CO2 Facts Net Zero Zealots are Hiding from You

Below is a compendium of important contemporary findings everyone needs to know, not to be duped by the climatists. The titles are links to published research papers along with brief highlights of their importance and some pertinent graphics. There are many more skeptical findings, but these show the different analyses revealing numerous holes in IPCC Swiss cheese “consensus science.”

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

After a recent squabble with a pack of Net Zero zealots, I realized that interested people should have access to a number of CO2 science facts that are hidden from public view and certainly won’t appear in the AI bots programmed to repeat IPCC slogans. Below is a compendium of important contemporary findings everyone needs to know, not to be duped by the climatists. The titles are links to published research papers along with brief highlights of their importance and some pertinent graphics. There are many more skeptical findings, but these show the different analyses revealing numerous holes in IPCC swiss cheese “consensus science.”

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)— Health Physics, 2022; Skrable et al.

We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming. [My snyopsis: On CO2 Sources and Isotopes]

The graph above is produced from Skrable et al. dataset Table 2. World atmospheric CO2, its C‐14 specific activity, anthropogenic‐fossil component, non-fossil component, and emissions (1750 ‐ 2018). The purple line shows reported annual concentrations of atmospheric CO2 from Energy Information Administration (EIA) The starting value in 1750 is 276 ppm and the final value in this study is 406 ppm in 2018, a gain of 130 ppm.

The red line is based on EIA estimates of human fossil fuel CO2 emissions starting from zero in 1750 and the sum slowly accumulating over the first 200 years. The estimate of annual CO2 emitted from FF increases from 0.75 ppm in 1950 up to 4.69 ppm in 2018. The sum of all these annual emissions rises from 29.3 ppm in 1950 (from the previous 200 years) up to 204.9 ppm (from 268 years). These are estimates of historical FF CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, not the amount of FF CO2 found in the air.

Atmospheric CO2 is constantly in two-way fluxes between multiple natural sinks/sources, principally the ocean, soil and biosphere. The annual dilution of carbon 14 proportion is used to calculate the fractions of atmospheric FF CO2 and Natural CO2 remaining in a given year. The blue line shows the FF CO2 fraction rising from 4.03 ppm in 1950 to 46.84 ppm in 2018. The cyan line shows Natural CO2 fraction rising from 307.51 in 1950 to 358.56 in 2018.

Despite an estimated 205 ppm of FF CO2 emitted since 1750, only 46.84 ppm (23%) of FF CO2 remains, while the other 77% is distributed into natural sinks/sources. As of 2018 atmospheric CO2 was 405, of which 12% (47 ppm) originated from FF. And the other 88% (358 ppm) came from natural sources: 276 prior to 1750, and 82 ppm since. Natural CO2 sources/sinks continue to drive rising atmospheric CO2, presently at a rate of 2 to 1 over FF CO2.

Residence Time vs. Adjustment Time of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere

Residence Time vs. Adjustment Time of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere — Entropy, 2023; Peter Stallinga

We study the concepts of residence time vs. adjustment time time for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The system is analyzed with a two-box first-order model. Using this model, we reach three important conclusions: (1) The adjustment time is never larger than the residence time and can, thus, not be longer than about 5 years. (2) The idea of the atmosphere being stable at 280 ppm in pre-industrial times is untenable. (3) Nearly 90% of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide has already been removed from the atmosphere. [My synopsis: CO2 Fluxes Not What IPCC Telling You]

Figure 3. (a) Yearly global CO 2 emissions from fossil fuels. (b) Cumulative emissions (integral of left plot). The yellow curve is the remainder of the anthropogenic CO 2 in the atmosphere if we assume a residence time in the sink much longer than the 5-year residence time in the atmosphere; in this case τs=50τa was used. (Source of data: Our World In Data [8]).

In these years, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 280 ppm (2268 Gt) to 420 ppm (3403 Gt), an increment of 1135 Gt. Of these, 202.3 Gt (17.8%) would be attributable to humans and the rest, 932.7 Gt (82.2%), must be from natural sources.

In view of this, curbing carbon emissions seems rather fruitless; even if we destroy the fossil-fuel-based economy (and human wealth with it), we would only delay the inevitable natural scenario by a couple of years.

The Scientific Case Against Net Zero: Falsifying the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis

The scientific case against net zero: falsifying the greenhouse gas hypothesis — Journal of Sustainable Development, 2024; Michael Simpson

There is a suggestion (IPCC) that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is different for anthropogenic CO2 and naturally occurring CO2. This breaks a fundamental scientific principle, the Principle of Equivalence. That is: if there is equivalence between two things, they have the same use, function, size, or value (Collins English Dictionary, online). Thus, CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from, and each molecule will behave physically and react chemically in the same way.

The results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2. Dagsvik et al. 2024

It is well-known that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 5 years (Boehmer-Christiansen, 2007: 1124; 1137; Kikuchi, 2010). Skrable et al., (2022), show that accumulated human CO2 is 11% of CO2 in air or ~46.84ppmv based on modelling studies. Berry (2020, 2021) uses the Principle of  Equivalence (which the IPCC violates by assuming different timescales for the uptake of natural and human CO2) and agrees with Harde (2017a) that human CO2 adds about 18ppmv to the concentration in air. These are physically extremely small concentrations of CO2 which suggest most CO2 arises from natural sources. It can be concluded that the IPCC models are wrong and human CO2 will have little effect on the temperature. [My synopsis: Straight Talk on Climate Science and Net Zero]

Better calculations of the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentrations are available and it is small ~18ppmv (Skrable et al., 2022; Berry, 2020; Harde 2017a & 2017b; Harde, 2019; Harde 2014). The phase relation between temperature and CO2 concentration changes are now clearly understood; temperature increases are followed by increases in CO2 likely from outgassing from the ocean and increased biological activity (Davis , 2017; Hodzic and Kennedy, 2019; Humlum, 2013; Salby, 2012; Koutsoyiannis et al, 2023 & 2024).

Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change

Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change— International Journal of Geosciences, 2024; Nelson & Nelson

Historical data were reviewed from three different time periods spanning 500 million years. It showed that the curves and trends were too dissimilar to establish a connection. Observations from CO2/temp ratios showed that the CO2 and the temperature moved in opposite directions 42% of the time. Many ratios displayed zero or near zero values, reflecting a lack of response. As much as 87% of the ratios revealed negative or near zero values, which strongly negate a correlation.

The fact that the curves were wildly divergent suggests there were major factors in play that were not considered. Excluding water vapor from the analysis may be one reason, as explained in sections 4 and 5. The list of other contributing factors is extensive. For example, changes in the orbital paths of the sun and planets, as suggested by the Milankovitch Cycles, may have had an effect. Changes in the sun’s radiation intensity may play a role. The Earth’s volcanism, nuclear fission at its core, radioactive decay, or changes in the magnetic fields may have an effect over millions of years. These are only a few possibilities not considered in the hypothesis.

Figure 10. This graph is the cloud fraction and is set forth on the left vertical axis. The temperature is on the right vertical axis and the horizontal axis represents the observation year. The information was extrapolated from figures prepared by Hans-Rolf Dubal and Fritz Vahrenholt [37].

Studies have reported that the rise in the CO2 concentration lagged behind temperature increases by 400 to 1000 years [6]. In 2007 the IPCC stated at page 105 [7] “However, it now appears that the initial climatic change preceded the change in CO2 but was enhanced by it (Section 6.4)” But there was no proof provided in section 6.4 supporting the enhancement theory. They stated on page 442 “it may be the result of increased ocean heat transports due to either an enhanced thermohaline circulation” (citations) “or increased flow of surface ocean currents.” A lagging CO2 concentration after the temperature changes contradicts the Greenhouse-CO2 hypothesis, i.e. a rise in CO2 concentration results in warming.

The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years

The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years — Climate, 2017; Davis

“Assessing human impacts on climate and biodiversity requires an understanding of the relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere and global temperature (T). Here I explore this relationship empirically using comprehensive, recently-compiled databases of stable-isotope proxies from the Phanerozoic Eon (~540 to 0 years before the present) and through complementary modeling using the atmospheric absorption/transmittance code MODTRAN. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years. … This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.”

Figure 5. Temperature (T) and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration proxies during the Phanerozoic Eon. Davis (2017)

Reconstruction of Atmospheric CO2 Background Levels since 1826 from Direct Measurements near Ground 

Reconstruction of Atmospheric CO2 Background Levels since 1826 from Direct Measurements near Ground Ernst-Georg Beck—Science of Climate Change Ernst-Georg Beck (2022)

The data also suggest higher levels in the first half of the 19th century than reconstructed from commonly used ice cores. Using modern MLO CO2 data, we can calculate a centennial average for the 20th century 1901–2000 of 331.38 ppm and of a MBL [Marine Boundary Level samples]in the 19th century (1826–1900) of 322.67. This is a growth rate of +2.6 % in contrast to about 30 % as derived from ice cores and therefore within measurement variability. Analysing the new series of directly measured CO2 MBL levels from 1926 to 2010 suggests a possible cyclic behaviour. The CO2 MBL levels since 1826 to 2008 show a good correlation to the global SST (Kaplan, KNMI; see Figure 26) with a CO2 lag of 1 year after SST from cross correlation (Figure 26a). Kuo et al. (1990) had derived 5 months lag from MLO data alone.

Stomata data confirm the CO2 MBL reconstruction as well as the raw data showing high CO2-levels in the 1930s and 40s at higher temperatures. This is the pre-condition for the inverse stomata/CO2 relation.

About Historical CO2-Data since 1826: Explanation of the Peak around 1940 Hermann Harde

About Historical CO2-Data since 1826: Explanation of the Peak around 1940–Science of Climate Change Hermann Harde, 2023

An extensive compilation of almost 100.000 historical data about CO2 concentration measurements between 1826 and 1960 has been published as post mortem memorial edition of the late Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2022). Different to the widely used interpretation of proxy data, Beck’s compilation contains direct measurements of chemically analysed air samples with much higher accuracy and time resolution than available from ice core or tree ring data.

Beck already found a high correlation of the CO2 level data to the global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) series of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (Kaplan, KNMI). Supported by different observations of CO2 enriched air at the coast (North Sea, Barents Sea, Northern Atlantic) he suggested that warmer ocean currents over the Northern Atlantic are the sources of the enhanced CO2-levels.

Figure 26. Annual atmospheric CO2 background level 1856–2008 compared to SST (Kaplan, KNMI); red ine: CO2 MBL reconstruction 1826–1959 (Beck), 1960–2008 (MLO); blue line: Annual SST (Kaplan) 1856 –2003; a) cross correlation of SST and CO2 MBL showing correlation of r=0.668 and a lag of 1 year for CO2 after global SST. Beck 2010

In this contribution we compare the temperature sensitivity of oceanic and land emissions and their expected contributions to the atmospheric CO2 mixing ratio. Our simulations with a land-air temperature series (Soon et al. 2015) alone, or in combination with sea surface data (HadSST4, Kennedy et al. 2019) can well reproduce the increased mixing ratio over the 30s to 40s, the consecutive decline over the 50s and the additional rise up to 2010. This stronger variation cannot be explained only by fossil fuel emissions, which show a monotonic increase over the Industrial Era.

Atmospheric CO2: Exploring the Role of Sea Surface Temperatures and the Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 Bernard Robbins

Atmospheric CO2: Exploring the Role of Sea Surface Temperatures and the Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 — Science of Climate Change, 2025; Robbins

“ Using SST and Mauna Loa datasets, three methods of analysis are presented that seek to identify and estimate the anthropogenic and, by default, natural components of recent increases in atmospheric CO2, an assumption being that changes in SSTs coincide with changes in nature’s influence, as a whole, on atmospheric CO2 levels.

Figure 16: Atmospheric CO2 measurements, shown in Blue (chemical measurements to 1960 and Mauna Loa measurements from 1960) and global SSTs (shown in Violet). The error margins and confidence intervals are as supplied with the chemical CO2 and SST datasets.

The findings of the analyses suggest that an anthropogenic component is likely to be around 20 %, or less, of the total increase since the start of the industrial revolution. The inference is that around 80 % or more of those increases are of natural origin, and indeed the findings suggest that nature is continually working to maintain an atmospheric/surface CO2 balance, which is itself dependent on temperature.”

Multivariate Analysis Rejects the Theory of Human-caused Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increase: The Sea Surface Temperature Rules

Multivariate Analysis Rejects the Theory of Human-caused Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increase: The Sea Surface Temperature Rules–Science of Climate Change Dai Ato 2024

“The main factor governing the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the SST [sea surface temperature] rather than human emissions.” – Ato, 2024

Another day, another new scientific paper has been published reporting efforts to curb anthropogenic CO2 emissions are “meaningless.” In this study multiple linear regression analysis was performed comparing SST versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions as explanatory factors and the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 as the objective variable over the period 1959-2022.

The model using the SSTs (NASA, NOAA, UAH) best explained the annual CO2 change (regression coefficient B = 2.406, P = <0.0002), whereas human emissions were not shown to be an explanatory factor at all in annual CO2 changes (regression coefficient B = 0.0027, P = 0.863).  Most impressively, the predicted atmospheric CO2 concentration using the regression equation derived from 1960-2022 SSTs had an extremely high correlation coefficient of r = 0.9995.

Thus, not only is the paradigm that says humans drive atmospheric CO2 changes wrong, but “the theory that global warming and climate change are caused by human-emitted CO2 is also wrong.”

“SST has been the determinant of the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and […] anthropogenic emissions have been irrelevant in this process, by head-to-head comparison.”

Revisiting the greenhouse effect – a hydrological perspective

Revisiting the greenhouse effect—a hydrological perspective — Hydrological Sciences Journal, 2023; Koutsoyiannis & Vournas

“As the formulae used for the greenhouse effect quantification were introduced 50-90 years ago, we examine whether these are still representative or not, based on eight sets of observations, distributed in time across a century. We conclude that the observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect, which remains dominated by the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere, and that the original formulae used in hydrological practice remain valid. Hence, there is no need for adaptation due to increased CO2 concentration.”

Net Isotopic Signature of Atmospheric CO2 Sources and Sinks: No Change since the Little Ice Age

Net Isotopic Signature of Atmospheric CO2 Sources and Sinks: No Change since the Little Ice Age — Sci, 2024; Demetris Koutsoyiannis

This is a follow-on to the paper above, which received more than 1,000 comments on Judith Curry’s blog. He revisits the calculations and claims that the CO2 in  the atmosphere today, and the rise during the last 100 years or so, is natural and there is no “signature” from humans.

Figure 1. Typical ranges of isotopic signatures δ13C for each of the pools interacting with atmospheric CO2, and related exchange processes.

The results of the analyses in this paper provide negative answers to the research questions posed in the Introduction. Specifically:

♦  From modern instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years, no signs of human (fossil fuel) CO2 emissions can be discerned;
♦  Proxy data since the Little Ice Age suggest that the modern period of instrumental data does not differ, in terms of the net isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 sources and sinks, from earlier centuries.

Comment and Declaration on the SEC’s Proposed Rule “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors”

Comment and Declaration on the SEC’s Proposed Rule— Happer and LIndzen, 

The Logarithmic Forcing from CO2 Means that Its Contributions to Global Warming is Heavily Saturated, Instantaneously Doubling CO2 Concentrations from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, a 100% Increase, Would Only Diminish the Thermal Radiation to Space by About 1.1%, and therefore tiny changes of Earth’s surface temperature, on the order of 1° C (about 2° F). Thus Confirming There is No Reliable Scientific Evidence Supporting the Proposed Rule.

This means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little impact on global warming. There is no climate emergency. No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like, with little warming effect.

Saturation also explains why temperatures were not catastrophically high over the hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were 10-20 times higher than they are today.

Further, saturation also provides another reason why reducing the use of fossil fuels to“net zero” by 2050 would have a trivial impact on climate, contradicting the theory there is a climate related risk from fossil fuel and CO2 emissions.

Laws of Physics Define the Insignificant Warming of Earth by CO2

Laws of Physics Define the Insignificant Warming of Earth — Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 2023; Lightfoot and Ratzer

The authors use real-world data (not models or simulations) to determine that at the tropics, water vapor does virtually all the work of the greenhouse effect, and at the poles, where it is very dry, carbon dioxide plays no measurable role. They show that almost three-quarters of the atmosphere’s water molecules are in the Tropics, which is where the greenhouse effect takes place. They don’t say this, but the CO2 at the poles can’t cause any heating simply because there is no greenhouse effect at the poles. In fact, CO2 at the poles causes cooling.

Calculating the increase in the heat content of the atmosphere caused by increased CO2 is the method for determining the rise in Earth’s temperature. An increase from 311 ppm to 418 ppm causes a maximum rise of 0.006oC from McMurdo to Taoudenni, Mali, in the Sahara Desert. This value indicates the temperature increase is too small to measure, i.e., negligible [15].

This study is a significant step forward in the science of the Earth’s atmosphere. It provides robust quantitative evidence that the overall warming by CO2 is insignificant, and water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas.

Footnote: Clashing CO2 Paradigms

For insight into the two conflicting viewpoints regarding CO2 and temperatures, see:

Happer & Wrightstone: Get Real and Stop Blaming CO2

But it’s a very inefficient greenhouse gas. It doesn’t much matter if you double CO2. You only change the cooling radiation into space by 1%, a tiny effect. And so, it’s amazing they’ve managed to blow up this molehill into this mountainous threat. It’s not a threat at all. It’s a benefit.

A lush green field with rows of young plants under a clear blue sky, accompanied by a sign that reads 'CO2 Fertilization Effect'.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

The above interview was conducted by NTD news with CO2 Coalition founder William Happer (WH) and Executive Director Gregory Wrightstone (GW).  For those preferring to read, below is a transcript from the closed captions in italics with my bolds and added images.

NTD: The Environmental Protection Agency’s Lee Zeldin announced a proposal earlier this week to overturn a 16-year-old scientific finding from the Obama administration. It allowed three administrations to regulate greenhouse gas emissions like CO2. If successful, this would roll back climate rules on cars, undo $1 trillion in regulatory costs, and save over $54 billion each year. With the public comment period now open, here to break down what all of this means are two guests. William Happer, professor emeritus at Princeton University department of physics, and Gregory Wrightstone, geologist and executive director of the CO2 coalition. Thank you both so much for being here.

Now, first, how big of a deal would this be, repealing the 2009 endangerment finding? Who has benefited under it so far?

A diverse group of protesters at a climate rally, with one woman prominently holding a sign that reads 'ACT NOW AGAINST CLIMATE POLLUTERS!'

WH: Well, I’m not sure who you asked this question, but I will answer it and Greg can add to what I say. This is something that was long overdue. I mean, it was a ridiculous regulation that purported that carbon dioxide, which all of us breathe out, is a pollutant. I mean, I can’t think of anything dumber than that, but that’s what it was. And so finally there’s been an administration with the courage to tell the truth, that it isn’t a pollutant at all and it’s actually good for the earth to have more carbon dioxide.

Portrait of Dr. William Happer with a quote about CO2 benefits, stating, 'More CO2 actually benefits the world. It is not a pollutant at all, and we should have the courage to do nothing about CO2 emissions.'

NTD: What is the likely legal process of repealing this? And Gregory, this finding was the legal prerequisite used by the Obama and Biden administrations to regulate new car and engine emissions. What is the likely legal process of repealing this now?

GW: Well, this right now is just dealing with cars and light trucks and vehicles, but it’s sure to extend into the other things. Your viewers have had their freedom systematically eroded using the endangerment finding. With this endangerment finding, they’ve been able to tell you what car kind of car to drive. Look at the ceiling fan over your head, regulate that. All these electrical devices, your washer, dryer, dishwasher. the only ones you can buy today are government approved devices because of the endangerment finding. So, what this does is to actually liberate Americans for freedom to choose what kind of appliances they want. If they want to buy a dishwasher that’s very efficient in terms of washing dishes, not in terms of how much electricity you use. That should be my choice and your choice and all of your viewers’ choices. So, this is really liberation day for America and restoring a lot of the freedoms that were lost based on this failed endangerment finding.

Graphic depicting various household appliances banned under regulations, with a red prohibition symbol over each item and the text 'Biden Nanny State' at the top and 'Regulations Coming Soon' at the bottom.

NTD: Expanding on that, William, what about the science needed to decide whether or not this will get repealed? Besides the legal angle, break down for us the science that’s needed to decide whether or not this will get repealed.

GW: Well, the science is quite clear. Understand what they did in 2009, they excluded any contrary science. By contrary science, anything that indicated that CO2 was not a pollutant. But the Supreme Court rulings in 2024 now say you have to consider all of the science. And there’s just a huge amount of science right now that that disputes endangerment, that actually confirms carbon dioxide has hugely beneficial aspects. Greening the earth, vegetation growth, crop production is exploding. And Dr. Happer can perhaps talk about how the greenhouse gas warming potential is not at all what they say it is.

Infographic comparing the photosynthesis efficiency of C3 and C4 plants, detailing their characteristics, water requirements, and CO2 assimilation levels against CO2 concentrations.

NTD: Will CO2 cause dangerous warming? On that note, will you break down that aspect for us?

WH: Well, as Greg said, the accusation against CO2 is that it would cause dangerous warming of the earth. And as usual there’s a grain of truth that CO2 will cause some warming, but the warming will be trivial. It will almost certainly be beneficial to most of the earth. The reason it warms is CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It lets sunlight come through and warm the surface of the earth. But it retards the cooling of the earth by infrared radiation to space. And it’s the balance of those two that determines the earth’s temperature.

But it’s a very inefficient greenhouse gas. It doesn’t much matter if you double CO2. You only change the cooling radiation into space by 1%, a tiny effect. And so, it’s amazing they’ve managed to blow up this molehill into this mountainous threat. It’s not a threat at all. It’s a benefit.

NTD: On that note, Gregory, in terms of how we got to the endangerment finding, was contradictory science a factor in that decision?

Well, actually, no. There was no contradictory science. And again, now bear in mind things are different today than they were even just two years ago. with two Supreme Court rulings last year. In Ohio vs. state farm case the US Supreme Court ruled that these regulatory agencies like the DOE, EPA, DOT, all of these alphabet soup regulatory bodies need to consider all significant science that affects their judgment which EPA in the endangerment finding did not do.

A set of four line graphs illustrating trends over time, featuring CO2 emissions, life expectancy, GDP per person, and population. Each graph displays significant increases after a certain point, highlighting the correlation between these factors.

And the evidence we say is entirely overwhelming. We see by almost every metric you look at; we find that Earth’s ecosystems are thriving and prospering, and the human conditions are improving because of increases in CO2. It’s really the greatest untold story of the 21st century, that of a thriving earth and the benefits to humanity. It’s a feel-good story, but they’ve turned this into fearmongering where children can’t sleep at night because they’re being lied to by this the promoters, we call the climate industrial complex.

Let’s get back to true science, the scientific method. Enough of this consensus science and group think. We support the scientific method and critical thinking which has been removed from many of these government agencies for 30 years or longer.

Climate models

NTD: And William, on that note, there is a big focus on climate change or climate alarm as some might say. Talk to us about some of the climate models that are used. What did these models get wrong?

Infographic illustrating the logarithmic temperature rise associated with increased CO2 levels, showing the relationship between CO2 concentration in parts per million (ppm) and corresponding global temperature increase in degrees Celsius.

WH: Well, I think the main thing the models get wrong is that they they know perfectly well that the direct effects of carbon dioxide will cause a very small warming of the earth if there are no other effects. If you double CO2 100% increase, which would take more than a century by the way, that would only warm the earth by a little less than one degree centigrade. It’s a trivial amount and we may never double it anyway.

A graph titled 'Global warming EPIC FAIL' comparing 73 climate computer models against observational data, showing discrepancies between projected warming and actual temperature changes from 1975 to 2020.

So here’s what they’ve done. They’ve taken this trivial warming is agreed by most people who understand how this works, and they’ve multiplied it by factors three, four, five and saying that there’s these enormous positive feedbacks on the direct warming. That’s completely crazy because most feedbacks in nature are negative. With most other systems in nature, the first thing you calculate is usually too big, not too small. It’s even got a fancy name. It’s called Chatelier’s principle.

And so, everything they’ve done violates Chatelier’s principle that works for everything else in nature, but it apparently doesn’t work for climate alarmists.

Bar graph depicting greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 and their trend since 2000, highlighting contributions from various countries, with China leading in emissions.

China

NTD: And staying with you, William, we often hear the US and Europe talking about cutting emissions, whether that’s in cars or cows even. But at the same time, the carbon brief notes that China is the world’s largest annual greenhouse gas emitter and leads in coal use. How should we look at this if the argument is global warming and not regional?

WH: Well, of course, China has built lots of very efficient new coal plants in the last 10 years. they’re ultra supercritical plants many of them. They’re really good plants and so they’ve raised the standard of living there. Part of their policy is is quite okay and the CO2 they’re emitting is good for the earth you know.

Infographic showing the number of coal plants worldwide, including numbers for the EU, Turkey, South Africa, India, Philippines, South Korea, Japan, China, and Australia.

I’m not supporting any of the political things that they do but I don’t think there’s a thing wrong with releasing carbon dioxide. More power to them for that.

CO2 Coalition

NTD: On that note, Gregory, you’re the executive director of the CO2 coalition. Give us a sense of what this coalition does and how this fits in with environmental discussions.

GW: We’re 10 years old now. It was founded in 2015 by Dr. William Happer, our chair that was just on here. And we’re some 200 of the top experts and scientists in the world that don’t buy into the company line on climate change. We don’t believe that increases in human emissions of CO2 are leading to harmful warming. Rather just the opposite, we see huge benefits. Crop growth records are being broken year after year, and they attribute 70% of that to increasing CO2. Crop growth and crop productivity is outpacing population growth. That’s a good thing, a really good thing.

Graph comparing world crop yields from 1961 to 2023, showing rising trends for various crops including bananas, potatoes, and maize.

We are in a warming trend. Yes, we are. It’s been warming for more than 300 years. But you know what that does? That means since 1900, our growing seasons in the continental United States have increased by more than two weeks. That’s a really good thing for agriculture. Your farmers will tell you they love that. So at the CO2 Coalition, our unofficial motto is: We love CO2 and so should you.

Billboard promoting the CO2 Coalition with the message 'Sleep Well... There is No Climate Crisis' and a link to CO2coalition.org, featuring an image of a person sleeping peacefully.

When the Narrative Dies: Climate.gov and the Quiet Collapse of Climate Alarmism

It appears the United States has quietly taken a scalpel—rather than a chainsaw—to one of its central instruments of climate orthodoxy: Climate.gov. According to reporting from The Guardian, the plug is being pulled on this site, which served as a flagship for NOAA’s “climate communication, education, and engagement” efforts. Its entire content production team has been sacked, and the site’s future now hangs somewhere between irrelevance and digital zombification.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

It appears the United States has quietly taken a scalpel—rather than a chainsaw—to one of its central instruments of climate orthodoxy: Climate.gov. According to reporting from The Guardian, the plug is being pulled on this site, which served as a flagship for NOAA’s “climate communication, education, and engagement” efforts. Its entire content production team has been sacked, and the site’s future now hangs somewhere between irrelevance and digital zombification.

Let’s not beat around the wind turbine: this is cause for a healthy smirk.

For over a decade, Climate.gov was marketed as a neutral purveyor of scientific truth, but in practice, it functioned more like a taxpayer-funded echo chamber for IPCC-aligned climate narratives. It presented “consensus science” as gospel, projected model predictions as inevitable fate, and treated carbon dioxide—a gas essential for life—as a pollutant to be morally condemned. All in the name of “public education,” of course.

https://www.climate.gov/

Well, education implies options. What this site provided was indoctrination.

The exposed nerve in The Guardian‘s coverage is palpable. Staff describe the firings as a “deliberate, targeted attack” on “politically neutral” science. According to former program manager Rebecca Lindsey—who admits she received “a stellar performance review, a bonus, a raise”—the team was dismissed with a form letter stating that their

“knowledge, skills, and abilities are no longer of use to NOAA”.

Translation: the new administration doesn’t need more PowerPoint climatology to justify economy-wrecking policies.

Apparently, publishing graphs with y-axes scaled to induce panic is no longer a national priority.

The pearl-clutching gets better. One staffer voiced concern that the administration could “co-opt” the Climate.gov domain and hand it to “a content team from the Heartland Institute,” fearing it might become a platform for gasp alternative viewpoints. This is presented as a nightmare scenario. But why, exactly? If the public is indeed so swayed by reason and data, then an honest debate shouldn’t threaten anyone.

https://www.climate.gov/

Unless, of course, the foundation of your messaging is so fragile that even a modest breeze of skepticism might topple it.

One of the more revealing quotes comes from a contractor who worries that Climate.gov could become a “propaganda website for this administration.” That’s rich. Because when it was churning out one-sided material about climate doom, it wasn’t propaganda—it was “education.” The self-awareness deficit here is staggering.

Climate.gov boasted “hundreds of thousands of visits per month” and supposedly played a key role in “pushing back against misinformation.” In truth, its content pushed a very specific kind of information: that which supported central planning, carbon taxation, regulatory expansion, and the replacement of affordable energy with intermittent, subsidized alternatives.

Notably, Di Liberto, a former NOAA spokesperson, laments the fact that

“They only fired a handful of people, and it just so happened to be the entire content team for climate.gov. I mean, that’s a clear signal.”

That’s not a glitch; that’s a feature. When the alleged neutrality of a government website means never deviating from one political outlook, then yes, the entire content team should be replaced—or eliminated entirely.

The kicker is that this doesn’t even represent a full-scale rollback. It’s more like a bureaucratic cold shoulder. Pre-written content will still be drip-fed to the site, like a zombie blog still twitching after its brain has been removed. Social media accounts are likely to go dark. Staff who once wielded the authority to label everything they disagreed with as “disinformation” will now have to join the rest of us in the public square—where claims must actually hold up under scrutiny.

https://www.climate.gov/

The Guardian frames this as a national disservice, warning that “halting factual climate information is a disservice to the public.” But what it really laments is the loss of narrative control. The public still has access to raw data. NOAA isn’t disappearing. The difference is that its most ideologically curated interface is no longer being force-fed into search engines and school curricula.

Let’s be honest: Climate.gov was never just a website. It was a flagship for technocratic messaging, a glittering storefront in the climate industrial complex. Its dismantling signals something refreshing: that Americans are tiring of being talked down to, taxed up the wazoo, and force-fed a diet of dire predictions wrapped in pseudo-objectivity.

It’s about time we returned to actual skepticism, open inquiry, and policies that treat energy not as a vice, but a virtue.

Score one for reality.