A clarification to begin with. The title of this article and the text of the image must be understood as: "Adding more CO2 to the currently existing CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere has no measurable impact on the average temperature".
There has never been conclusive scientific evidence for the CO2-hypothesis which says that human emissions enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting in global warming. On the contrary, all evidence and rational considerations point in the opposite direction, namely that this hypothesis must be refuted.
Here's an overview:
Consideration 1: There is no permanent correlation between the CO2 concentration and the average Earth temperature
Since the Holocene Climate Optimum, over the last 8 thousand years, the CO2 concentration has gradually increased, while the average Earth temperature has gradually decreased.
Between the 40s and 70s of the last century, the CO2 concentration increased enormously, while the average temperature dropped. This decline was so strong that there was a "Global Cooling" crisis and scientists warned us about a new glacial period.
Between 2000 and 2015, worldwide CO2 concentrations have risen considerably while no increase in temperature has been observed.
All this would be utterly impossible if the CO2 hypothesis were true. There is no explanation from climatologists for these phenomena.
Article: Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture
Consideration 2: The end of the warm-up at the start of each interglacial
During the current Ice Age (4 million years), the Earth has known more than 40 glacial and interglacial periods. With each transition from glacial to interglacial, the heating stopped at approximately the same level. Why did that happen? According to the CO2 hypothesis, the earth temperature should have ended up in an unstoppable ("runaway") warming. This fact - which has repeated itself more than 40 times- is in complete contradiction with the hypothesis and the climatologists have no explanation for this.
Article: Why did the warming stop?
Consideration 3: The ice ages of the distant pre-history
Much earlier in the past there have been different ice ages on Earth while the CO2 concentration was about ten times as high as today. This is completely in contradiction with the CO2 hypothesis and climate scientists cannot explain this.
Article: The Ordovician Ice Age
Consideration 4: Climate models predict too much warming
The CO2 hypothesis has never been proven, but nevertheless it forms the basis for the hundreds of climate models used by the IPCC (UN) for their reports. As time goes by, it becomes increasingly clear that all these climate models predict too much warming. The results in no way correspond to the real-world measurements.
The only model that somewhat approximates reality is the model that assigns the smallest role to greenhouse gases.
This is a very clear indication that the hypothesis is incorrect and the climate scientists have no explanation for this.
Article: Climate models
Proof: The fingerprint of the assumed enhanced greenhouse effect is missing
In order for the greenhouse gases to be able to heat the Earth, energy is needed. According to the hypothesis, this energy should be obtained from a change in the infrared radiation balance of the atmosphere.
In the NASA measurements this change is not found which proves that there is no enhanced greenhouse effect and therefore the hypothesis is refuted.
Article: The fingerprints of the greenhouse effect
There is no reason to worry about the climate. There is no climate crisis and there is no reason to take measures to limit our CO2 emissions. Mankind has no influence on the climate and certainly not to the extent that they want us to believe.
Fighting the climate hysteria is time-consuming! If you think I'm on the right track and you want to support my efforts
I would be more than happy to receive a small donation that will help me to maintain this site.
The hypothesis of "man-made climate change" tells us that the increase in the concentration of CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere and has global warming as a final result.
Since the beginning of the industrialized era around 1850, man emits relatively large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. The consequence of these emissions is that during that period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased sharply from about 300 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, an increase of almost 40%. The average temperature increased in the same period more or less 1.5 °C with a small variation depending on the data source used. Read more...
The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past. Read more...
When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.
Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using. Read more...
According to the IPCC CO2-hypothesis, rising CO2-levels leads to warming. That warming supposedly expands sea-water and melts glaciers and polar ice-caps, finally resulting in rising sea-levels. They warn us for catastrophic sea-level rises in the year 2100 and beyond because of this process.
Sydney is strategically located between the Indian, Pacific, and Southern oceans. CO2-levels went up from 300 to 400 parts per million over the past 100 years. What's the impact on Sydney's sea-level? Read more...
In recent centuries the power of governments has become stronger and stronger. The governments got involved increasingly deeper into our lives and the citizens, the individuals, have ever less to say about ever more issues.
Climate policy is an excellent example of this interference. The government relies on completely unreliable data, unproven hypotheses, and ideas while the consequences of this interference affect everyone. At present, governments worldwide are about to make cheap and reliable energy sources -that form the basis of our economic prosperity- inaccessible. The results are far-reaching. Read more...
There are four misconceptions about science that are commonly used by catastrophic man-made warming advocates. Normally, when you try to start a conversation on the subject, their first reply will be one of these four "arguments". Read more...