environment Featured Contributors

Carbon Dioxide Coalition Challenges Global Warming Hysteria

CO2 Emissions
Written by Kevin Mooney

Repeat after me. “Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant, it is the stuff of life.”

That’s the message the CO2 Coalition, a new, independent, nonprofit group, is working to drive home. The coalition members include scientists and public policy analysts, who have set out to explain how additional levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are actually beneficial.

But, wait a minute. Shouldn’t we be concerned about carbon dioxide emissions? Isn’t planet earth warming up at an alarming pace? At least, that’s what’s been widely reported in mainstream media outlets. But, as it turns out, the climate models that predicted dangerous levels of global warming have been woefully inaccurate. Here is how the CO2 Coalition answers questions about “scary predictions.”

“Your grandchildren will be fine. Over the past two decades, computer-based climate models have predicted much more global warming than has been observed. The real “equilibrium climate sensitivity,” which is the amount of global warming to be expected for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, is likely to be about 1°C, some three times smaller than most models assumed. Using these much smaller climate sensitivities, which are drawn from careful and long-running observations of the natural world, the projected warming will be moderate and beneficial for the foreseeable future.”

The problem here is that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is heavily reliant upon mathematical models that have overstated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2. Moreover, models are not substitutes for actual scientific observations. Satellite measurements, for instance, of earth’s temperatures point to stable and even flat temperatures.

This is what the CO2 coalition tells us about those climate models:

“Mainstream warming forecasts have been wrong. Over the past two decades, the global warming predicted by climate models has mostly failed to materialize. The real “equilibrium climate sensitivity”—the amount of global warming to be expected for a doubling of atmospheric CO2—is likely to be about three times smaller than what the models have assumed. Observational data suggest that doubling atmospheric CO2 levels will increase the surface temperature by about 1° C, not the much larger values that were originally assumed in mainstream models. Using these much smaller, observation-based climate sensitivities, the projected warming from continued use of fossil fuels will be moderate and benign for the foreseeable future.”

But what really stands out above all else that the CO2 Coalition is trying to convey are the beneficial aspects of CO2. While the public has been programmed to believe that increased carbon dioxide emissions are somehow dangerous and destabilizing, in reality, the recent rise in CO2 levels will actually benefit animal and plant life over time. That’s not what the centralized planners and regulators in government agencies want to hear. But it’s what the CO2 Coalition is now telling the public.

CO2 increases can be expected to “boost farm productivity, improve drought resistance, bolster food security and help create a greener, lusher planet.”

The coalition does support “cost-effective” methods of controlling dangerous and hazardous pollutants that originate from fossil- or bio-fuel. But the regulatory schemes that have been hatched to control CO2, appear to be rooted more in politics and less in science.

What’s needed is an informed, dispassionate debate about what the real threats and challenges are to humanity. The CO2 Coalition could play an instrumental role here, if the media is willing to provide coalition members with the same platform they have offered up to global warming alarmists who continue to misinform the public. We’ll see.


Kevin J. Mooney, Investigative Reporter for Political Storm in Washington D.C.


  • Climate Change deniers are just another iteration in a long line of people denying irrefutable scientific studies, data, analysis, and just plain facts. First they persecuted those who claimed the earth was round, then they persecuted those who said the earth was not at the center of the solar system, then they persecuted those who said the solar system wasn’t the center of the universe, then they persecuted the Evolutionists, now it’s the Climate Change deniers? What does all of this tell us? That consistently, throughout history, science and truth have prevailed over devious manipulation and propaganda spread by the anti-science crowd.

    There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is warming and that humans are the cause of it.

    Do you seriously, actually believe that global temperatures are stagnant? Have you not seen the news in the past decade?

    So why does this debate still persist? Well, your example of the CO2 Coalition is the perfect example and I thank you so much for sharing it.

    Are the members of the CO2 Coaltion non-partisan, scientists who have dedicated their lives to research and education? Well….no, not at all.

    You can see the list and details of each and every one of the Board of Directors and Advisory Committee have some type of ties to the private sector oil and energy industry. Some have been Executives for ExxonMobil regions of operations, other willingly admit that “over 40% of my funding comes from the fossil fuel industry”. Come on man, you cannot possible be serious with this organization as your example for climate change denial. This took me 5 minutes to research. Every single one of these so-called scientists have the fossil fuel industry in their pockets and are totally corrupt. So much so, that they don’t even try to hide it.

    • REMOVED. I for, one of many of the CO2 Coalition board members have no “ties” to the fossil fuel industry. Ands even if I did it would be because I support the use of fossil fuels, unlike hypocrites like you who use fossil fuels every day for their life-style and even existence, and then spit in the face of those who are telling the truth.

    • Thank you. I pretty much figured once I was a quarter a way through this crap. “We support “cost effective” methods of controlling dangerous and hazardous pollutants” is code word for yeah we will try and regulate pollution, as long as we don’t actually lose any money in the process. God knows if they can seriously cut back on pollution they will ignore it if it cuts into their precious profits. These “scientists” are a joke and have absolutely no credibility

Leave a Comment

About the author

Kevin Mooney

Kevin currently works as an investigative reporter with The Daily Signal, the multimedia news service of The Heritage Foundation. His work also appears in National Review, The Daily Caller, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times and other D.C. based publications. Prior to joining The Daily Signal, Kevin worked as a reporter with The Pelican Institute in New Orleans, La. and The Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity. Kevin specializes in reporting on the actions of organized labor, the environmental movement and other special interest groups. Kevin has studied abroad at Oxford University in England and has traveled throughout the United Kingdom. He has also visited Ireland, Spain, France, The Netherlands and Italy.