The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines Climate Change as changes in climate attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere. This definition differs sharply from the everyday meaning of the phrase. Most people instinctively understand climate change as the natural and ongoing shifts in climate patterns occurring throughout Earth’s history.
Under the UNFCCC definition, however, Climate Change refers only to human-driven climate effects, built on the assertion:
“Anthropogenic emissions cause global warming.”
Any statement beginning with “Due to Climate Change…” implicitly assumes that human activity-particularly the burning of fossil fuels-is the cause. This assumption is embedded deeply into the logic of modern climate modelling and policy.
Yet Earth’s climate has shifted over hundreds of millions of years, long before industrial emissions existed. The belief that reducing fossil-fuel use will halt this vast natural process persists largely because the public has been encouraged to take someone else’s word for it, rather than apply scientific scrutiny.
In practice, Climate Change has evolved into a belief framework supported by persuasive rhetoric rather than transparent validation. Its core doctrine is:
Humanity can prevent catastrophe only by rapidly decarbonising.
The public is frequently urged to accept that decarbonisation will prevent floods, droughts, storms, food shortages, and societal disruption. A narrative of urgency-and sometimes alarmism-has strengthened the idea that climate disaster is imminent unless emissions fall sharply.
Institutions often reinforce this framing. In the UK, for example, the 2008 Climate Change Act and the Climate Change Committee focus not on adapting to natural climatic shifts, but on reducing emissions. There is no evidence that unilateral national decarbonisation will meaningfully alter global temperatures. The approach rests entirely on models that embed the assertion “Anthropogenic emissions cause global warming” as a structural starting point.
Within public discourse, the label Climate Change Denier is used to reject or discredit any questioning of the IPCC’s assertion. Wikipedia defines denial as “rejecting or disputing the scientific consensus on climate change,” but consensus is not a scientific principle-it is a political one. Science advances by challenging assumptions, not by enforcing agreement.
Claims such as “97% of scientists agree” rely on flawed surveys and ambiguous questions. The belief that dissent equals denial has discouraged legitimate scientific critique. Scientific scepticism is not a defect-it is fundamental to the scientific method, as reflected in the Royal Society’s motto:
“Take nobody’s word for it.”
This book examines three models of the greenhouse effect:
The IPCC Model - built on the assertion “Anthropogenic emissions cause global warming.” Because this is structurally embedded, the model can only ever confirm the conclusion it begins with. Validation becomes logically impossible.
The TRANS Model - grounded in a genuine scientific hypothesis that greenhouse-gas changes since 1750 contribute to warming alongside natural climate variability. This model is descriptive and allows separation of effects.
The Cardinal Model - an empirically constructed descriptive model using variance-minimising parameters. It includes natural variability as the dominant influence and greenhouse gases as a smaller adjustment. Crucially, it matches the observed greenhouse-effect record from 1985–2022 exactly.
These models demonstrate that the IPCC’s assertion-driven approach is not the only interpretation-nor the one best supported by data.
Global temperature estimates since 1750 are often quoted as a rise of around 1.5°C, though the baseline uncertainty (±0.15°C) is significant. More relevant for validation is the satellite-based greenhouse-effect record from 1985 to 2022, showing a rise of approximately 0.65°C over the period.
The data include notable deviations from monotonic warming. For example, between 1998 and 2008, global temperature fell by 0.59°C, contradicting models that assume warming must continuously accelerate. These observations provide a rigorous benchmark for evaluating model accuracy.
Chapter 1 establishes the central theme of the book: models predicting climate emergency rely on unvalidated assumptions, circular reasoning, or untested feedback multipliers-not on solid scientific evidence.
Next Chapter: 2 - An introduction to the Greenhouse effect