannot account for large changes in the climate system which have occurred in the past (Wrightstone, 2017 and 2023; Ball, 2014). Plimer (2009 and 2017) presents a great deal of geological scientific evidence which covers paleoclimatology concluding that:

"There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere behaves neither as a greenhouse nor as an insulating blanket preventing heat escaping from the Earth. Competing forces of evaporation, convection, precipitation, and radiation create an energy balance in the atmosphere." (Plimer 2009: p.364).

Ball (2014) summarizes a great deal of the geological science:

"The most fundamental assumption in the theory that human CO₂ is causing global warming and climate change is that an increase in CO₂ will cause an increase in temperature. The problem is that every record of any duration for any period in the history of the Earth exactly the opposite relationship occurs temperature increase precedes CO₂ increase. Despite that a massive deception has developed and continues." Ball (2014: p. 1).

This statement agrees with many other scientists working in geology, earth sciences, physics and physical chemistry as can be seen in cited references in books (Easterbrook, 2016; Wrightstone 2017 and 2023; Plimer, 2009; Plimer 2017; Ball, 2014; Ball, 2011; Ball, 2016; Carter, 2010; Koutsoyiannis et al, 2023 & 2024; Hodzic, and Kennedy, 2019). Easterbrook (2016) uses the evidence-based approach to climate science and concludes that:

"Because of the absence of any physical evidence that CO₂ causes global warming, the main argument for CO₂ as the cause of warming rests largely on computer modelling." Easterbrook (2016: p.5).

This agrees with Soon (2007):

"There is no quantitative evidence that varying levels of minor greenhouse gases like CO₂ and CH₄ have accounted for even as much as half the reconstructed glacial-interglacial temperature changes or, more importantly, for the large variation in global ice volumes on both land and sea over the past 650kyr."

and leads to the conclusion that building models with the fictitious greenhouse gas effect already built into the model will give an output which clearly follows the input. Thus, if the CO₂ concentration is increased in the model, then the model will reflect an output of increased temperature (or some other pre-programmed climate feature) simply because the greenhouse gas effect has been built into the model (Lindzen, 1997; Rodhe et al., 2000; Idso et al., 2015b). This is circular reasoning (i.e. a logical fallacy) which is of no scientific value and is useless for making public policy on climate change or the economy or controlling CO₂ emissions.

"The degree of uncertainty in both climate forcings, and models of future climatic response leaves us in the unsatisfactory situation that all climate predictions are to some degree conditional. This circumstance will be improved if, and only if, the forcings are determined more accurately and the models are more completely validated against observations." Rodhe et al., 2000 p. 422.

The results of the models are projected far into the future (circa 80 to 100 years) where uncertainties are large, but projections can be used to demonstrate unrealistic but scary scenarios (Idso et al., 2015b). The literature that is used for the IPCC reports appears to be 'cherry picked' to agree with their paradigms that increasing CO₂ concentrations leads to warming. They ignore the vast literature in climatology, atmospheric physics, solar physics, physics, physical chemistry, geology, biology and palaeoclimatology much of which contradicts the IPCC's assessment in the summary for policymakers (SPM).

The objective of the IPCC was to find the human causes of climate change – not to look at all the causes of climate

change which would be the sensible thing to do if the science were to be used to inform policy decisions. However, there is no experimental evidence for a significant anthropogenic component to climate change (Kauppinen and Malmi, 2019) which leaves genuine scientists and citizens concerned about the role of the IPCC. This approach can be summarized (Field, 2019):

“We have a body [the IPCC] that is perceived to be the peak scientific body, using non-peer reviewed literature, written in some cases by undergraduates and people who do not yet have the kinds of credentials that the IPCC would have us believe. Some of whom have vested interests and preconceived notions about what should and should not be said or what their opinions should or should not be. Which is then second-guessed by policy makers, politicians and bureaucrats who probably have not much better understanding about the science than you or I. Then that becomes the most authoritative document, the ‘Bible’ if you will [on climate change].” Topher Field in discussion with investigative journalist Donna Laframboise, for the 50 to 1 project (www.50to1.net) (Field, 2019).

There is a suggestion (IPCC) that the residence time of CO₂ in the atmosphere is different for anthropogenic CO₂ and naturally occurring CO₂. This breaks a fundamental scientific principle, the Principle of Equivalence. That is: if there is equivalence between two things, they have the same use, function, size, or value (Collins English Dictionary, online). Thus, CO₂ is CO₂ no matter where it comes from, and each molecule will behave physically and react chemically in the same way.

The Keeling Curve of carbon dioxide concentration at Mauna Loa (https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/) shows a very gentle increase of ~120ppmv over the last ~60 years with a smaller seasonal cycle superimposed. The smaller seasonal cycle is thought to be caused by the difference between the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere land mass sizes, with the boreal forest of the north and Taiga acting as a very large CO₂ sink. This curve does not correlate with global average surface temperature which has fluctuated in the same period (Easterbrook, 2016; Wrightstone, 2017 and 2023). To a scientist familiar with the properties of gases this is a very small increase in the concentration of the rare trace gas CO₂ and does not logically lead to the need for significant political and economic controls on emissions of CO₂.

The anthropogenic CO₂ can be calculated based on the IPCC figures (Harde, 2017a):

The total mean rate of carbon dioxide emissions is, Er = 760Gt/yr = 760Pg/yr [Peta is 10¹⁵]

The IPCC estimates, that from this total rate a fraction, Ea = 32.7 Pg/year results from anthropogenic sources (i.e. man-made sources). Thus, the anthropogenic part is:

Ea (%) = (32.7 Pg/year × 100) / 760 Pg/yr = 4.3%       (1)

That is, with 420ppmv CO₂ in air the total accumulated anthropogenic part is (4.3%) ~18ppmv (4.19ppmv p.a.) which is negligible and can hardly affect the physical properties of the atmosphere (thermal conductivity, isochoric thermal diffusivity, heat capacities Cp and Cv or temperature etc.). The residence time in the atmosphere was calculated to be approximately 3 to 5 years and not the 100 to 1000 years claimed by the IPCC and others (Harde, 2017; see also criticism by Köhler et al., 2018).

Several authors suggest differing amounts of CO₂ from man-made sources:

Logistics: 8Gt CO₂ (Alzard et al., 2019; Schwanen et al., 2011; Tacken et al., 2014) (i.e. 8Pg/year, ~25% from man-made sources or ~1% of total CO₂ in air) ~1.03ppmv CO₂ is due to logistics.

Burning Fossil Fuels: 10,000million tonnes of CO₂ (i.e. 10Pg), ~1.28ppmv CO₂ is due to burning fossil fuels (Parker & deBaro, 2019). These are extremely small concentrations and will have no measurable effect on the climate or the physical properties of the atmosphere.

Food Supply Chains: A recent article in Nature Food (Li et al., 2022) suggested:

“When the entire upstream food supply chain is considered, global food-miles correspond to about 3.0 GtCO₂e [p.a.] (3.5–7.5 times higher than previously estimated), indicating that transport accounts for about 19% of total food-system emissions (stemming from transport, production, and land-use change).”

The 3GtCO₂e p.a. (i.e. 3Pg/year) is equivalent to ~0.38ppmv CO₂ in the atmosphere suggesting that the alarmism over such small concentrations of CO₂ is totally uncalled for.

Human Breathing: Human breath contains 4% CO₂ and about 5–6% H₂O. With 7 billion people breathing would produce ~0.1638ppmv of CO₂ in air. This can be calculated since the average resting adult produces 500g CO₂ per person per day (TOXNET) and will produce much more when active. This gives a baseline of 1.2775Pg per annum or 0.168% of the total or 0.1268ppmv resting and up to ~0.25ppmv CO₂ in air if most people are active. With the UN's forecast of 10.4 billion people in 2086 this would produce ~0.24ppmv with most people resting and perhaps ~0.5ppmv of CO₂ in air with most people active. Half the CO₂ emitted is lost to the ocean and biomass and does not appear in the atmosphere.

Noting that two periods in recent times reduced human CO₂ emissions by as much as 20% (covid 2020–2023 and 1970s oil crisis) yet the Keeling curve (figure 2) shows no evidence of that effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis).

The figures above illustrate how exaggerated claims are made for CO₂ based on the false assumption that CO₂ resides in the atmosphere for long periods and can affect the climate. These results are enough to falsify the ideas of anthropogenic global warming caused by CO₂ and shows how little human activity contributes to CO₂ emissions and concentrations in air. The argument is clear, that if the fictitious greenhouse effect were real for CO₂ the human contribution would have no measurable effect upon the climate in terms of global average surface temperature.

The residence time of CO₂ in the atmosphere is between 3.0 and 4.1 years using the IPCC's own data and not the supposed 100 years or 1000 years for anthropogenic CO₂ suggested by the IPCC summaries for policy makers (Harde, 2017) which contravenes the Equivalence Principle (Berry, 2019).

“These results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO₂ during the industrial era followed, not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emission. The results are consistent with the observed lag of CO₂ changes behind temperature changes (Humlum et al., 2013; Salby, 2013), a signature of cause and effect.” (Harde, 2017a: 25).

Although Harde’s (2017a) paper has been criticized (Kohler et al., 2018), the criticisms seem unjustified given the obvious rapid seasonal variations in the Keeling curve which suggests that uptake of CO₂ from the atmosphere occurs rather quickly. It is well-known that the residence time of CO₂ in the atmosphere is approximately 5 years (Boehmer-Christiansen, 2007: 1124; 1137; Kikuchi, 2010). Skrable et al., (2022), show that accumulated human CO₂ is 11% of CO₂ in air or ~46.84 ppmv based on modelling studies. Berry (2020, 2021) uses the Principle of Equivalence (which the IPCC violates by assuming different timescales for the uptake of natural and human CO₂) and agrees with Harde (2017a) that human CO₂ adds about 18 ppmv to the concentration in air. These are physically extremely small concentrations of CO₂ which suggest most CO₂ arises from natural sources. It can be concluded that the IPCC models are wrong and human CO₂ will have little effect on the temperature.

Unsurprisingly, Statistics Norway (2023) report that after examining 200 years of temperature measurements suggests that climate research operates with too short time intervals to be able to determine whether the influence of CO₂ on temperatures has a statistical correlation. Other factors such as cloud formation, solar activity and ocean currents have a significant impact.

Like many other researchers it was assumed there was robust science behind the greenhouse gas theory and that Net Zero was essential to achieve, but after investigation it now appears that the greenhouse gas theory is questionable and has been successfully challenged for at least 100 years (Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009). Much better explanations for planetary near surface atmospheric temperatures are available based on robust, empirically derived scientific laws such as the Ideal Gas law. Better assessments of the potential increase in temperature with doubling CO₂ concentrations are available and the calculated increase is small ~0.5°C (Coe et al., 2021; van Wijngaarden & Happer, 2019, 2020 and 2021; Sheahen, 2021; Schildknecht, 2020) and will remain very small with increased CO₂ concentration because the infrared CO₂ absorption bands are almost saturated and absorption follows the logarithmic Beer-Lambert law (Figure 1). Much of the work using the Hitran database has been tested against satellite measurements of the outgoing radiation from the Earth's atmosphere and the calculations are in almost perfect agreement (Sheahen, 2021). This suggests that the physicists are correct in their assessment of the likely very small increase in atmospheric temperature and therefore there is a strong case against Net Zero as it will have no discernible effect on temperature and the cost of Net Zero is huge. Therefore, the Net Zero project does not pass the cost-benefit test (Montford, 2024b; NESO, 2024). That is the costs are disproportionately high for little or no benefit. Thus, the correct response to a non-problem is to do nothing. The monies being wasted on Net Zero should be spent for the benefit of citizens (e.g. education, health care, public health, water infrastructure, waste processing, economic prosperity etc.). There are many other pressing public health problems from burning fossil fuels which should be addressed (e.g. air pollution, especially particulates and carbon monoxide).

Better calculations of the human contribution to atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are available and it is small ~18 ppmv (Skrable et al., 2022; Berry, 2020; Harde 2017a & 2017b; Harde, 2019; Harde 2014). The phase relation between temperature and CO₂ concentration changes are now clearly understood; temperature increases are followed by increases in CO₂ likely from outgassing from the ocean and increased biological activity (Davis, 2017; Hodzic and Kennedy, 2019; Humlum, 2013; Salby, 2012; Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023 & 2024).

“In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.” Alimonti et al. 2022: 111.

Many researchers are addressing the ‘CO₂ and climate change problem’ by suggesting decarbonization and other approaches such as Net Zero. CO₂ is more than likely not the temperature control and has a very minor to negligible role in global warming (The Bruges Group, 2021; De Lange and Berkhout, 2024; Manheimer, 2022; Statistics Norway 2023; Lindzen and Happer, 2024; Lindzen, et al., 2024).

The scientific literature was examined and found to provide several alternative views concerning CO₂ and the need for Net Zero. The objectives of this paper have been achieved and the conclusions can be briefly summarized:

considered as very dangerous and expensive policy indeed. Net Zero is not necessary and should be abandoned.

“There is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO₂ greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus, it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.” (Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009: 354).

“If you assume the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are right about everything and use only their numbers in the calculation, you will arrive at the conclusion that we should do nothing about climate change!” (Field, 2013).

The academic literature in science offers numerous and far better explanations for climate change than the fictitious greenhouse effect. Researchers should recognize this fact and start to look at dealing with the real causes of climate change. Net Zero is an enormously expensive solution to a non-problem and has no obvious redeeming features. The Net Zero policy is not financially sustainable and should be abandoned.

and

Berkhout, G. (2019). World climate declaration: There is no climate emergency. European climate declaration. Retrieved from https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/

Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (2007). Fuel for thought. Energy and Environment, 18(7/8), 1079-1158.

Blaauw, H. J. (2017). Global warming: Sun and water. Energy & Environment, 28(4), 468-483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X17695276

Berry, E. (2020). Climate miracle: There is no climate crisis nature controls climate. Retrieved from https://edberry.com/climate-miracle

Archer, D., Buffett, B., Brovkin, B., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2009). Ocean methane hydrates as a slow tipping point in the global carbon cycle. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(49), 20590-20595. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0800885105

Booker, C. (2009). The real global warming disaster. Continuum International Publishing Group.

Boos, W. R., & Storelvmo, T. (2016). Reply to Levermann et al.: Linear scaling for monsoons based on well-verified balance between adiabatic cooling and latent heat release. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(17), E2350-E2351. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603626113

Carter, R. M. (2010). Climate: The counter consensus – A paleoclimatologist speaks. Independent Minds, Stacey International.

Beck, E.-G. (2007). 180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods. Energy & Environment, 18(2), 258-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X0701800206

Benestad, R. E. (2017). A mental picture of the greenhouse effect: Pedagogic explanation. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 128, 679-688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y

Alimonti, G., & Mariani, L. (2024). Is the number of global natural disasters increasing? Environmental Hazards, 23(2), 186-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2023.2239807

Berry, E. X. (2021). The impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2. Science of Climate Change, 1(2), N3 1-46. https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202112/212

Atkins, P., & de Paula, J. (2014). Physical chemistry (10th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Formetta, G., & Feyen, L. (2019). Empirical evidence of declining global vulnerability to climate-related hazards. Global Environmental Change, 57, 101920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.004

Daniels, F., & Alberty, R. A. (1966). Physical chemistry (3rd ed.). Wiley International Edition.

De Lange, K., & Berkhout, G. (2024). We can still avoid the Net Zero Trap. Retrieved from https://clintel.org/we-can-still-avoid-the-net-zero-trap/

Curry, J. (2019). Recovery, resilience, readiness: Contending with natural disasters. The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Retrieved from www.thegwpf.org

Field, T. (2013). In discussion with investigative journalist Donna Laframboise: 50 to 1 project. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from http://www.50to1.net

Frank, P. (2010). Uncertainty in the global average surface air temperature index: A representative lower limit. Energy & Environment, 21(8), 969-989. https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969

Fyfe, J. C., Gillett, N. P., & Zwiers, F. W. (2013). Commentary: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nature Climate Change, 3(9), 967-969.

Gerlich, G., & Tscheuschner, R. D. (2009). Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 23(3), 275-364. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021797920904984X

Gerlich, G., & Tscheuschner, R. D. (2010). Reply to 'Comment on Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith and Jorg Zimmermann. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 24(3), 1333-1359. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979210055573

Harde, H. (2017b). Radiation transfer calculations and assessment of global warming by CO2. Hindawi International Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 2017, 9251034. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9251034

Harde, H. (2019). What humans contribute to atmospheric CO2: Comparison of carbon cycle models with observations. Earth Sciences, 8(3), 139-159. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20190803.13

Hodzic, M., & Kennedy, I. R. (2019). Time and frequency analysis of Vostok ice core climate data. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 7(2), 907-923. http://pen.ius.edu.ba

Holmes, R. I. (2017). Molar mass version of the ideal gas law points to a very low climate sensitivity. Earth Sciences, 6(6), 157-163. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20170606.18

Holmes, R. I. (2018). Thermal enhancement on planetary bodies and the relevance of the molar mass version of the ideal gas law to the null hypothesis of climate change. Earth Sciences, 7(3), 107-123. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20180703.13

Holmes, R. I. (2019). On the apparent relationship between total solar irradiance and the atmospheric temperature at 1 bar on three terrestrial-type bodies. Earth Sciences, 8(6), 346-351. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.earth.20190806.15

Hughes, G. (2024). Financing the energy transition: Do the numbers add up? Global Warming Policy Foundation, Briefing 68. Retrieved July 8, 2024, from https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2024/03/Hughes-Financing-Energy-Transition.pdf

Humlum, O., Stordahl, K., & Solheim, J.-E. (2013). The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Global and Planetary Change, 100, 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008

Idso, C. D., Carter, R. M., & Singer, F. (2015a). *Why scientists disagree about global warming: The NIPCC report on scientific consensus.* Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change. The Heartland Institute.

Idso, C. D., Carter, R. M., & Singer, S. F. (Eds.). (2013a). *Climate change reconsidered II: Physical science.* The Heartland Institute. Retrieved July 1, 2017, from http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org or http://www.nipccreport.org

Idso, C. D., Carter, R. M., & Singer, S. F. (Eds.). (2013b). *Climate change reconsidered II: Physical science. Summary for policy makers.* The Heartland Institute. Retrieved August 4, 2019, from http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org or http://www.nipccreport.org

Idso, C. D., Idso, S. B., Carter, R. M., & Singer, F. (Eds.). (2014). *Climate change reconsidered II: Biological impacts.* The Heartland Institute. Retrieved August 4, 2019, from http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org or http://www.nipccreport.org

Idso, S. B., Idso, B., & Idso, C. D. (2015b). Mathematical models vs real-world data: Which best predicts earth’s climatic future? *Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.* Retrieved July 30, 2019, from http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/reportarch.php

Innis, R. (2008). *Energy keepers, energy killers: The new civil rights battle.* Merril Press.

Jaworowski, Z. (2007). CO2: The greatest scientific scandal of our time. *21st Century Science & Technology, Spring/Summer*, 14-28. Retrieved from https://21sci-tech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf

Kamis, J. E. (2021). *Plate climatology: How geological forces influence, alter or control earth’s climate and climate related events.* Retrieved from www.plateclimatology.com (ISBN-13: 9798728764564). [Video] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyk7ZI2ftxs

Kärner, O. (2007). Temporal variability in local air temperature series shows negative feedback. *Energy and Environment, 18*(7/8), 1059-1072. https://doi.org/10.1260/095830507782616904

Kaupinnen, J., & Malmi, P. (2019). No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change. *arXiv preprint* arXiv:1907.00165v1.

Kikuchi, R. (2010). External forces acting on the earth’s climate: An approach to understanding the complexity of climate change. *Energy & Environment, 21*(8), 953-968. https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.953

Köhler, P., Hauck, J., Völker, C., Wolf-Gladrow, D. A., Butzin, M., Halpern, J. B., ... & Zeebe, R. E. (2018). Comment on: ‘Scrutinising the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere’ by H. Harde. *Global and Planetary Change, 164*, 67-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.09.015

Koonin, S. E. (2021). *Unsettled: What climate science tells us, what it doesn’t, and why it matters.* BenBella Books Inc.

Koutsoyiannis, D. (2024). Net isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 sources and sinks: No change since the little ice age. *Sci, 6*(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci6010017

Koutsoyiannis, D., Onof, C., Kundzewicz, Z. W., & Christofides, A. (2023). On hens, eggs, temperatures and CO2: Causal links in earth’s atmosphere. *Sci, 5*(3), 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci5030035

Lange, C. A. de, Ferguson, J. D., Happer, W., & Wijngaarden, W. A. van. (2022). Nitrous oxide and climate: Why restricting N2O emissions is unnecessary and dangerous. *CO2 Coalition Report.* Retrieved from https://co2coalition.org/publications/nitrous-oxide-and-climate/

Lenton, T. M., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J. W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2008). Tipping elements in the earth’s climate system. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 105*(6), 1786-1793. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25451366

Levermann, A., Schewe, J., Petoukohov, V., & Held, H. Schellnhuber, H. J. (2009). Basic mechanism for abrupt monsoon transitions. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106*(49), 20572-20577. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901414105

Li, M., Jia, N., Lenzen, M., Malik, A., Wei, L., Jin, Y., & Raubenheimer, D. (2022). Global food-miles account for nearly 20% of total food-systems emissions. *Nature Food, 3*, 445-453. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00531-w

Lightfoot, H. G., & Mamer, O. A. (2017). Back radiation versus CO2 as the cause of climate change. *Energy and Environment, 28*(7), 661-672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X17722790

Lindzen, R. S. (1997). Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 94, 8335-8342. https://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8335

Lindzen, R. S. (2022). On climate sensitivity, CO2 coalition: Climate. Issues in depth series. Retrieved from https://co2coalition.org/publications/on-climate-sensitivity/

Lindzen, R. S., Chou, M-D., & Hou, A. Y. (2001). Does the earth have an adaptive infrared iris? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 82(3), 417-432. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26215529

Lindzen, R., & Happer, W. (2024). Net zero policies will have a trivial effect on temperature, but disastrous effects on people worldwide. Retrieved from https://co2coalition.org/publications/net-zero-policies-will-have-a-trivial-effect-on-temperature-but-disastrous-effects-on-people-worldwide/

Lindzen, R., Happer, W., & van Wijngaarden, W. (2024). Net zero avoided temperature increase. Retrieved from https://co2coalition.org/publications/net-zero-averted-temperature-increase/

Manheimer, W. (2022). While the climate always has and always will change, there is no climate crisis. Journal of Sustainable Development, 15(5), 116-134. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v15n5p116

Marohasy, J. (Ed.). (2017). Climate change: The facts 2017. Institute of Public Affairs, Connor Court Publishing Pty Ltd.

Marohasy, J. (Ed.). (2020). Climate change: The facts 2020. Institute of Public Affairs, Connor Court Publishing Pty Ltd.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2013). Research in education: Evidence-based enquiry (7th ed.). Pearson.

Meijer, H. A. J. (2007). Comment on "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods" by Ernst-Georg Beck. Energy & Environment, 18(5), 635. https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.18.5.635

Montford, A. (2022). Net zero cost sheet 4: What is net zero costing now? Net Zero Watch. Retrieved from https://www.netzerowatch.com/factsheets

Montford, A. (2024a). Costing the green grid: Current and future technology. Net Zero Watch. Retrieved from https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-papers/costing-the-green-grid

Montford, A. (2024b). A cost-benefit analysis of net zero. Net Zero Watch. Retrieved from https://www.netzerowatch.com/recent-papers

Moran, A. (Ed.). (2015). Climate change: The facts. Institute of Public Affairs, Stockade Books.

Morano, M. (2021). Green fraud: Why the green new deal is even worse than you think. Regnery Publishing.

Mudge, F. B. (2012). The development of the 'greenhouse' theory of global climate change from Victorian times. Weather, 52(1), 13-17.

NESO National Energy System Operator. (2024). Clean power 2030: Advice on achieving clean power for Great Britain by 2030. Retrieved from https://www.neso.energy/document/346651/download

Nieboer, J. (2021). Climate: All is well, all will be well. The Bruges Group.

Nikolov, N., & Zeller, K. (2017). New insights on the physical nature of the atmospheric greenhouse effect deduced from an empirical planetary temperature model. Environment Pollution and Climate Change, 1(2), 112. https://doi.org/10.4172/2573-458X.1000112

Nordt, L., Atchley, S., & Dworkin, S. (2003). Terrestrial evidence for two greenhouse events in the late Cretaceous. GSA Today, 13(12), 4-9. https://doi.org/10.1130/1052-5173(2003)013<4:TEFTGE>2.0.CO;2

Not a lot of people know that. (2019). Retrieved from https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/

Notz, D., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2009). The future of ice sheets and sea ice: Between reversible retreat and unstoppable loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(49), 20590-20595. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0902356106

O'Neill, P., Connolly, R., Connolly, Soon, W., et al. (2022). Evaluation of the homogenization adjustments applied to European temperature records in the global historical climatology network dataset. Atmosphere, 13(2), 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13020285

Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100201

Pachauri, R. K., & Meyer, L. A. (Eds.). (2014). IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. IPCC.

Pachauri, R. K., & Reisinger, A. (Eds.). (2007). IPCC Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC.

Pielke, R. (2014). The rightful place of science: Disasters & climate change. Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes.

Robinson, A. B., Robinson, N. E., & Soon, W. (2007). Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 12, 79-90. Retrieved from http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Rodhe, H., Charlson, R. J., & Anderson, T. L. (2000). Avoiding circular logic in climate modelling: An editorial essay. Climate Change, 44(3), 419-422.

Rofe, J. (2018). “Knowledge is power”. Better-management.org has invaluable information for better decisions. Retrieved August 14, 2019, from http://better-management.org/the-great-global-warming-hoax/

Sheahen, T. (2021). Getting it right: Scientifically ‘success’ means ‘agreement with observation’. Presented at the 14th Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, October 16, 2021, Caesars Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m73QYdhoCw

Skrable, K., Chabot, G., & French, C. (2022). World atmospheric CO2, its 14C specific activity, non-fossil component, anthropogenic fossil component, and emissions (1750–2018). Health Physics, 122(2), 291-305.

Société de Calcul Mathématique SA. (2015). The battle against global warming: An absurd, costly, and pointless crusade. Retrieved July 1, 2022, from http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., ... & Miller, H. L. (Eds.). (2007). IPCC Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Soon, W. (2007). Implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide and methane forcing in climate change: past, present, and future. Physical Geography, 28(2), 97-125. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3646.28.2.97

Soon, W., Connolly, R., & Connolly, M. (2015). Re-evaluating the role of solar variability in Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century. Earth-Science Reviews, 150, 409-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.08.010

Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Platner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., ... & Midgely, P. M. (Eds.). (2013). IPCC climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press.

Strangeways, I. (2011). The greenhouse effect: a closer look. Weather, 66(2), 44-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.669

Switzerland. (2021). Switzerland: CO2 act amendment rejected by voters. Global Legal Monitor. Library of Congress. Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-06-25/switzerland-co2-act-amendment-rejected-by-voters/

Tacken, J., Rodriques, V. S., & Mason, R. (2014). Examining CO2e reduction within the German logistics sector. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 25(1), 54-84. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-01-2013-0005

Tec Science. (n.d.). Mean free path and collision frequency. Retrieved July 4, 2022, from https://www.tec-science.com/thermodynamics/kinetic-theory-of-gases/mean-free-path-collision-frequency/

The Bruges Group. (2021). Hot air - Carbon dioxide and global warming: A review and a few facts. Retrieved from https://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/carbon-dioxide-and-global-warming-a-review-and-a-facts-1-2

Travers, M. (2020). The hidden cost of net zero: Rewiring the UK (Briefing 48). The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/07/Travers-Net-Zero-Distribution-Grid-Replacement.pdf

van Wijngaarden, W. A., & Happer, W. (2019). Infrared forcing by greenhouse gases. Retrieved from https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Infrared-Forcing-by-Greenhouse-Gases-2019-Revised-3-7-2022.pdf

van Wijngaarden, W. A., & Happer, W. (2020). Dependence of Earth's thermal radiation on five most abundant greenhouse gases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03098.

van Wijngaarden, W. A., & Happer, W. (2021a). Relative potency of greenhouse molecules. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.16465.

van Wijngaarden, W. A., & Happer, W. (2021b). Methane and climate. Retrieved from https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Methane-and-Climate.pdf

van Wijngaarden, W. A., & Happer, W. (2022). 2n-stream radiative transfer. Retrieved from https://co2coalition.org/publications/van-wijngaarden-and-happer-2n-stream-radiative-transfer/

Wallace III, J. P., D’Aleo, J. S., & Idso, C. D. (2017). On the validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU global average surface temperature data and the validity of EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding. Retrieved from https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Washington, R., Bouet, C., Cautenet, G., MacKenzie, E., Ashpole, I., Engelstaedter, S., ... & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2009). Dust as a tipping element: The Bodélé depression, Chad. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(49), 20564-20571. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711850106

Watts, A. (2009). Is the U.S. surface temperature record reliable? Retrieved March 1, 2009, from https://www.heartland.org/

Watts, A. (2022). Corrupted climate stations: The official U.S. temperature record remains fatally flawed. Retrieved from https://www.heartland.org/

Watts, A., Taylor, J., & Burnett, H. S. (2022). Climate at a glance: for teachers and students. Heartland Institute.

Wrightstone, G. (2017). A very convenient warming: How modest warming and more CO2 are benefitting humanity. Silver Crown Productions, LLC.

Wrightstone, G. (2023). Inconvenient facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know. Silver Crown Productions, LLC.

Zhong, W., & Haigh, J. D. (2013). The greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide. Weather, 68(4), 100-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.2072

## Acknowledgments

The author greatly appreciated proof reading and suggested improvements to the paper prior to submission by Dr. E. Ballantyne.

## Authors contributions

Not applicable

## Funding

Not applicable

## Competing interests

The author declares that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Informed consent

Obtained.

## Ethics approval

The Publication Ethics Committee of the Canadian Center of Science and Education.

The journal’s policies adhere to the Core Practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

## Provenance and peer review

Not commissioned; externally double-blind peer reviewed.

## Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

## Data sharing statement

No additional data are available.

## Open access

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Copyrights

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.