Climate Gate – Global Warming The Myth: CO2 The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time

The following article by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., was published, after peer review, in March 2007. Dr. Jaworski was one of the first to point out the loss of scientific integrity in the field of global warming research.

CO2 – The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time
By: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski, M.D., Ph. D., D.Sc.
ERI Science March 16, 2007

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, one of our planets first climate change specialists, is a multidisciplinary scientist, now a senior advisor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. In the winter of 1957-58, he measured the concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric air at Spitsbergen. From 1972 to 1991, he investigated the history of the pollution of the global atmosphere, measuring the dust preserved in 17 glaciers: in the Tatra Mountains in Poland, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, and the Peruvian Andes. He has published many papers on climate, most of them concerning the CO2 measurements in ice cores. Two of his papers on climate appear on the website of 21st Century Science & Technology magazine. Dr Jaworski is one of the world’s preeminent scholars in the field of ice core analysis.


On Feb. 2, 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) again uttered its mantra of catastrophe about man-made global warming. After weeks of noisy propaganda, a 21-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, was presented in grandiose style to a crowd of politicians and media, accompanied by a blackout of the Eiffel Tower to show that electric energy is bad. The event induced a tsunami of hysteria that ran around the world. This was probably the main aim of this clearly political paper, prepared by governmental and United Nations bureaucrats and published more than three months before the IPCC’s 1,600-page scientific report, which was not released until May 2007.

In the words of the IPCC, the delay was needed so that, “Changes . . . [could be] made to ensure consistency with the ‘Summary for Policymakers.” Not a single word in these 1,600 pages was allowed to be in conflict with what the politicians (and bureaucrats) said beforehand in the summary! (In fact several of the original findings and conclusions made by the panel of investigating scientists were changed prior to the publication of the actual report – conclusions that were not in “lockstep” with the desired political conclusions were deleted from the report).

This is a strange and unusual method of operation for a scientific report, and even stranger is the frankness of the IPCC’s words about the delay, disclosing its lack of scientific integrity and independence. It is exactly the same modus operandi demonstrated in the three former IPCC reports of 1990, 1995, and 2001. ……

The Four Basic IPCC Lies

The four basic statements in the “Summary for Policymakers” are:

1).Carbon dioxide, an important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, increased markedly as a result of human activities and its atmospheric concentration of 379 ppmv (parts per million, by volume) in 2005 by far exceeding the natural range of 180 to 300 ppmv over the last 650,000 years.

2. Since 1750, human activities warmed the climate.

3. The warmth of the last half-century is unusual, is the highest in at least the past 1,300 years, and is “very likely” caused by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

4. Predictions are made that anthropogenic warming will continue for centuries and between 2090 and 2099 the global average surface temperature will increase 1.1°C to 6.4°C.

Various scare stories of global catastrophes are prophesied to occur if man-made emissions are not curbed by drastic political decisions.The obvious beneficial effects of warming are downplayed. (Beneficial effects include larger crop yields, reducing the likelyhood of continued global famine).

Except for the pronouncements concerning CO2, all these points are garlanded with qualifications such as “likely,” “very likely,” “extremely likely” and “unequivocal.”

In fact, to the contrary, all 4 of these points are incorrect.

The first “Summary for Policymakers” statement on the man-made increase of CO2, is a cornerstone of the IPCC report, and of the global warming edifice.

This statement is a half-truth.

It is true that CO2 is “an important anthropogenic [trace] greenhouse gas,” but a much more important greenhouse factor is the water naturally in the atmosphere, which contributes some 95% to the total greenhouse effect. This basic fact is not mentioned at all in the “Summary for Policymakers.”

Also not mentioned is the fact that 97% of the total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere comes from natural emissions of the land and sea, human beings add a mere 3%. This man-made 3% of CO2 is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse gas, probably close to 0.12%. (12 hundredth’s of 1%).

Propositions of changing, or rather destroying, the global energy system because of this tiny human contribution, in face of the large short-term and long-term natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, are utterly irresponsible.

The Truth About Ice Cores

Because carbon dioxide ice core records are regarded as a foundation of the man-made global warming hypothesis, let us dwell on them for a while.

The basic assumption behind the CO2 glaciology is a tacit view that air inclusions in ice are a closed system, which permanently preserves the original chemical and isotopic composition of gas, and thus that the inclusions are a suitable matrix for reliable reconstruction of the pre-industrial and ancient atmosphere.

This assumption is in conflict with ample evidence from numerous earlier CO2 studies, indicating the opposite (see review in Jaworowski et al. 1992b).

Proxy determinations of the atmospheric CO2 level by analysis of ice cores, reported since 1985, have been generally lower than the levels measured recently in the atmosphere. But, before 1985, the ice cores were showing values much higher than the current atmospheric concentrations. (Jaworowski et al. 1992b). These recent proxy ice core values remained low during the entire past 650,000 years (Siegenthaler et al. 2005) even during the six former interglacial periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5°C warmer than in our current interglacial!

This means that either atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate (which is true), or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere are false (which is also true, as shown below).

It was never experimentally demonstrated that ice core records reliably represent the original atmospheric composition. Other proxies demonstrated that many millions of years ago CO2 levels in the atmosphere reached, at various times, 377, 450, and even 3,500 ppmv (Kurschner et al. 1996, Royer et al. 2001), and that during the past 10,000 years these levels were, as a rule, higher than 300 ppmv, fluctuating up to 348 ppmv (Kurschner et al. 1996, Royer et al. 2001, Wagner et al 1999, Wagner et al. 2002).

The results of these last studies prove false the assertion of stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 ppmv to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. (Global warming alarmist claim this false level of atmospheric level of CO2 – it is the base level from which they claim an alarming increase has occurred).

The results of the cited pre-1985 studies are strongly supported by direct CO2 measurements, carried out in the pre-industrial and 20th-Century atmosphere. About 2 billion years ago, the CO2 atmospheric level was 100 or perhaps even 1,000 times higher than today. According to today’s climate models, the Earth would have been too hot for life at that time (Ohmoto et al. 2004).

However, geologic evidence suggests there was not a Venus-style, “runaway warming.” Instead, life flourished then in the oceans and land, with such enormously high levels of this “gas of life,” from which our bodies and all living creatures are built (Godlewski 1873). Yet, Greens now call this gas a dangerous “pollutant.”

The Hockey Stick Curves

On the basis of assumption piled upon assumption, several versions of CO2 “hockey stick curves” were compiled by combining distorted proxy ice core data and direct atmospheric CO2 measurements.

These so-called hockey stick curves were published countless times as a proof of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmophere.

These measurements were created by illegitimately mixing proxy ice core data with direct measurements in the atmosphere.
“…. falsified CO2 “hockey stick curves” were presented in all the IPCC reports, including the “Summary for Policymakers” issued in 2007….”

These hockey sticks were credulously accepted by almost everyone, together with other information on greenhouse gases determined in the ice cores, which were plagued by improper manipulation of data an arbitrary rejection of the high readings from “old ice” and an arbritary rejection of low readings from “young ice”, simply because the data did not fit the preconceived idea of man-made global warming. (Yes, the study “excluded all data” that did not fit the preconceived and desired outcome – the data which tended to disprove the desired outcome was excluded from the report).

Dr. Jaworski’s compelling report can be read in its entirety (with supporting graphs and references) here: 

3 Responses

  1. I agree with your article completely.

  2. Surely the lack of a high concentration of CO2 in the the ice cores at a time you state the temperatures were approximately 5 degrees warmer does not ‘prove’ that CO2 has no effect on climate. All that actually does prove is that the warming then was caused by something other than carbon dioxide concentrations.

    McAuley’s World:
    and I quote from your comment, “All that actually does prove is that the warming then was caused by something other than carbon dioxide concentrations.” Exactly, and it is the same now as then … by the way, I’d suggest you search the site for the 3 dozen plus scientifically peer reviewed articles posted here that go to this very point …. there is simply not enought CO2 in the atmosphere, by weight or volume, to heat the earth’s atmosphere … in addition, recent studies have proven that CO2 doesn’t retain heat long enough to warm the earth’s atmostphere ….. CO2 levels do not drive temperature change, CO2 levels are driven by temperature change ….. Search this site for “Global Warming”

    ………. this list is not exclusive ….

  3. I think your article is fantastic! I just want to help you with the math a little bit. It is true that CO2 is currently less than 400 ppm. What this means is that in your $100 bill analogy, that the CO2 level would actually be less than 4 cents.

    Just so you follow me, here is the math: 393 ppm divided by 1,000,000 is .00039. Multiplying this decimal by $100 and you get $.039 which is 3.9 cents. which is less than four cents.

    Also when you state that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 1/2 of 1%, what you need to say is: The amount of CO2 in the atmoshphere is less than half of one tenth of one percent.

    Again, your article was excellent. I enjoyed it very much.


    McAuley’s World: Thanks Henry. Your math is spot on. I’ve corrected the post (I’m working without a proof reader…) … I am a little confused however by the fact that your response ended up on this post … as this post doesn’t use the $100 bill analogy …. I used the $100 bill analogy here:

    When I get the chance I’ll check to see if I used the $100 bill analogy elsewhere in any other posts and will make the suggested corrections …. Thanks again ….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: