Welcome to Oomeen's website
Developed with non-scientific laypersons in mind, this website explains the Greenhouse Effect in the context of the Alarmist assertion: “Human (Anthropogenic) emissions cause dangerous Global Warming, Climate Change and, if continued, will make the Earth unliveable-in for humans”.
My books on climate variability: VOLUME ONE: A review for laypersons - 🔗 Kindle | Paperback and VOLUME TWO: The detail - 🔗 Kindle | Paperback) review the question of is climate variability "Natural" or "Anthropogenic" in a wide context.
I argue, in the books, that "Natural Climate Variability" is the major force in climate variability.
The allegation that 500 million years of 'natural' factors causing major fluctuations (some quite rapid) in climate were stopped dead in their tracks when humans began to industrialise is absurdly anthropocentric.
I have limited the scope of this website to the Greenhouse Effect and the science underlying the alarmists allegations that most modern warming is due to Anthropogenic emissions.
The arguments about what is causing the changes in climate we notice can become very heated. For this website I limit the discussion to the issue of the greenhouse effect and how two approaches (mine and the so-called 'consensus' approach) arrive at very different conclusions..
The 'consensus' approach 'Anthropogenic emissions cause dangerous Global Warming' asserts enhanced greenhouse effect from elevated atmospheric CO2 (& other greenhouse gases) is the primary cause of Global Warming, Climate Change' and descent into 'Climate Apocalypse'.
Having asserted that this is the case 'they' (in my terminology I refer to them, collectively, as 'The Anointed') proceed to prove their assertion correct by circular groupthink logic.
It's a bit like accusing a random person at the scene of a murder of killing the victim 'because they were in the vicinity'.
My approach is to see what observations can tell us. Rather than base studies on a flawed, utopian-asserted vision of how things should be, I look to empirical evidence of how things are in the real world.
Through two observation-based models I have used this empirical approach to show that the assertion that humans are causing dangerous warming by burning fossil fuels is a false exaggeration.
I propose a different 'interpretation' of how the greenhouse effect and Global Warming respond to increased atospheric levels of greenhouse gases. I have found that my response-model is considerably superior at interpreting the real world than the so-called 'consensus' response-model.
'Consensus' has no part to play in science - it is a political concept.
I have also looked into how this 'consensus' view and the whole 'Climate Change' belief system have come to dominate the Western World. This domination is (literally deadly) serious as it leads to insane policies such as 'Net Zero' that are de-industrialising the Western World and emiserating its citizens.
All my digging into this quasi-religious belief system points to it being politically driven. On the way this narrative has co-opted the support of 'science' to fit the approved narrative of the groupthink 'consensus'.
I show in this website and in my books "Natural and Anthropogenic Climate Variability" that although this 'science' is the work of many earnest and skilled experts, their attempts are essentially to describe the flawed, utopian vision of an eco-socialist inspired belief system and not the real world.
Background
It is easy to dismiss Donald Trump’s allegation that “Climate Change is a hoax” as the random rantings of a politician, but several respected scientists have said something similar only to be dismissed as ‘Climate Deniers’ - the modern term for 'heretic'.
Having a particularly relevant academic background and skills honed in the 'real' world (see About the author) I have proved that the contribution of the additional allegedly-human-caused greenhouse gases to the observed global average surface temperature (1850 to 2025: +1.39⁰C) is minimal.
Furthermore, the augmentation of future Global Warming (should it occur) - if we continue to burn fossil fuels - will be near-negligible. This means that inappropriate immiseration policies such as Net Zero are completely unnecessary.
They will not, in some magical and undefined way, “Save the Planet”.
The Planet, from the limited viewpoint of egotistical anthropocentrically-inclined human society, might well be threatened by catastrophic (to humans) climate breakdown but I am convinced that burning fossil fuels is neither the cause nor is stopping burning fossil fuels the remedy.
My scientific approach to the studies mentioned in this website has been even-handed, following proper scientific method. I did not start-out with a distorting assertion to be axiomatically incorporated into a circular-reasoning-derived 'conclusion' that inevitably concludes the assertion is true.
However, the 'consensus' view seems to be that this unscientific approach is, in fact, 'the scientific truth'. This is nothing but a tautological, circular-reasoning driven groupthink-inspired obfuscation.
A politician might well describe this obfuscation as a 'hoax'.
The time I have spent (over five years) have all been my own effort and funded from my own financial resources. I have not drawn on any AI asistance. The data I have gathered comes from reputable sources (also not AI assisted). The arguments and conclusions are all my own. The spelling, lexical errors and unintended misrepresentations are also all my own work.
If the reader of this website is already preparing to write me off as yet 'another Climate Denier' please give me the chance to explain. If you read the whole website (not a trivial undertaking) and still consider me a 'Denier', I look forward to your (by e-mail) well-reasoned scientific insights as to where my data, explanations, models and observations are incorrect.
A very important point about the currently (early 2026) vogue for opposition to Net Zero
While there is a lot of discussion nowadays about the merits of Net Zero. Discussions of the UK's hasty scramble to effect a paltry (less than 1% of the world's) reduction of CO2 at the expense of the well-being of UK citizens still takes place within the paradigm of 'Anthropogenic emissions cause Global Warming'.
The main arguments against Net Zero are ones of timing and harm to the economy associated with what will be a tiny, barely noticeable reduction in 'carbon emissions'.
These arguments do not acknowledge that all such 'carbon reducing' policies are a completely pointless and ineffectual destruction of the limied wealth of the UK and those countries embracing them.
This near-univerally acknowleged frame of reference 'we must reduce carbon emissions' is more a tribute to the effective brainwashing carried out by the Climate Change Anointed than to any rational science we might have expected in the post-enlightenment 'Scientific Age of Reason'.
The capture of the minds of intellectuals, politicians, lawyers, media and educators is a massive tribute to the success of eco-socialist 'influencers', indoctrinators, reporters and zealots of the Anointed. Groupthink barely begins to explain this mass-delusion.
What I try to show through my website is that this 'consensus' frame of reference is wrong. Adding CO2 to our atmosphere does NOT increase greenhouse warming. Continuing to burn fossil fuels will NOT halt a descent into the variously alleged 'Climate Armageddon' fantasy-worlds. The end is NOT nigh".
My findings are scientific facts and, as such, have no political-colour to them.
Therefore, policies such as Net Zero which are completely unecessary to 'Save the Planet' - are the insane product of left-wing eco-Socialist inspired indoctrination and have little to do with the environment and science a fact acknowledged by the IPCC's Edenhofer (see [what is Climate Change?](https://oomeen.com/ what-is-climate-change/) ).
If indeed 'the Planet' does need saving we should look elsewhere. Pursuing Net Zero and similar policies will only provide some temporary smoothing of the egos of the virtue-signalling, guilt-ridden middle-classes of the Anointed.
I may, of course, be wrong in my interpretation. It is not a fundamental theory like 'Special Relativity'. It is my best interpretations of real world observations.
I remain open to re-interpretation if anyone cares to point out contradicting observations or basic flaws in the logic of my analysis.
I've laid out the detail of my scientific approach in the Cardinal Model, the Emissions-Temp Modeland CO2 is not the villain and explained in simple terms how I see the Greenhouse Effect works.
I have also researched how Climate Change came to dominate and distort the views of many although, again, my views are personal and not informed by any academic background in the psychology of 'brainwashing'.
A Simple Explanation
The surface of the Earth warms up every day because of the sun. Anyone being out with the mad dogs in a dry, hot desert may easily experience over 50⁰C temperatures.
The associated cooling process that operates 24/7 (i.e. both day and night) is radiation of infrared heat from the Earth’s warm surface (at least those warmer than -50⁰C) towards space. Hot surfaces, unless re-heated, always cool off – primarily by radiating heat to cooler places. There is nothing much colder than the cold of space.
If you (and the mad dogs) survive over 50⁰C in the desert by day, you must be prepared for a cold night as the temperature might plummet to below -5⁰C.
But some of this cooling, outgoing radiation is ‘trapped’ by the atmosphere’s greenhouse gases. This effect, sometimes called a ‘blanket’, is the greenhouse effect. It doesn't work that well in a dry, hot desert at night but there's not much of the Earth's surface like that.
The sun’s heating, the radiation from the surface and the greenhouse effect all happen instantaneously from moment to moment – at least to a human observers.
Other processes – driven by thermodynamics – move heat and hot/cold mass around. Day to day we call this weather and if weather patterns change over many years, we might say 'the climate is changing'.
This changing climate does not come as a surprise to most of us as the climate has always been changing - at least for the last 500 million years. My books on climate variability discuss this issue in depth.
The ‘Climate Change Anointed’ allege that human emissions are the main (often treated as ‘only’) cause of Global Warming and Climate Change through their influence over the greenhouse effect. This leads them to impress inappropriate policies on 'the masses; who are unaware of real motivation for the policies.
(Note: ‘Anointed’ is a reference to Thomas Sowell’s 1995 book “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy” characterised as group of intellectual and political elites who believe in their moral and intellectual superiority over the general population. Many policies championed by these elites fail because they are based on a flawed, utopian vision of how things should be rather than empirical evidence and practical consequences of how things are in the real world.)
The greenhouse effect is not as simple a process as often made out. I have simplified it, as much as I can, in the explanation The Greenhouse Effect.
It is certainly not a case of ‘double the CO2 concentration – double the CO2’s greenhouse effect’. While the greenhouse effect is increased when atmospheric CO2 increases, the form of the response is not agreed by scientists.
Scientists of the ‘Anointed’ argue for a response that falls off gently.
The Cardinal Model shows that, once CO2 concentration builds up to the levels seen before industrialisation, the response ‘flattens out’.
This argument revolves around the technical concepts of saturation and overlap – further explained in The Greenhouse Effect.
The greenhouse effect takes place in the atmosphere so any greenhouse-warming of the atmosphere must be transmitted to the surface (and the 2 metres of atmosphere near the surface) where we live, experience life and measure temperatures.
I tried to model how greenhouse gas concentrations and global average surface temperatures might be linked. The Emissions-Temp Model assesses that there is an ‘interesting’, but incomplete, correlation between greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperature.
Again, as with The Cardinal Model the flatter-response model is a much better reflection of observations than the Anointed’s slow tailing off.
President Obama’s famous tweet of 2016 “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that Climate Change is real, man-made and dangerous” is a political statement and believed to be true by more people (~50% of Americans) than Trump’s “Climate Change is a hoax” (~20% Americans).
But neither of these political statements can be considered unequivocally and scientifically-proven ‘truths’.
The serious point to be made here is that the science of ‘Climate Change’ is not settled. My findings appear to support Trump's 'hoax' allegation rather than the Obama 'consensus' tweet.
What is ‘Climate Change’ ?
If the science is not settled – how is it that political leaders are implementing economically harmful policies as though it is settled?
I do not buy the ‘precautionary principle’ approach that says:
"We must, ‘to save the Planet’, stop burning fossil fuels by ‘Climate Action’." "The cost of Climate Disaster is so great that there are no limits on what we should do to stop it - the future of the human race is at stake!"
This ‘Action’ is a trade-off of certain economic harm now for a fantasy future where the Planet is magically ‘Saved’.
Hysterical warnings are the stock-in-trade of the Climate Change Anointed, none more zealous than António Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations who warned in 2023: ‘Earth is becoming hotter and more dangerous for everyone, everywhere, billions of people are facing an extreme heat epidemic - wilting under increasingly deadly heatwaves, with temperatures topping 50 degrees Celsius around the world - halfway to boiling.’ (per Guterres).
He followed this up in 2024 and 2025 by emphasising that fossil fuels are the primary driver of the climate crisis, leading to "climate chaos".
In explaining how we have come to the, arguably insane, position we now find ourselves in, we need to understand what ‘Climate Change’ actually means and how the quasi-religious belief system came to dominate the thinking and policies of the (formerly) industrialised countries of the ‘Global North’.
In summary, What is Climate Change? - it is an anthropocentric belief system built on a coincidental observation that has been supported and strengthened by questionable science. The dogma and policy direction of ‘Climate Change’ are straight out the eco-Socialist playbook. The dogma became embedded in Western society during the 1976 to 1993 warming period.
The gullibility of politicians, lawyers, educators, celebrities and other members of 'the elite' had been primed by fashionable left-wing thinking during the post-war ‘enlightenment’ that spawned ‘post-modernism’ and eventually morphed into the applied postmodernism culture of ‘woke’.
A brief summary of how so many of the West's elites became in thrall to this belief system may be found in The rise of Climate Change Dogma.
CO2 is not the villain. Burning fossil fuels is not evil.
Despite CO2 providing huge benefits to Earth's ecosystem (& green plants) from heightened levels in the atmosphere, CO2 - a natural compound - has been villified. It is not (as the USA EPA's politically driven classification would have you believe) a 'pollutant'.
Some of the reasons why CO2 cannot be the villain are explored in CO2 is not the villain?.
About 75% of people in the UK believe elevated CO2 is bad for the planet. Many of those believing this CO2 demonisation are, at the same time, also against Net Zero because of the negative impact on the cost of energy and not because they disagree with the statement 'CO2 causes dangerous Global Warming'.
This confusion in the minds of many is a mark of how successful the indoctrination process has been marking CO2 as the 'villain'.
Climate Change dogma has enthused the elites, spawned muli-trillion dollar businesses, built political, legal and scientific careers and reputations. It has energised compliant media feeding off alarmist propaganda.
Let's, for a moment, follow the science of this massive illusion.
The foundation block of the illusion is to take a coincidence and turn it into a politically acceptable causation assertion.
Causality - which is cause and which is effect? looks at how 'scientific' is a coincidence as evidence of causation. This topic is more throroughly discussed in my books.
Although the answer any statisticion or scientist would give is 'coincidence is not proof', the fact is that in this case - it has been accepted as proof. Many will say "it's obvious" - guilty by association.
Despite this general agreement that coincidence is not proof of causality - how did the coincidence of rising CO2 and rising temperature get turned into a causality statement?
The primary tool comes from the 'How to brainwash manual'. Continually and repetitively asserting something is true particularly to gullible audiences or audiences desparate to latch onto any such message, incredibly this observation of coincidence has been turned into something which people believe to be wholly credible!
Left-wing anti-capitalst philosophy mandates blaming Western Capitalist Society for all the evils of the modern world.
So blaming Global Warming on Western Capitalist Society's evil addiction to burning fossil fuels in the pursuit of profit became something of a 'no-brainer'.
I have to admit that until 5 or 6 years ago I was one of those 'brainwashed' gullible individuals. I missed the fact that the hard scientific evidence for this causal relationship is missing. But how can the evidence really be missing?
After all, 97% of scientists agree it's real, according to President Obama
How a coincidence becomes a 'truth'
When the groupthink belief is that 'something is true' even proper scientists will indulge in the circular reasoning that shows it is true.
Studies, investigations and calculations that start off asserting something is true can only come out with one conclusion "it is true that burning fossil fuels causes Global Warming and Climate Change and, if not stopped, will lead us to Climate breakdown."
The 'fundamental' science behind the machinations of the Anointed rely on two unproven relationships.
- increased CO2 directly heats the atmosphere by greenhouse warming. This warming increases as the logarithm of the atmospheric concentration of CO2.
- the Climate of Earth is uniquely sensitive to increased CO2 levels so any direct heating of the atmosphere from CO2 is amplifed by 'feedbacks' that approximately triple the effect on surface temperature.
What do observations tell us?
Both The Cardinal Model and The Emissions-Temp Model start out with no causation assertion.
Both models investigate if a relationship exists between increased CO2 and (i) the total Greenhouse effect (The Cardinal Model) (ii) the observed surface temperature (The Emissions-Temp Model).
A relationship is found by both models but does not prove causation. There is a good case to assert that elevated CO2 levels increases the total greenhouse effect.
The Greenhouse Effect explains, based on fundamental scientific knowledge, how the causation effect works.
Modelling this mechanism is difficult, if not impossible, given our current state of knowledge. Only two approaches are available to us:
- (i) rely on observations to investigate the relationship
- (ii) assert a relationship exists and use circular logic to prove the assertion true.
Both of these are used: My approach uses the scientifically sound first approach. The second approach is that of the Anointed and is a pseudo-scientific approach that merely gives the veneer of science.
When it comes to the association with surface temperature, my approach (the Emissions-Temp Model) does not prove that elevated CO2 causes elevated surface temperature - it establishes a strong statistical observational case for the existance of a relationship.
A causation assertion based on a coincidence is worthless in a scientific debate. That CO2 and temperature are associated is moderately clear but this association may be a result of increasing temperatures increasing CO2 or that something else is going on that both increases surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels,
CO2 is not the villain expands on why I believe CO2 plays such a minor part in Global Warming. It also raises temporal questions of which effect 'causes' the other as cause should always precede effect.
Both The Cardinal Model and The Emissions-Temp Model show that observationally, a hyperbolic tangent [tanh] relationship describes what's actually going on better than the Arrhenius logarthmic [ln] relationship.
While the Cardinal model 'proves' (by completely explaining the observed variance and providing a causal mechanism) that the CO2-greenhouse effect exhibits a [tanh] form of relationship, the Emissons-Temp Model's high level of correlation only hints that a [tanh] form is at work.
The Emissons-Temp model indicates, that either large increases of CO2 in the atmosphere cause almost no elevation of temperature OR small increases in surface temperature cause large increases in CO2 or that some other mechanisms are at work.
Further website content
The latest satellite temperature data may be found at: Satellite Era Data
I have pulled two graphs from the many included in 'Satellite Era Data'
These two are selected to show that the recent (early 2026) hysterical alarmist contention "Global Warming is Accelerating - the End is Nigh!" might be just a tinge 'over-alarmist'.
The above graphic looks at how average temperatures - annual and decadal averages - are changing over a 12-month period. The hysterical headlines lead one to expect that both the red and blue lines on the above graphic must be recently heading upwards - at an accelerating rate.
Using the satellite data, it is clear that the annual trend has been steeply downwards for nearly a year. The longer-term decadal trend is also downwards.
The hysteria in 2023/24 may have had some transitory justification but since April 2024 Lower Troposphere temperatures have been on a downward trend.
Similar trends are discerned in mid-Troposphere temperatures where variations in the total greenhouse effect directly manifest themselves.
Is the Earth heating so rapidly that Climate Breakdown is imminent?
NO!
My personal experience of the 'Climate Change Saga' may be found at about the author and personal Experience.
Many people, through their articles, books and other publications have guided me in being able to complete this website and my books 'Natural and Anthropogenic Climate Variability'.
In particular, I'd like to thank Dr Roy Spencer for his meticulous upkeep of the satellite temperature record and for persistently railing against the hype and alarm of the Climate Change Anointed.
Also very many thanks are due to Thomas Sowell for his philosophical and economic guidance. Particularly as the originator of 'The Anointed' description.
Thechnical website assistance from Karatelitje is also appreciated.
The continual support, and forbearance, of Tanniebee was essential in encouraging my diligence and persistance of effort to completethe books and this website.
Books by Oomeen Basing published at the end of December 2025
Available on Amazon in paperback and for the Kindle. Links below.
Anthropogenic emissions contribute so little to Global Warming that we need not fear imminent climate breakdown. In reality we should bask in the delights of the modern warm period and the benefits of increased carbon dioxide. Climate will continue to change, as it always has, through Natural Climate Variability.
These climate changes will be boosted by the impact of humans on the environment – particularly on biodiversity.
The ruling elite must end their climate-ineffectual and pointless obsession with ceasing fossil fuel use and concentrate on counteracting locally perceived changes to climate.
The negative impact of the dominance of human society on the environment is best countered by mitigating strategies and not through blindly following the blinkered ‘we know best’ moral-high-ground. obsessive arrogance of the Anointed. _
For a summary of the books:
My e-mail address, should you wish to contact me:
Sub-pages to the 'What is Climate Change?':
- An Anthropogenic Belief System
- The Science of Climate Change
- Personal Experence
- The rise of Climate Change Dogma
- Post-script (per Ridley)
‘The Cardinal Model’: steps to explains my approach to the problem of determining the contribution to the total Greenhouse effect by increased levels of Greeenhouse gases.
- Step 1 Estimate Total Greenhouse Effect
- Step 2 Build the Empirical Parameter Model
- Step 3 The Outcomes - Summary With Addendums:
- Addendum One Carbon Dioxide
- Addendum Two Methane
- Addendum Three: A note about Empirical curves
