The "Greenhouse Effect" Hypothesis

The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

The hypothesis of the "greenhouse effect" despite being more than 150 years old has never and will never achieve the status of a testable theory.

The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis of CO2 is based on the claim that Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb infrared radiation.

Only “greenhouse gases” absorb infrared according to this hypothesis.

It has been necessary to falsely claim that Oxygen and Nitrogen are transparent to infrared radiation in-order to demonise CO2 and other gases and blame them for causing atmospheric warming.

All gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. The fallacy of CO2 “greenhouse effect” is the keystone of AGW fraud.

Air is :

20% Oxygen

79% Nitrogen

0.0385% CO2

Air, pure oxygen and pure nitrogen all absorb more infrared radiation than pure CO2.

For proof see the video's below.

For further verification see here:

Specific heat capacity of Gases

Oxygen and nitrogen do indeed absorb infrared radiation:

Infrared absorption bands for OXYGEN

A close-up of an infrared absorption band for NITROGEN




AGW Debunked for £5.00

This simple experiment can be reproduce by anyone using three plastic bottles, three cheap tropical fish tank thermometers, a halogen heater to provide infrared and a large bottle of carbonated water.

Many who consider themselves scientists will try to discredit this experiment in various ways so I would like to highlight the importance of this simple test by preempting any such criticism.

Firstly, in order to avoid any issues with regards increased water vapor I have used a control bottle of ordinary air without any water. This way we can be sure that if water vapor becomes a forcing mechanism in the other two bottles we can compare that to the dry bottle. This control rules out water vapor as a forcing because the dry bottle and the bottle half filled with tap water react equally to the infrared heat.

Next I would point out that I did consider that the back side of the thermometers would be directly heated by the lamp but ruled this out as a concern for the following reasons.

Firstly because the bottles are made of clear plastic they are perfect for this experiment. While being transparent to the infrared light, the plastic itself is a poor conductor of heat. Therefore it allows rapid heating of the gas inside while reducing heat conduction to the thermometers.

Next, because the gas inside is so rapidly warmed and rises over the 30º C max of the thermometers within a few seconds, it is fair to conclude that any direct heating of the back side of the thermometers would be insignificant. This is attested to by observing that the bottle containing CO2 is as slow to absorb as it is quick to re-emit heat. While the tap water/air and ordinary air bottles react equally.

Finally because the gas inside these bottles is heated so rapidly the infrared heat source can be turned off after just a few seconds which allows us to observe the pure heat emitting properties of normal atmospheric air compared with pure CO2.

Positioning the tap water/air bottle in the center gives another control because as can be seen, the ordinary air on the right reacts to infrared equally to the center bottle with tap water/air. This control helps to exclude water vapor as a forcing while at the same time rendering it unnecessary to reposition the bottles.

It is clear from these results that CO2 does not retain more heat than ordinary air. It is therefore conclusive that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and that the term greenhouse gas in context with the Earths atmosphere is fallacious.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this experiment is that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will not produce a warming effect, therefore AGW is a scientific fraud.



AGW Debunked for £3.50

Below I have a comparable experiment using just two bottles. One containing Carbonated water to provide CO2 and another bottle containing ordinary air and tap water.

The two bottles are enclosed at the sides and rear by heat shields made from A4 sheets of paper covered with baking foil.

This time as the heat source, I have used one single tea light style candle. The reason for this is that I wanted to show firstly how sensitive the digital thermometers are and secondly, I wanted to show how CO2 compares with ordinary air to very slight, as opposed to extreme changes in temperature. In contrast to the first experiment, less is more so to speak.

Again we would expect the bottle containing CO2 to become the warmest at the quickest rate, according to the "greenhouse gas" theory. The content of the CO2 bottle is almost pure. Almost 100% Carbon Dioxide against ordinary air, yet as can be seen it clearly lags behind ordinary air.

My main reason for doubting the "greenhouse gas" hypothesis is because of the following:

Oxygen is ice below 54.36 K

Nitrogen is ice below 63.15 K

Methane is ice below 91 K

CO2 is ice below 194.65 K

Water is ice below 273 K

It is said that Methane is 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Yet from the respective melting points of the main atmospheric gases it is clear that the oxygen and nitrogen are the most sensitive to heat absorption. AGW theory has it that CO2 traps heat, which is the basis of the "greenhouse effect" but this argument is purely fallacious and lies at the heart of AGW fraud.


CO2 The Debate Is Not Over.


by W.R.Pratt

Click to download free.

CO2 The Debate Is Not Over

Please make a donation and help me expose AGW fraud.

I am currently working on an update to CO2 The Debate Is Not Over. This update will contain further substantiating evidence exposing the fallacy of the so called greenhouse effect.

Please Email me with your comments:


Most recent

The Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge

The Science Is Settled?


Blog articles

Ocean Acidification

Name One Substance That Traps Heat

Full Spectrum Dominance

Forget about data sets

No such thing as the “Greenhouse effect”

Global Not Warming!

The best evidence of global warming to date:

Positive proof of Global Warming



The specific heat capacity for Gases

Infrared absorption bands for OXYGEN

A close-up of an infrared absorption band for NITROGEN