Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

Stunner: EPA’s CO2 ‘Hot Spot’ ‘Simply Does Not Exist’

from –

The theory of human-caused global warming is straightforward. The level of the so-called “pollutant” carbon dioxide, or CO2, is rising in the atmosphere, causing a worldwide increase in temperatures that ultimately will have a catastrophic effect on the planet.

To prevent this catastrophe, a vast regulatory infrastructure needs to be created, even if it means sacrificing jobs, economic efficiency, personal freedoms or national sovereignty itself.

But what if CO2 isn’t a pollutant?

That’s precisely the shocking finding of a new report from statistician Jim Wallace, climatologist John Christy and meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who contend the Environmental Protection Agency erred when it ruled CO2 is a pollutant in 2009.

The researchers claim they could find no evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations “have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that we analyzed.”

“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world,” the report said.

Brian Sussman, a former meteorologist and the author of “Eco-Tyranny: How The Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America,” hailed the report as a devastating blow to what he argues is a phony movement.

“The left wants the public to believe that human-caused climate change is scientific law, like the laws of gravity and motion,” he told WND. “Instead, human-caused climate change/global warming is a flawed hypothesis that should be discarded into the dustbin of other failed theories. Referring to carbon dioxide – a natural atmospheric component necessary for life – as a pollutant is insane. It’s no different than labeling H2O a pollutant.”

But the EPA did make the “insane” decision to label CO2 a pollutant in 2009, thus providing a justification for the the Obama administration to issue sweeping regulations cracking down on energy companies, industrial facilities, farms and vehicle manufactures.

Recently, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., author of “The Greatest Hoax,” denounced the kinds of tactics Obama’s EPA employed. He told WND’s Alicia Powe the “greatest problem we’ve had in this country has emanated from the Environmental Protection Agency.”

“[The EPA] was really set up to be concerned about the environment and pass regulations that we needed to do,” Inhofe said. “But then with the Obama administration, he got away from that and started worrying about regulating things the American people don’t want… The thing that President Obama did was try to get things through regulation that he couldn’t get through legislation.”

Marc Fitch, author of “Shmexperts: How Ideology And Power Politics Are Disguised As Science,” contends the global warming industry exemplifies the faux “expertise” he claims is harming so many Americans.

“What’s truly sad and funny about this entire episode is that it took a study to determine that CO2, a gas that supports all life on earth, is not a pollutant,” he said. “Plants need it to live and mammals exhale it and yet it was somehow labeled by the government as a pollutant. This is a point that has been repeatedly made by global warming skeptics over the years. The news is as revelatory as finding that ‘water is wet’ but it seems some people need to be reminded of those simple facts every now and then.”

Fitch accused the liberal media of misleading Americans about CO2 and the larger global warming issue.

“Branding is everything and the mainstream media has done a fine job in branding CO2 as the ‘enemy within’ without ever questioning the basic premise as to whether or not CO2 is really a problem,” he explained. “They have used the ‘consensus’ idea but have never bothered looking into the nuances of that finding, nor the arguments that debated those findings. The term ‘consensus’ is just a cheap and easy way to ignore any differing conclusions or the opinions of scientists who disagree.

“They also never bother to say what the ‘consensus’ is about and what it is not about. There most certainly is not a consensus that supports the hyperbolic alarmist claims made by some of the movement’s most vocal supporters. So to say there is a scientific consensus and then cite Al Gore’s predictions of melted ice caps and New York City underwater, conflates two very different positions. It tries to give scientific credence to ridiculous predictions.”

But both Sussman and Fitch said “science” itself, like the media, has become hopelessly politicized.

“Global warming,” asserts Sussman, simply functions as an excuse for leftists to fulfill their political goals. The supposed scientific rationale behind the agenda is all but irrelevant.

“The left sees global warming/climate change as their magic key to destroy industrial capitalism and implement socialism,” he said. “In the process it’s also a scandalous opportunity for a few wealthy liberals to make loads of money off of green investment scams that are subsidized with taxpayer dollars. The left, aided by their friends in the liberal media, are so stubborn and long-suffering that theylll never cave on this one; they won’t let the facts get in the way of their ideology.”

Sussman similarly dismissed the recent “March for Science,” not as a defense of scientific but as a “fresh public venue for Trump haters to parade their ignorant nonsense.”

And Fitch urged Americans and those who value real knowledge to resist the politicization of science and the dogma surrounding “global warming.”

“The March for Science was a confusing event,” he commented. “It risks associating the term ‘science’ with ‘left-wing politics’ which would ultimately not be good for those who claim a scientific mindset. But what I think is more damaging is the idolization of science. It risks becoming religious with people marching through the streets proclaiming that if we just all looked to science we would find utopia, heaven on Earth.

“Science is a practice, not an entity, but it is being treated like some god that must be appeased with praise and money. It is this same reason that I think many of the people marching for science were probably dyed in the wool global warming alarmists. They have created a religion out of global warming and science is supposedly their god. But, like many religions, dissent is not tolerated well and anyone who disagrees is branded a heretic.”


If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today

Leave a Reply

17 Comment threads
14 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
20 Comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

This article is spot on! I had an argument last week with a liberal friend over this very issue. He kept saying that 99% of the scientists agree with global warming and that I, because I don’t believe what those 99% scientists say, that I’m stupid and uninformed! When I tried to explain my position with facts, those facts were laughed off as right wing propaganda by my friend. He is a true socialist and is not afraid to admit that but its hard to tell whether his ideology is his God or whether God is his God since we both go to the same church. He does believe that God created us to build a utopia on this planet cuz every time I tell him that utopia is God’s job not mine, he gets mad and says that I’m being selfish. I love him to death but he is… Read more »


Yeah, it’s always something, so how did so many liberals come into being? I’m a simple guy and I like simple answers. I wish I could say that being the Marine Corps prepared you for life on the outside, but no..ive found out you cant be honest because that hurts the feelings of the snowflakes, cowardly little girls that they are. ANYWAY, its all the teachers fault. From elementary thru HS its the teachers that are promoting these liberal, socialistic agendas. And the higher level educational system geez, how do we stand a chance. They are totally in favor of socialism and globalism. So lets get one thing right, teachers are corrupt, lying little crybabies.

Bob Evans

Global warming is a fact. That people are causing it is not. Many people don’t realize that we had a “mini ice-age” from about 1275-1850 with much colder temps worldwide. It hit fairly quickly. Stories abound about the severe winters and even snow in Vermont in July. But then just as suddenly we snapped out of it around 1850 and other than the occasional natural aberration, it has been getting steadily warmer ever since.
This does not mean that we should pollute our environment. Treating our world with care, and recycling are worthy pursuits. But there is just no firm scientific evidence that we are causing global warming.


How refreshing that “Science” has discovered what we were taught in grade school in the 1950″s. Thank you for sharing this article. It should have been evident to everyone that a hoax was being foisted on the generally uneducated public.


The Cult of the Church of Glow Bull Warming and their unscientific mantra of “The science is settled!” Science by definition is never settled, always in question, always under new scrutiny, having to prove it holds true. The “99% of scientists” is a figure to which they forgot to add “…on the take from Al Gore and George Soros.” If they weren’t so serious about their hoax, and willing to have an inquisition of people with common sense who don’t believe their fraud they’d be funnier than Saturday Night Live (especially these days). One great example was their highly promoted Climate Change March in Denver that got pummeled by a snow storm, … so warm their participants decided to mostly stay home by the heater, LOL!

Wayne Peterkin

Good article. I might add that based on some analyses I have seen in the past, actual global CO2 levels have risen by fractions of a percent! Very small increases that sane people would likely not find alarming at all. This entire argument seems slanted more for political control over people at the cost of our freedoms. Obama was on record many years ago advocating for America’s wealth redistribution to the world, which is consistent with his known tendency as a globalist who usually does not have America’s interests at heart. BTW, the climate has changed continuously since the earth was formed and will continue doing so no matter what man does. Another credible report said that even if the UN Climate Change agenda was fully and completely implemented, it would impact worldwide temperatures 100 years from now by no more than .4 degrees. Less than one-half of one degree!… Read more »

Thomas H

Some facts: (1) Tell your liberal friends that the “99% of scientists agree with global warming” quotation is a myth. The true figure is only around 15%! (2) There has been no real global warming since around 1998 (looking at natural sources such as the Earth’s infrared radiation, etc. (3) Elevated temperatures only exist because many of the weather collection devices used to be located in rural areas but are now in urban areas due to worldwide urban sprawl. (4) Scientists actually agree that #3 is accurate, but they’ll contend that the urban heat island (settled science) effect on temperatures is “negligible”. In other words, real science has to be denied in order to support the faux science of global warming!


Ever seen the pollution in a poor country
The waterways are so polluted they’re black. Litter everywhere
It takes a prosperous country to keep the environment, water and air clean.
But the mega control and reach of the EPA will shrink the economy, reduce the standard of living and constrict the resources needed to control pollution
Less tax money available for their stated goals


Anthropogenic Global Warming rests on computer model projections, none of which have correctly predicted the very slight increase in global temperature. I believe the informed opinion is that there is some warming, CO2 is necessary for plant life, the increase in CO2 to 400 ppm has improved agriculture, human activity does probably add some CO2 to the atmosphere, and that global cooling would be much more harsh to life than warming. To learn much more, I suggest the website

MJ Alexander

Over-regulation is just one more reason to call for a Convention of States to propose amendments to the constitution! Dr. Adrian Moore, Vice President of Policy at Reason Foundation, reports: “If the U.S. had frozen its regulations in 1980, the overall U.S. economy would be 25% larger than it is now, meaning $4 trillion per year more wealth or about $13,000 per year for every man, woman and child in the country.” The federal government has stretched its interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare clause well beyond all rational reason. The beautiful but ambiguous language of the Framers needs to be clarified, and can be done so in accordance with their documented original intent. Congress will not do it, and the courts are simply enablers. Article V of the Constitution gives the same amendatory authority to the states as it does to Congress, no more, no less.… Read more »

Carol Menges

There are so very many reasons why our culture is accepting of ridiculous assertions that parade as scientific truth. One is that not enough people understand the basics that general education is supposed to teach. Facts are such unyielding, “stubborn” things except when handled by groups wanting research grants for the latest silly notions; then they become fuzzy and undefinable. We need to take back our culture and can begin, “under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, [by] the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”

John B

Having lived in LA all my life, I have seen some awful pollution way back when. But I think people don’t realize that equipment, autos, some buses, and many factories have improved their systems so that the release of smoke is not always going to be ‘bad’ particles. Things are much better now than they were 50 or even 25 years ago. Hopefully, things will continue to improve so that our air remains clean.

Laurie Hackett

Truth. Time to rein in the EPA and other governmental agencies seizing America. Furthermore the federal over reach is increasing the national debt, nearing $20 trillion. Our Founding Fathers knew the history of past governments and the trend towards tyranny. Thus when they wrote Article V of the Constitution, which states the procedure for how Congress writes amendments, George Mason reminded his fellow delegates that the day would come when We the People would need to rein in the power of the federal government. Immediately his colleagues agreed. Thus they wrote a provision for We the People to petition the state legislatures to call for a Convention of States to propose amendments to rein in the federal government and return power to the states.
Our approach will work because of the four reasons explained here…
Learn more and sign the petition at

Don Sutton

“Most Americans do not wish to throw themselves into a
regressive, primal lifestyle. They enjoy the abundance of untold
human benefits and improvements resulting from entre-
preneurship, capitalism, and economic growth. Consequently,
the degrowth movement has attempted to conceal its paganlike
militant opposition to fossil fuels and carbon dioxide
by mainstreaming its agenda with politically generated and
well-funded campaigns promoting what was once called “manmade
global cooling,” then “man-made global warming,” and
now “man-made climate change.” Nonetheless, like most
dogmatists, the degrowthers are impatient. The revolution is
now and change must be immediate. Thus, the degrowthers’
agenda is built around hysterical doomsday predictions of environmental
armageddon, which can only be avoided by the
imposition of their severe, ideologically driven agenda.”

Mark Levin, Plunder and Deceit.

Fredrick Yerrick

The solution that is as big as the power grab of our federal government, Article V; Article V Part 2 “Enlightened Citizens” are needed to save our Republic and this is accomplished by education not fear. Our Founding Fathers gave us the process in Part 2 of Article V; Amendment Process #2 of Article V 1. 34 states submit applications for the same issue 2 Congress is required to call the convention 3. Commissioners debate, propose, and vote upon possible amendments 4. Proposed amendments are sent to the states for ratifications 5. If 38 states ratify, the proposed amendments become part of the Constitution Please join us at and We thank you! Article V Part 2 “Enlightened Citizens” are needed to save our Republic and this is accomplished by education not fear. Our Founding Fathers gave us the process in Part 2 of Article V; Amendment Process #2… Read more »

Fredrick Yerrick

A solution as big as the federal government overreach, Article V;
Article V Part 2
“Enlightened Citizens” are needed to save our Republic and this is accomplished by education not fear. Our Founding Fathers gave us the process in Part 2 of Article V;

Amendment Process #2 of Article V

1. 34 states submit applications for the same issue

2 Congress is required to call the convention

3. Commissioners debate, propose, and vote upon possible amendments

4. Proposed amendments are sent to the states for ratifications 5. If 38 states ratify, the proposed amendments become part of the Constitution

Please join us at and We thank you!


Wow i just made a really good comment. Ive just discovered amac is afraid of their own shawdow. Amac, you need to grow up and act like an adult