By Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), May 31, 2025
This article, while technical, discusses the IPPC’s approach to greenhouse gases and asks: Would a true physical science conclude that increased carbon dioxide, a minor greenhouse gas, is the primary cause of the current ‘global warming’? The article is worth reading for anyone who wants an informed understanding of how a) greenhouse gases actually work and b) how the IPCC distorts the science of GHGs.
Is climate science a physical science? Is it based on physical evidence where the results of experiments and observations are the ultimate judge? As Richard Feynman stated in The Meaning of It All: “If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.”
The key question remains clear: Does an increase in atmosphere carbon dioxide, which has a small temperature effect by slowing the cooling of Earth, result in an increase in water vapor that will double the influence of carbon dioxide and other effects and will result in what is called “runaway greenhouse”?
As shown in the 1979 Charney Report and in climate modeler Tim Palmer’s The Primacy of Doubt, this increase (positive feedback) from water vapor is critical in asserting that the slowing of the cooling of Earth is causing dangerous warming.
Note that greenhouse gases are not a source of heat but merely warm the atmosphere by partially blocking the emission of infrared radiation from the surface of Earth to space, thereby reducing around-the-clock cooling. Also note that infrared radiation emitted downward by these gases cannot significantly heat the oceans because infrared radiation does not penetrate the oceans beyond a few millimeters (less than one inch).
EPA discusses CO2 but ignores water vapour
The February 1 SEPP newsletter discussed the physical evidence produced by the EPA Technical Support Document for the EPA’s Endangerment Finding (that CO2 is a “pollutant”). Interestingly, the document emphasizes carbon dioxide but does not discuss the role of water vapor, which is critical in asserting that CO2-caused warming endangers life on Earth. That newsletter also discussed the findings of Howard “Cork” Hayden, who stated that to understand the effects of different greenhouse gases
“involves quantum mechanics (the quantitative nature of vibrational and rotational states of molecules), molecular spectroscopy (how various wavelengths of IR interact with molecules at what temperatures and atmospheric pressures), and statistical mechanics (the temperature dependent populations of excited states).
Yet college and university courses in Climate Science do not cover such fields. Further, of the six UN IPCC reports, only one has a graph of any spectrum (range of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation) and that is wrong. It was inconsistent with observations. Hayden concludes:
“To put it fairly, but bluntly, ‘climate science’—whatever its merits—is not the science of the greenhouse effect.”
” ‘Climate science’—whatever its merits—is not the science of the greenhouse effect.”
The measurement of the Greenhouse Effect is largely omitted in the calculations of the UN IPCC and its collaborators. It involves the processes that change the nature of the infrared spectrum [heat] emitted by Earth and that actually is observed to escape to space. The Greenhouse Effect reduces the intensity and changes the shape of the IR spectrum.
The calculation of the IR spectrum emitted to space is quite involved. It involves quantum mechanics (the quantitative nature of vibrational and rotational states of molecules), molecular spectroscopy (how various wavelengths of IR interact with molecules and at what temperatures and atmospheric pressures), and statistical mechanics (the temperature-dependent populations of excited states). Except for one incorrect example, none of this is discussed by the UN IPCC and its collaborators.
It is a real lapse of judgement by the IPCC and its collaborators to never consider such topics and calculations. The IPCC (and its predecessors ) erred by assuming the U.S. Standard atmosphere with zero water vapor and then trying to patch in water vapor later on via some mysterious “feedback” mechanism. It’s foolish to ignore that the primary Greenhouse Gas is Water Vapor and treat a secondary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, as primary. They were wrong in 1967 and continuing it has been wrong ever since.
It’s foolish to ignore that the primary Greenhouse Gas is Water Vapor and treat a secondary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, as primary.
The most important topic from increasing carbon dioxide is largely ignored by the IPCC and its collaborators. It is the increasing greening of the Earth from increasing photosynthesis. Earth is becoming more vibrant and livable. Why do many organizations in the West and Western governments oppose the use of fossil fuels which produce carbon dioxide? The earlier pollution problems have largely been solved and carbon dioxide, essential for food needed by complex life, is not a pollutant.
‘An absurd and pointless crusade’
Perhaps the best answer to these questions can be found in a 2015 essay by Cécile Haberstich, et al., by the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA (Mathematical Modelling Company, Corp.), “The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade.”
The paper was produced shortly before the ridiculous Paris Agreement came out of the 2015 Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Paris Agreement is little more than an exhibit of contempt for modern civilization and prosperity.
After a quote, the authors from the Mathematical Modelling Company. begin with:
“All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming. The initial credo is simple: temperatures at thesurface of the planet have been rising constantly for the past thirty years, and human beings are to blame.
“This is leading to all sorts of discussions, conferences, and regulations, which are having an enormous impact on our economy. Every area of activity is affected: transport, housing, energy – to name just a few. Why do we need to save energy? It is quite simple: we have to reduce human impact on the planet. This is the fundamental credo.
“The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? Well, your research will be funded, approved, and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling.
“The crusade has invaded every area of activity and everyone’s thinking: the battle against CO2 has become a national priority. How have we reached this point in a country [France] that claims to be rational?
“At the root lie the declarations made by the IPCC, which have been repeated over the years and taken up by the European Commission and the Member States. France, which likes to see itself as the ‘good boy of Europe,’ adds an extra layer of virtue to every crusade. When others introduce reductions, we will on principle introduce bigger reductions, without ever questioning their appropriateness: a crusade is virtuous by its very nature. And you can never be too virtuous.
“But mathematicians do not believe in crusades; they look at facts, figures, observations, and arguments.“
The White Paper is divided into three chapters
Chapter 1: World’s climate is not ‘disturbed’
There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world’s climate is in any way ‘disturbed.’ It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet’s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.
“Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they have nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.
“We are being told that a temperature increase of more than 2ºC by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences and absolutely has to be prevented. When they hear this, people worry: hasn’t there already been an increase of 1.9ºC? Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1ºC every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.
Chapter 2: the Climate crusade is absurdly expensive
Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ‘virtuous’ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ‘energy saving,’ which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing. France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.
“We want to cut our CO2 emissions at any cost: it is a way of displaying our virtue for all to see. To achieve these reductions, we have significantly cut industrial activity and lost jobs. But at least we have achieved our aim of cutting CO2 emissions, haven’t we?
“The answer is laughable: apparently not. Global emissions of CO2 have continued to rise, including those generated by France in designing and manufacturing its own products, as the Cour des Comptes clearly states. Quite simply, manufacturing that is held to be environmentally damaging has been relocated. So, the same products are now being manufactured in countries that are far less respectful of the environment, and we have lost all the associated jobs. As Baudelaire says, Nature’s irony combines with our insanity.’
Chapter 3: We cannot change the climate
Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let’s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way.
“To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth’s rotation. French policy on CO2 emissions is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector.
“International agreements on the subject began with the Kyoto Protocol, but the number of countries signing up to this agreement and its descendants are becoming fewer and fewer, now representing just 15% of emissions of greenhouse gases. This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.” [Boldface added]
conclusion: Why is scientific opposition being suppressed?
In a democracy, there is an opposition, and this opposition has a right, in principle, to express its views: this is what distinguishes democracy from dictatorship. But when it comes to the questions about global warming that we are talking about here, the opposition – people who do not believe in global warming – have been told to shut up: no public debate, no contradictory discourse, no articles in scientific journals. They have simply been told that the case is proven, and it is time to take action.
“In law, there is a fundamental principle known as the ‘adversarial principle.’ A case can be thrown out of court if the defense is not informed of every known element of the accusation. Even if twenty people have witnessed the abominable criminal commit his offense, if the defense has not had access to blood-sample analyses, the case will be thrown out.
“In the case of global warming, a number of bodies are telling us they have all the evidence but refuse to tell us what it is. The data have been processed, but how? Time series have been altered, but why? Some phenomena have been left out of the equation, but on what grounds? We do not know, and we are simply required to keep quiet and do what we are told. No second opinion is permitted. It is on the debris of the fundamental principles of the law and of democracy that this WhitePaper has been written.”
Climate science is not a physical science
In Summary, climate science as practiced by the UN IPCC and its collaborators and as taught in colleges and universities is not a physical science. Global Climate Models are contradicted by physical evidence gathered in the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect occurs.
In general, those making broad claims of the dangers of global warming and associated events ignore the fact that in physical science nature is the final and ultimate judge. Instead, they advocate a form of a social and political movement that may be destructive to modern civilization and humanity.
This article has been edited for length. To see the full PDF version of this article on the SEPP website, click here.