· ·

Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere


Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

Almost all 'heating' radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2

According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.

"The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet," write H. Schreuder and J. O'Sullivan for PSI. "[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS."

Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time "on science," and on "drawing attention to [its] implications for young people."

Sources for this article include:



Republished from NaturalNews
Written by Ethan A. Huff

If you value what we do here, create your ad-free account and support our journalism.


Your support makes a difference

Dear valued reader,

We hope that our website has been a valuable resource for you.

The reality is that it takes a lot of time, effort, and resources to maintain and grow this website. We rely on the support of readers like you to keep providing high-quality content.

If you have found our website to be helpful, please consider making a contribution to help us continue to bring you the information you need. Your support means the world to us and helps us to keep doing what we love.

Support us by choosing your support level – Silver, Gold or Platinum. Other support options include Patreon pledges and sending us a one-off payment using PayPal.

Thank you for your consideration. Your support is greatly appreciated.

Teo Blašković

$5 /month

  • Ad-free account
  • Clean user interface and fast browsing
  • Direct communication with us via chat and email
  • Suggest new features, content and applications
  • Early access to new apps and features

$50 /year

$10 /month

  • Ad-free account
  • Clean user interface and fast browsing
  • Direct communication with us via chat and email
  • Suggest new features, content and applications
  • Early access to new apps and features

$100 /year

$25 /month

  • Ad-free account
  • Clean user interface and fast browsing
  • Direct communication with us via chat and email
  • Suggest new features, content and applications
  • Early access to new apps and features

$200 /year

You can also support us on Patreon

support us on patreon

or by sending us a one-off payment using PayPal:

Commenting rules and guidelines

We value the thoughts and opinions of our readers and welcome healthy discussions on our website. In order to maintain a respectful and positive community, we ask that all commenters follow these rules:

  • Treat others with kindness and respect.
  • Stay on topic and contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way.
  • Do not use abusive or hateful language.
  • Do not spam or promote unrelated products or services.
  • Do not post any personal information or content that is illegal, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate.

We reserve the right to remove any comments that violate these rules. By commenting on our website, you agree to abide by these guidelines. Thank you for helping to create a positive and welcoming environment for all.


  1. As I read this I thought it was a parody piece like The Onion and was laughing, then realised that the author was actually serious. It’s flabbergasting how stupid can some people be.

  2. Hmm. Then i wonder why is the Venus hot hell and not super cool planet cooled by super cooler co2. Ahhh right.. Conspiracy theorists lack scientific knowledge. Therefore they misinterpret NASA findings and then they spin the whole story ….. Same stupidity as creationists or moon fakers…

  3. So this could possibly explain the noctilucent clouds? They appeared after the colossal eruption of Krakatoa (obviously large amounts of greenhouse gases released).

    And this year, 2013, the noct. clouds started appearing earlier and there were alot more of them, which would make sense after tens of years of CO2 "pollution".

  4. We need to build a greenhouse made of silica glass to establish the greenhouse gas hypothesis experimentally once and for all.
    Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is undoubtedly increasing climate warmth. However I suspect that also an equally great or greater affect on warmth is the baring of soil by increase in annual crop acreage, roads, buildings, grazing, and desertification currently, especially in the tropics and subtropics. This may be a considerable part of the reason why the southwestern USA tends to be warmer than the southeast. You may see an article that briefly discusses this in more detail in http://charles_w.tripod.com/climate.html . If you see any possible improvement or errors, please let me know.
    I suspect that shrubs in the Arctic have the opposite affect.

  5. Hey Ethan, might want to educate yourself a little before writing embarrassing articles like this one. 1) You take the original NASA article out of context which is talking about solar storms and nothing about low earth atmospheric climate. 2) The majority of Sun's energy is short wave (UV) radiation which is not reflected by CO2. This energy is absorbed and heats the Earth's surface which in turn produces long-wave (infrared) radiation which goes into the low Earth atmosphere and gets reflected back by CO2, hence causing a greenhouse effect. The NASA finding don't contradict this at all.

    1. So let me get this straight, Ken, the newest findings don't contradict the old paradigm because they have said that a thick coat of CO2 in the upper atmosphere creates a protective blanket that reflects more radiation than it traps and helps create a constant temperature rather than harsh extremes such as on the moon and they have been saying this all along? Sweet! So who on Earth was blaming CO2 for climate change?

  6. The Earth has had extremes of every kind of weather for 4.5 billion years. What makes the current ones any different? Any cause of warming could melt ice, raise sea-levels, shift jet streams, change cloud cover and shift evaporation rates. How do we know this warming is due to coal fired power stations? We only “know” because some climate modelers say so — but they rely on models that assume relative humidity stays constant when it doesn’t, and which are proven “unskilled” at precipitation, cloud cover and upper tropospheric temperature profiles. The models ignore lunar effects, solar magnetic effects and millions of observations so they can blame your SUV and air-conditioner for causing droughts, storms, blizzards, and floods. I think Dano drinks too much floride in the water so i understand his situation.

  7. o "now that we’re entering into a little ice age… We are already in the first year of it right now."

    o "now that we’re entering into a little ice age"

    The mind reels. 2010 the hottest year in instrumental record. 2011 the hottest La Nina year. Australia unprecedented summer temps.

    The Watchers must be broadcasting to another planet, because on this planet, the bulleted comments are hysterical.



  8. Who are you going to believe these smart educated guys or Ozone Al Gore who owns interest in carbon trading companies? Our President said just a few days ago this was settled science and there will always be, " Flat Earthers". We must shut down hundreds of coal fired plants and hold our breath, as it is spewing out CO2 also and must be controlled. I count myself as a flat earther, as I think man contributes 1% to 2% and the SUN and ocean control most of our climate.

  9. Watchers was lucky. I tried to have drudgereport link to this but they didn't else there would have been national attention to this article. You would have seen it quoted from National Review to Alex Jones.

  10. @Missy: -100 degrees Celsius translates to -148 degrees Farenheit. Itrarely gets that cold even in Antarctica. And you know how life doesn't exactly thrive there. Yet supposedly these temperatures existed during the time of England's reign as the world's greatest naval superpower?

    (insert incredulous eyebrow raise here)

  11. The astronomers at the Polkovo Astronomical Observatory in Leningrad in Russia have said that it is the fewer sunspots on the sun that is causing the weather to become colder. When there are fewer sunspots the amount of Cosmic Ray Energy reaching into the Solar System goes up. Which then brings about greater amount of clouds and mist and fogs which then block out sunlight. This MINI ICE AGE occurred before for the same reasons some three hundred years ago between 1645 and 1715. They refer to it as the MAUNDER MINIMUM. The new mini ice age predicted by the Polkovo Observatory is going to last two hundred years. We are already in the first year of it right now. During the Maunder Minimum period temperatures in London were often even as low as minus 100*C below zero. Sounds incredable, but it is true.

  12. When it was warm CO2 caused global warming now that we’re entering into a little ice age they flip flop and claim that CO2is causing global cooling. They must think that in the last 60 years they have lowered the IQ down to the point that the population will believe any lie they spout! Either way they deny us cheap energy that would help people have a better chance at survival!

  13. Ain’t science great? First they “prove” that CO2 warms the atmosphere. Now they “prove” that it cools the atmosphere.

    Either way, you’re the culprit, and you must pay higher taxes. What a racket!

    1. Control and Taxes are the real issues. One side cites the recent highs in Death Valley, (Except the record was set 100 years ago). I think cap and trade and EPA's declaration that CO2 is a pollutant is more about control than anything else. The EPA is going around Congress and so is Obama with Executive orders. He knows no one will dare to challenge him and certainly not impeach him. I feel sorry for the collateral damage like people who can no longer get over the counter inhalers because of bad old CO2. I remember the jokes about one day they will tax the air our of mouth and now we have arrived. What is next? I do not think they want the truth or real facts.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *