Greenhouse theories are incorrect

Our entire economy, society and landscape are being transformed, not on the basis of observable reality, but upon the predictions of theoretical climate change models and the ‘greenhouse gas’ theory. These models contain errors and omissions in their presentation of Planet Earth's natural systems, of basic science and physics, of calculation and of reasoning.                                                            


The science included in these models breaches the Law of Conservation of Energy as well as many other fully tested and settled concepts and principles of theoretical physics (see second sheet).                     


The calculations are faulty. The method used is to take a square metre of the earth's surface (neither land nor sea, but a vague average), and in the square metre net off two very large figures {energy in less energy out}. This net figure is scaled up by a peculiar rough approximation to the size of the entire globe. At every step there is scope for big errors. The most significant problem here is in the netting off of one large figure against another, a notoriously error-prone process that massively changes the sensitivity to error computation. Just a tiny percentage error in the initial numbers can produce a wholly wrong netted off figure. Anyone in the Treasury should be able to understand that.  Please someone tell our new Chancellor Rishi Sunak, before the UK spends £100 trillion going ‘carbon neutral’ on the basis of nothing more real than a computational error.       


The reasoning starts with the conclusion and works backwards to a justification. For example, one is often told that the Earth is heating up because it is out of balance, because it is a ‘closed system' because of 1-200 ppm additional carbon dioxide in the air. Any well-educated person, even if lacking a science background, would be well placed to identify the implicit assumptions and inverted reasoning were they to review the global warming models and explanations.


The following (and many more) real world processes are not included:


*             The buffering effects of the oceans upon both temperature and levels of carbon                  dioxide;

*             Release of carbon dioxide by volcanic activity;

*             The need of plant-life for carbon dioxide in large quantities;

*             The highly variable output from the sun;

*             The varying distance between earth and sun due to gravitational pull of the other


*             Wobbles and variations in Earth's rotation and orbit, which is sometimes highly


*             Variations in magnetic fields of both earth and sun;

*             Wide variations in the inflow of charged particles and the powerful effects they

                have upon the temperature of Planet Earth;

*             Many of the processes by which ice is formed or melts including geothermal hot

                spots located beneath glaciers;

*             Local or regional impact and the extended lag time of long-term trends.


Real-world phenomena with widely varying causes and explanations are automatically ascribed to global warming or climate change without question or investigation. Alternative explanations of apparent sea-level rises include:

*             Tectonic plate movement causing land to fall;

*             Routine processes of erosion;

*             Failure to practise time-honoured land management techniques;

*             Over-extraction of fresh water from the ground which causes sea water to

                penetrate aquifers.


Global warming and the ‘climate emergency' are predicted on the basis of the ‘greenhouse gas' theories and a set of similar climate change models, for example "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (Kiehl & Trenberth 1997). The explanations of how carbon dioxide and methane are supposed to warm the planet via ‘radiative forcing’ are exceedingly long-winded. If one can stay awake long enough to actually listen to what is said, then common sense says this of their explanations: "The heat comes in, then seems to bounce up to the clouds then bounce down again and then somehow reheat the heat."

Meanwhile, anyone with A-level physics can look at the ‘global warming' models and see for themselves that they generate energy out of nothing and the law of Conservation of Energy is not adhered to. Heat coming in from the sun gets counted up several times over, and that is how the planet is supposed to be entering a phase of uncontrolled heating.


Confirmation of this deficiency in the climate change theories comes from atmospheric physicist, Dr Miskolczi. Here follow extracts from his expert witness statement for The Supreme Court of British Columbia. The case (Mann v. Ball) was dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiff ordered to pay Tim Ball's legal fees. (Dr Tim Ball is a geographer and climatologist who publicly states that the greenhouse gas theory is false; he was sued by Michael Mann who is one of the principal proponents of the greenhouse theory.)




I, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, prepared an expert opinion for use in Mann v. Ball et. al. Action No. VLC-S-S0111913 Vancouver Registry, a copy of which is attached hereto (the "Report"). I hereby authorize Dr. Timothy Ball and his legal counsel to utilize the Report in Weaver v. Ball Action No. VLC-S-110682, Vancouver Registry. I hereby certify that I am aware of my duty to the Court pursuant to the Supreme Court Civil Rules, Rule 11- 2(1), as set out below. I further certify that I have made the attached report  in conformity with that duty. If I am required to provide oral or written testimony in connection with this matter, I will give such testimony in conformity with that duty. I further confirm that the Report continues to accurately set out my opinions on the matters contained therein.

11-2       Duty of Expert Witness

(1) In giving an opinion to the Court, an expert appointed under this Part by one or more parties or by the Court has a duty to assist the Court and is not to be an advocate for any party.

DATED:                 , 2017                   FERENC MISKOLCZI
Expert opinion on the greenhouse gas theories and the observed infrared absorption properties of the Earth's atmosphere. This document was prepared by Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi on December 22, 2016. The purpose of the document is to assist the court with evidence that answers the following questions:

Do greenhouse gas theories contradict energy balance equations?


Is the proposed greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions supported by observed atmospheric thermal and humidity structures and global scale simulations of the infrared absorption properties of the Earth's atmosphere?


6b. Evaluating the global average flux density components from ground  truth  observations it is evident that the Earth-atmosphere system is in RE with a theoretical solar constant. All empirical global mean flux density components satisfy the theoretical expectations. The greenhouse effect predicted by the Arrhenius greenhouse theory is inconsistent with the existence of this RE. Hence, the CO2 greenhouse effect as used in the current global warming hypothesis is impossible.

My overall conclusion is that the Arrhenius type greenhouse effect is an incorrect hypothesis and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is also an artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing.

7-3. It should be recognized that the Sun  is  a  very complex  object  and  the  solar constant has its own natural fluctuations. 


7-16. The most serious problem with the cartoons are the ignorance of a long line of well-known fundamental concepts and principles of theoretical physics. Some of them are: energy and momentum conservation principles of the radiation field, Wien's law, virial theorem, energy minimum principle, Maxwell rule, Kirchhoff law, Helmholtz reciprocity principle, Vogt-Russel theorem, LeChatelier-Brown principle.


Fig. 8 Trend line correlation summary of the seven NOAA-R1 time series. The last five columns are linear regression coefficients for the top altitude of the air column, surface temperature, water vapor and carbon dioxide column amounts, and the flux optical depth. The IR flux optical depth has no correlation with time and the strong signal of increasing atmospheric CO2 content in any time series is not present in the IR flux optical depth data [D1 3,R1 5] . Consequently, the atmospheric CO2 increase cannot be the reason of global warming.