The Numbers Don’t Lie: Why Climate Denial Is No Longer Possible
The Washington Post recently featured new research by Emily Judd and her team, reaffirming what scientists have long understood: CO2 and temperature are closely linked. What’s new is that this study extends that relationship nearly 500 million years into Earth’s history, showing that both CO2 and temperatures were much higher in the distant past.
While this isn’t news to scientists, it’s unfamiliar territory for many non-scientists. Climate deniers have seized on this, twisting the findings to push the false narrative that climate change is a hoax. They claim life on Earth will be just fine, maybe even better, with a changing climate.
It’s a convenient story for those who don’t want to deal with the realities of science, but it’s flat-out wrong.
The article and the research it referenced were clear: while life adapted to extreme CO2 and temperature conditions, humans would not have made it. It’s a reminder that just because the Earth survived doesn’t mean we will.
CO2 becomes a threat to human survival at concentrations above roughly 400 parts per million (ppm). Figure 1 shows that CO2 levels didn’t fall below 400 ppm until around 8 million years ago. The instinctive but incorrect takeaway from this data might be to assume life thrived at these higher concentrations.
The reality is that it was the natural decline in CO2 levels that enabled the conditions for human life to emerge. Nature’s gradual reduction of CO2 wasn’t just a geological footnote—it was a prerequisite for our existence.
Source: Judd et al (2024) and Labyrinth Consulting Services. Inc.
Figure 2 lays out CO2 and temperature trends, just like in Figure 1, but with a key distinction: the fall in CO2 and temperature sparked a surge in biodiversity starting around 90 million years ago.
The takeaway here is obvious, even without factoring in climate change—lower CO2 levels were part of the special conditions that led to this explosion of life. The current ecosystem, with its complexity and variety, didn’t happen by accident. It required specific circumstances, and lower CO2 was fundamental to that process.
PETM: Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum; MMCT: Middle Miocene Climate Transition; Order-Sil: Ordovician-Silurian extinction even; L Dev: lower Devonian extinction event; Perm Trias: Permian-Triassic extinction event; KT: Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event; EO: end Oligocene extinction event.
Source: Judd et al (2024) and Labyrinth Consulting Services. Inc.
The Judd study made it clear: the link between CO2 and climate change is undeniable. It’s not up for debate—CO2 drives the climate, period.
“Carbon dioxide is really that master dial. That’s an important message…in terms of understanding why emissions from fossil fuels are a problem today.””
Jess Tierney, Climate Scientist at the University of Arizona
The science on climate change has been clear for a long time. So why does public doubt still linger?
The same week that The Washington Post published its article, my friend Nate Hagens shared a conversation with Stefan Rahmstorf on the topic. Much of what follows is based on the work he and his colleagues at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have done.
Is Climate Science Settled or Still Uncertain?
The greenhouse effect has been understood for over a century. Joseph Fourier outlined it in 1824, and by the late 19th century, Svante Arrhenius calculated the role of CO2 in warming the planet.
The evidence is clear: temperature records, ice core data, and satellite measurements all confirm Earth is warming. The link between rising CO2 and higher temperatures is well-documented, and there’s broad consensus that fossil fuel burning is driving this.
We see the results—more heatwaves, melting glaciers, and shifting ecosystems—all matching scientific predictions. The science of climate change is settled.
What’s uncertain isn’t the past or present but the future trajectory. Climate systems are complex, and predicting specifics—like regional weather patterns or critical temperature thresholds—is harder. That’s true for any modeling of the future, not just climate.
How Can Tiny Amounts of CO2 Drive Major Temperature Changes?
CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm in 1850 to nearly 400 ppm today, pushing the edge of what’s safe for humans. That’s just 0.04% of the air, so it’s easy to question how something so small could have such a massive effect. But it only takes a tiny shift to upset the balance, and we’re already seeing the consequences.
Take this example: just 2 nanograms of botulinum toxin is enough to kill a person—that’s only 0.00000002% of body weight. It’s not about quantity, it’s about the properties of the substance.
The same is true with CO2. While other atmospheric gases influence weather, not all are greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases absorb and emit infrared radiation, trapping heat and preventing it from escaping into space. That’s how a small amount of CO2 can have such a big effect on the planet’s climate system.
Doesn’t a Warmer Planet and More CO2 Really Lead to Better Crop Yields?
Rahmstorf points out that the broader effects of climate change—shifting climate zones, extreme weather, and water shortages—will likely outweigh any localized benefits from higher CO2 or longer growing seasons.
Yes, some regions may see a longer growing season, but in tropical and subtropical zones, the picture isn’t so bright. More extreme heat, droughts, and unpredictable rainfall could cut into agricultural productivity.
Rising temperatures bring more severe weather: heatwaves, storms, and floods that can devastate crops and disrupt food production. And it’s not just about CO2. Water is essential for farming, and warmer temperatures mean greater water stress in many areas. Without enough water, any supposed benefit from more CO2 vanishes.
CO2 can indeed boost plant growth—it’s called the CO2 fertilization effect—but this is limited by other factors like water, nutrients, and suitable temperatures. Once those limits are hit, more CO2 won’t keep increasing yields, especially under tougher climate conditions.
Aren’t Volcanoes and Solar Activity Really Driving Climate Change More Than CO2?
No. Volcanoes, solar activity, and orbital shifts do play a role in Earth’s climate, but they don’t explain the rapid warming we’ve seen in recent decades. The evidence overwhelmingly points to increased greenhouse gases—especially CO2—as the main cause of today’s climate change.
Volcanoes do release CO2, but their contribution is minor compared to human activities. Humans emit about 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Plus, volcanic eruptions often cool the planet short-term by releasing particles that reflect sunlight away from Earth.
Solar activity also affects climate, but it hasn’t increased in the past 70 years. In fact, it’s slightly decreased, which would actually promote cooling, not warming. The current warming trend can’t be blamed on the sun.
Milankovitch cycles—Earth’s orbital changes—affect climate over tens of thousands of years, not decades. These cycles are far too slow to explain the rapid warming we’ve seen over the last century.
Climate models that include only natural factors like solar activity and volcanic eruptions cannot explain the observed warming. When human factors, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, are included, the models accurately reproduce the observed temperature rise.
The real driver of recent climate change is the rise in greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, from human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation. This is backed by extensive research and data, including direct measurements of increased heat trapped by CO2.
How Do We Know Fossil Fuels Are Causing the Current Temperature Rise?
The evidence is clear—fossil fuels are driving the temperature rise. No debate there.
Rahmsdorf explains that burning fossil hydrocarbons releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and isotopic analysis confirms that this CO2 has a specific carbon signature tied directly to fossil fuels.
The increase in CO2 lines up almost exactly with the rise in global temperatures over the past century. Climate models that factor in greenhouse gases from fossil fuels match the warming we’ve observed, while models that leave them out don’t come close.
On top of that, Earth’s energy balance, measured by satellites and ground stations, shows that more heat is being trapped, and it’s this excess heat that’s causing the warming trend we’re experiencing today. The link to fossil fuels isn’t speculative—it’s measured.
Doesn’t the Medieval Warm Period Disprove Fossil Fuel-Driven Climate Change?
Climate skeptics often cite the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as proof that climate change occurs without fossil fuels. However, the MWP isn’t strong evidence against fossil fuel-driven warming.
First, the MWP was regional, not global, mostly affecting Europe and parts of North America, while other areas cooled. Today’s warming is global.
Second, the MWP’s warming was modest compared to the rapid, large-scale rise since the late 19th century, which natural variability can’t explain.
Third, different drivers—solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and ocean currents—caused the MWP, not CO2 emissions.
The MWP reflects that natural variability is a factor, but it doesn’t change the fact that human activities, particularly fossil fuel burning, are driving today’s global warming.
What Are the Worst Effects of Climate Change Likely to Be?
Rahmstorf doesn’t pull any punches when it comes to how bad climate change could get. He lays it out clearly, and the picture isn’t pretty. The risks are enormous, and the consequences could be devastating if we don’t get serious about dealing with them.
Extreme weather will become the new normal, with more frequent and intense heatwaves leading to higher death tolls and widespread health issues. Droughts will hit harder, straining water supplies, agriculture, and fueling wildfires. At the same time, heavier rainfall and flooding will wreck homes, infrastructure, and farmland.
Sea levels will continue to rise, eroding coastlines, flooding low-lying areas permanently, and making storm surges even more destructive. Coastal communities and ecosystems will face enormous risks, displacing millions. Oceans will become more acidic, endangering marine life like shellfish and coral, while warmer waters create deoxygenated “dead zones” where nothing can survive.
Biodiversity will suffer as species struggle to adapt or move, leading to extinctions and ecosystem imbalances. Coral reefs will bleach and collapse, while shifting habitats disrupt the natural order.
Agriculture will take a hit as unpredictable weather reduces crop yields, and pests and diseases expand their reach in warmer climates. Food security will be at risk.
Human health will deteriorate as heatwaves trigger more heat-related illnesses and diseases like malaria and dengue spread to new areas. Water shortages will worsen with changing precipitation patterns and melting glaciers, leaving millions without reliable freshwater.
The economic fallout will be severe—extreme weather and rising seas will damage infrastructure, insurance costs will skyrocket, and some regions may become uninsurable. Resource scarcity will trigger migration and conflict.
The Science Is Settled
Stefan Rahmstorf is clear: CO2 and climate are locked together, and the evidence is undeniable. High CO2 levels in the past made life as we know it impossible, and recent research by Emily Judd stretches this link back 500 million years. The lower CO2 levels we see today were essential for human life and biodiversity to emerge.
Yet, denial remains. People twist the data, pointing to things like volcanoes and solar activity—distractions that don’t account for the rapid warming we’re seeing today. Rahmstorf cuts through the noise: more extreme weather, rising seas, and ecosystem collapse are what lie ahead. The message is simple—human activity is driving climate change, and the effects are clear, measurable, and happening now.
The science is settled. What remains unsettled is its acceptance by those who refuse to confront it. The same, tired, and debunked arguments get dragged out time and again by people who either don’t want to change their behavior or world view, or worse, by those who are paid to deny reality.
Anyone willing to look at the data objectively can see the crisis we’re in. This isn’t new science. CO2’s role in warming has been known since the 1820s with Fourier, and Arrhenius laid out the details in the 1890s. What’s unsettled is not the science but the refusal of some to accept it.
Yes, there are always dissenters when scientific paradigms shift. It was the same with plate tectonics until those voices faded away. Dissent is fine, but in climate science, it’s a rounding error in the face of overwhelming evidence. This isn’t about opinion—it’s about data. The numbers don’t lie.
Like Art's Work?
Share this Post:
Read More Posts
In this (mis)interpretation (figure 2 caption, “the fall in CO2 and temperature sparked a surge in biodiversity”) the cart is in front of the horse with cause and effect reversed. The increase in biodiversity beginning in the early Cretaceous merely reflects the evolutionary rise and subsequent dominance of angiosperms. It is the proliferation of these flowering plants that is responsible for sequestering CO2 and reducing atmospheric concentrations to dangerously low levels that eventually came close to threatening their own existence. Only after CO2 concentrations were able to rise above ~250ppm (~12,000 ybp) and our ancestors’ cognitive abilities had sufficiently evolved was agriculture and thus civilization and human flourishing possible.
In attempting to determine the direction of causality consider that the mechanism by which plants sequester CO2 is well understood. By what process does lowering atmospheric CO2 increase biodiversity?
Jim,
Thanks for pointing out that error. I will correct it.
All the best,
Art
Mr. Berman’s provides a superlative summary of the incontrovertible science proving that carbon dioxide emissions and deforestation caused the global climate catastrophe.
Despite overwhelming evidence, no amount of evidence will deter climate deniers. These crazies are delusional lunatics.
John,
Thanks for the comments, and I agree that no deniers will be convinced. I do my work for people who honestly seek information to help them understand a complex subject.
All the best,
Art
Thank you for your reply
Jim,
What part of this picture is unclear to you?
All the best,
Art
The correlation you see between falling temperature and falling CO2 with rising biodiversity from about 95 million years ago may or may not be a correlation. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is not very clear either – sometimes they move together and sometimes they move in opposite directions. Temperature mostly seems to lead CO2. The best temperature/CO2 correlation appears to be in the last 65 million years.
What is more obvious is that the period from 148 million years ago was the longest period without an extinction event. Genera doubled during this period and then tripled after the KT extinction. There was a much greater increase from about 500-460 million years ago and similar expansions after every extinction – as you might expect.
The first mammals began their rise about 65 million years ago following the demise of the dinosaurs. Primate ancestors arrived about 55 million years ago and the modern apes began appearing around 14 million years ago. The end of the Miocene (11-5 million yrs) saw cooler conditions in the Northern hemisphere and many primate extinctions. Survivors tended to move south to warmer climes in Africa and SE Asia. About 7 million years ago the hominins split from the Chimpanzees. Modern humans arrived only 200,000 years ago. The Ice Ages probably gave humans the greatest advantage because they had discovered fire and stone tools (axes and spear points) and so were able to exploit a wide range of habitats.
Nick,
I don’t understand why every Joe thinks he/she is a climate expert, and is presumptuous enough to also think that he/she sees something that earth science professionals have somehow overlooked.
Nothing you say is new to me precisely because I am am earth scientist. The way you have distorted the interpretation reflects your apparent expertise in real estate construction but not earth science.
I suppose that you debate surgical techniques with your brain or heart surgeon too.
Good luck with that.
Art
I don’t understand your comment Art. Perhaps you could point out the correlation that you claim. Look at the graph of CO2 vs temperature carefully and your claim is not so clearcut. From about 200 million years to about 92 million years, CO2 was fairly level or slightly lowering yet temperature rose around 10 degrees from 22-32 roughly. That is what the graph is saying. I do not pretend expertise in climate change but I can read a graph and your reading of the same graph is making a big claim of correlation which appears there at times but not always when you look carefully at each 10 million year period as well as the trend over 100 million years or more. By the way, I am not a climate change denier but I am not going to embrace the catastrophic predictions that seem to follow from rising temperature. I live in the tropics near Cairns in Australia and I have not noticed any drastic change in our weather pattern over 40 years or an increase in cyclones.
Nick,
Show data to make your point. The data is straight forward to me but I can’t chase your words around.
All the best,
Art
Nick,
What part of this picture is unclear to you?
All the best,
Art
The part that is unclear is the correlation. I don’t have trouble with rising population leading to rising GDP or carbon emissions.
What is not in the data is more information on temperature recording. Where, when and how often was this data recorded? Perhaps you can explain how you get an average world temperature that is not biased towards urban collection points or any particular part of the earth. Perhaps satellites are used, I don’t know but given that temperature varies enormously by location, time of day, time of year and so on, it is surely quite a complicated calculation to arrive at a world temperature average. Given the possible range of temperature from the poles to the equator, is an average world temperature a meaningful number?
You are claiming that rising CO2 leads to rising temperatures. That might seem obvious in light of the so-called greenhouse effect. However, you are also assuming that it is not the other way round i.e. rising temperatures lead to rising CO2 concentration. Could you please explain that?
I am also very wary when I hear anyone say that the science is settled. I understand that at any given time there is a prevailing view but science is never really settled and is always subject to revision and new understanding.
Nick,
Do you interrogate your auto mechanic on how he knows that his parts and equipment are trustworthy?
Do you debate surgical techniques with your cardiologist or neurosurgeon?
I’m an energy expert and you are in my OR. Do you want me to save your life or not?
I’ve done all that I can for you. Long live the graduates of Google web browser who think they know as much as real professionals!
Pangea started to split about 200 million years ago. Thus biodiversity, a measured by genera, would have been expected to increase about 3-5x anyway, as species evolved along multiple parallel paths.
Preston,
That’s a nice concept but Figure 2 in my post shows that is not what happened. Data matters more than speculation.
All the best,
Art
Art, Figure 2 actually shows an increase in “biodiversity” coinciding with the splitting of pangea. That is a fact.
Your statement would have sounded stronger had you left out ‘ Data matters more than speculation.’
There is no denying the climate/CO2 correlation. It’s the causation where the AGW argument is fragile.
I applaud you not only publishing this article, but also accepting comments.
It’s nothing compared with the last 90 million years.
All the best,
Art
Art, thank you for the informative, compelling post. Its findings are sobering. The facts cannot be denied. It’s past time for folks to get on board. Keep up your research and writings! I admire your perseverance despite obstacles and opposition!
It’s good to hear from you, Gary!
Thanks for the comments.
All the best,
Art
Ive grow tired of people mainly who work in offices claiming its not real.
Since 2001 I have worked outside, in California the summers went from 85f to 98f for a real heatwave to over 103/ 104f for weeks ,now its over 110 there
Now the new thing is insane rain,it rains so hard water it damages machines flooding exhaust etc
Now having been working in these rain storms since 2015 when I left CA its clear the rain storms are worse as well.
I never got the rabid support of the car centric mcmansion suburbia nastiness that is the US ,I hate driving everwhere and I dont like how isolated and money crazy things are ……..yes I know its world wide but the main culprit is guess who?
Alf,
The main culprit is all of us.
All the best,
Art
It seems reasonable to assume that, as CO2 levels and temperature have fluctuated greatly in the past, well before humans walked the Earth, then similar fluctuations will happen in the future. Therefore… we might as well get used to higher CO2 levels as, sooner or later, the non-human-related forces causing CO2 levels to rise will be too great for us to do anything about.
Jonathan,
I guess you didn’t read the post because what you said is wrong.
Read it again and start by focusing on the figures.
All the best,
Art
Living in a CO2 cloud generated by efficiently burning fossil fuels is my preference, rather than living in an even thicker CO2 cloud generated by snake oil salesmen selling miracle cures like EV’s, solar panels and wind mills only made possible by even more mining and fossil fuel combustion. And for that I’ll be labeled a climate denier.
The solution is to minimise energy use, excessive consumption and to rationally design our future grid. Nuclear needs to provide the base load power. Spend more money on adapting our buildings. Waste less money on billionaires vanity projects.
Even if CO2’s impact is being exaggerated, it is better not to live in a flue gas.
Dereck,
I agree that reducing energy use is the key to planetary survival, and I’m skeptical about all solutions. That’s no reason to deny the obvious threat of climate change.
All the best,
Art
Art,
Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge and experience.
CO2 emissions are rocketing in the Middle East and Ukraine due to a particular human behaviour that is an even bigger risk to our world than less cold winters with more vicious storms.
Dereck,
I appreciate your comments.
All the best,
Art
There are environmental problems, but CO2 will never be one of them. I recall seeing a Nova special over 10 years ago about how satellites have recorded the Saharan dust, lightening and cloud formation, ocean currents, in regards to the climate and weather of the Earth. There is no way to simulate all those factors together. What evidence is there of GW in the past globally?
If CO2 is so bad, we should be bulldozing the homes of the wealthy elite and crushing their private jets and have them live in a micro home at best eating bugs most days of the week. Next you will be telling me that cow farts are an issue, but somehow those millions of buffalo in the past the millions of herd animals across Africa and elsewhere are not a problem.
I’ve been visiting North Padre Island since I was a child and the sea levels have not risen. If true, Padre Island should have been the world’s longest sand bar by now.
I’m skeptical since the ‘solution’ somehow requires extracting money from me and giving it to bankrupt governments to ‘solve’ the alleged problem. I have a couple ‘Science Magazine’ from the 1990s on the phony issue of AGW. None of the predictions from 30 years ago have ever come true, so no, the science is not settled and never will be.
Don,
Your opinions are not based on data. My post is. If you disagree with my post, tell me what data shows that I’m wrong.
Saying that CO2 is not an environmental problem is just wrong. It is a waste product of combustion. You have a lot to learn.
Get beyond your unsupported opinions. Look at data and you will see why you are wrong.
All the best,
Art
Art, I have an MS in Environmental Engineering focusing on air pollution. I’ve been reading this doomsday rubbish on CO2 for over half my life, and none of it has transpired. The AGW has used lies and falsified data to make a phony case for CO2 causing all these alleged problems. Every proposal on this alleged problem requires me to lower my already evaporating standard of living. Wind, solar, and EVs are junk technologies that are costly and only add to the pollution problem while the millionaires in industry and Congress get some grift.
Watts up with That has done a good job of showing scientifically why the GW believers are wrong. The ice packs in Northern Arctic get bigger and smaller within a range over time. Those signs saying glaciers were going to disappear at national parks by 2020 had to be taken down. The predictions of more hurricanes, wildfires, have not come true. Most AGW is little more than hysteria created by an elite that wants to further enslave the population with more taxes and regulation.
There are environmental problems like plastics in the ocean and fertilizer runoff waste and such, but CO2 is not one of them. If you could only show me that any of these predictions have panned out. And most believers in GW live larger than I do or ever will.
Don,
You continue to argue a position without any supporting data. More than 88,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers present data supporting the conclusion that climate change is a serious problem caused by human activity:
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
I will not waste my time arguing with medieval superstition. Show me data and we can talk.
I am sorry that you are so afraid of the truth.
Art
Art, Don M. is sort of correct on 2 counts.
1. His standard of living probably IS diminishing as he claims, and the “energy transition” will lower it more, as you point out in various past posts.
2. You also repeatedly have pointed out that the “energy transition” is a fiction, which won’t lower GHG emissions or energy use, IS costly, WON’T offer the amount of energy required to fuel the modern economy. He is correct that wind, solar and EVs are “junk technologies.”
It’s just too bad that Don M. uses these truths to draw such a far-fetched, erroneous conclusion.
It’s also too bad that whatever institution awarded him a Master’s in environmental engineering didn’t actually educate him.
Robin,
Don M. is trapped in a fabricated reality, and that’s nothing out of the ordinary these days. You can’t make sense of what’s happening without diving into psychology with the same intensity as energy, economics, geopolitics, or the environment. Carl Jung’s Psychology and Religion and Iain McGilchrist’s The Matter With Things are the guides I keep coming back to—they help me see through the fog.
All the best,
Art
Art, a bunch of paid off scientists claiming it is true does not make it so. I’m proud to be one of those ‘conservative White guys’ according to your other reader here that can see through the nonsense. If you could only offer genuine proof that it was hotter. And why do the rich spouting this stuff get to live in mansions and ride around in private jets?
The sea ice is doing fine:
https://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/SICE_curve_extent_LA_EN_20240825.png
I’ve lived in South Texas all my life and have yet to see it getting hotter or colder. Were we not supposed to have another Ice Age by now according to all those brilliant scientists of the 1970s? In the early 1980s there were a string of 100F days for a couple years followed a winter where one of the weeks in December two years in a row had bitter cold (for us anyway) where it was in the teens at night and 20s during the day for an entire week. No AGW talked about then. I also recall my grandparents remember the three drought of the 1950s.
And the warmunist predicted the loss of glaciers which never happened any of the national parks. Funny that you wont’ address that they were wrong here.
Funny it snowed as far south as Brownsville in December ’04 and most of South Texas in December 2017. But hey GW, right? Similar situations in the Southern Hemisphere as well over the years with colder than normal winters at times.
Anyway Art, I have no respect for those who believe in AGW. It’s not like the believers are doing anything about it like living like the Amish and growing their own food in their backyard.
Don,
Your anecdotal impressions of living in South Texas are hardly scientific nor do they have any relevance to global mean temperature which is what earth cares about, not specific localities.
There are NO observers of climate change–believers or non-believers–who dispute that the temperature is rising so you are a lone wolf on this subject.
No one–believers of non-believers–contest that Arctic ice is retreating. How can they?
I have considerable experience dealing with climate deniers. You are in a category of one.
You say that you have no respect for anyone who believes in warming. No one respects what you are saying because it is either one of the biggest lies in human history or you are thoroughly delusional–I suspect the latter.
I recommend therapy.
Art
The Covid-19 military depopulation operation censored ALL data which contradicted its biofascism.
Angie,
I have no idea how your comment is relevant to my post on climate change.
All the best,
Art
Dear Art, I think Angie refers to the fact that the covid débacle was underpinned by The Science which was manipulated to “prove” the opposite of prior wisdom, practice and protocol and dissenters were persecuted by government, media and, most disgracefully, academia.
It’s clear that Angie is struck by the fact that a virtually identical playbooks is used to push the climate catastrophe narrative.
For the science I would urge you to listen to Steve Koonin addressing to the GWPF for what the IPCC did and did not say in its 6th report and, for a psychological guide, Mattias Desmet’s The Psychology of Totalitarianism.
I would be pleased to hear what you think of these two. Best regards, Charles.
Charles,
Let’s just say that everything is a playbook and we can all go kill purselves because life is a sick joke.
My post is about climate change, not Covid, Noah’s Flood or Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Provide data that shows what is scientifically wrong with what I wrote in my post. The rest is noise.
Steve Koonin is a climate grifter. I did a post explaining why most of what he wrote was wrong:
https://www.artberman.com/blog/steven-koonins-unsettled-much-to-like-and-to-dislike/
All the best,
Art
Spot on Angie.
There are some other numbers and facts that demonstrate why the climate numbers and facts don’t matter to deniers and never have. Specifically, the fact that the vast majority of hardcore amateur climte deniers are western (mostly American) white and politically conservative. This has ZERO to do with science and is 100% about identity and worldview and a juvenile notion that if fossil fuel emissions and industrial land practices, unavoidable side effects of capitalist profit seeking are causing climate change and I’m a capitalist, then I will be blamed and my entire identity is wrong. This is how American politics frames everything kindergarten simple, so of course you will think that when you have gone and hitched your entire identity to a collection of unwavering beliefs. Most of the 8 billion people on this planet do not consider their entire selves as part of a political party – I’m a Republican – I’m a democrat. Most people in most countries never say that. They may vote to the left or right but they do not label themselves as such because they realize once you do, you have just handed away your intellectual freedom. The party denies climate change, thus, so do I. It must be a relief not having go to all that bother of looking up facts and what science or anyone or thing has to say because the party is always right on major issues. Save a lot of mental energy not having to think things out for yourself.
.
*Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming*
.
Abstract
.
“The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.”
.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266?journalCode=bsta
.
Unlike denier think tanks when they say experts and scientists they mean expert/scientists who actually do research in earth sciences – climate change, NOT eminent dentists and family doctors and air conditioning engineers like the consensus, denier central (EG:Heritage institute – same ones big tobacco hired for 3 decades of tobacco-cancer denial) regurgitates every year. There is no low deniers won’t stoop to. In over 3 decades I have seen every low ball scummy, deceptive trick in the book. What deniers don’t get is that everyone else sees how low they stoop and many deniers have threatened climate scientists with physical harm and even death to the scientists and their spouses and children.
In typical bully fashion, female scientists are a favorite target.
.
*As Climate Scientists Speak Out, Sexist Attacks Are on the Rise*
.
Female researchers have faced everything from personal insults to death and rape threats
.
“They’ve endured insults, sexual taunts and degrading comments about their professional acumen. Most of their harassers use social media, email and the phone for their attacks. But there’s a fear that it could become physical.
Threats of death, rape and other forms of violence have left a number of researchers feeling concerned for their safety. They worry about opening envelopes with handwritten addresses and answering phone calls from unfamiliar numbers. Anonymous emails that try to entice a response cause agitation.”
.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-climate-scientists-speak-out-sexist-attacks-are-on-the-rise/
.
Cowards
Dr Scanlon,
People’s inability to accept reality is more complex than some problem with white men. This is a more fundamental psychological problem.
All the best,
Art
Art, please answer with a scientific study that definitively shows that the CO2 level rises historically BEFORE the temperature rises….isn’t there a scientific possibility that the earth’s temperature rises first (from a so far unknown reason) and THEN the CO2 level increases (from faster organic decomposition, maybe)….seems know article I’ve seen even considers the possibility (and that would be VERY unscientific…thanx for the conversation!
Jim,
I’ve written what is relevant. People who are incapable of accepting reality will always find details that seem to them to collapse the overwhelming evidence supporting it.
There are some aspects of gravity that modern physics cannot explain. Do you doubt that gravity exists?
There are aspects of evolution that modern biology and paleontology cannot explain. Do you doubt the evolution occurred?
No one can establish records that Jesus lived. Do you suggest that Christianity is a hoax?
I recommend that you start accepting what is known and stop looking for reasons to reject it because you don’t like what it means.
All the best,
Art
You didn’t answer a question that would lock me into a true climate change follower. The question is very simple, logical, and powerful. I don’t need your opinion, just the scientific facts. Does CO2 level lead global temperature historically OR does global temperature lead global CO2 levels. If you know the answer, please publish the links to these studies.
You don’t need to insult me to answer it……it’s the last scientific FACT a lot of us need to be 100% behind you…I’m not the enemy
Jim,
I would be glad to schedule a consulting call.
All the best,
Art
Jim,
The relationship between CO2 and temperature increase is one of the most researched topics in climate science. Here is some evidence that shows how increased CO2 levels lead to temperature increases.
Ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland provide data on past atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years. Studies show a close correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, particularly during the glacial-interglacial cycles. While temperature initially increased due to changes in Earth’s orbit, CO2 increases followed and amplified the warming, demonstrating a feedback loop. However, once the CO2 concentration rises, it further warms the planet.
During the past 800,000 years, CO2 and temperature have moved together, with increases in CO2 levels corresponding with higher temperatures. For example, during the transition from ice ages to interglacial periods, CO2 and temperature rose together, and when CO2 levels dropped, temperatures fell as well.
The greenhouse effect is well understood in terms of basic physics. CO2 molecules trap heat by absorbing infrared radiation emitted by Earth’s surface. This heat is then re-emitted in all directions, including back toward the surface, leading to warming. The concept of radiative forcing quantifies how changes in CO2 concentration alter the energy balance of the Earth. Increased CO2 leads to more trapped heat, which in turn increases global temperatures.
Satellite measurements have directly observed the greenhouse effect in action. They show less infrared radiation escaping to space at the specific wavelengths absorbed by CO2, confirming the trapping of heat.
Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels have increased dramatically due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. During this period, global temperatures have also increased by about 1.2°C (2.2°F) above pre-industrial levels. The warming trend has accelerated in the last few decades, coinciding with rapid increases in CO2 concentrations.
Climate models that account for CO2 and other greenhouse gases successfully simulate the observed warming trend over the past century. Models that exclude the increase in CO2 and other human-caused factors fail to replicate the observed warming, pointing to the central role of CO2 in driving temperature increases.
The Keeling Curve, which measures atmospheric CO2 levels, has shown a consistent rise since measurements began in the late 1950s. The corresponding global temperature data from the same period shows a clear warming trend.
Over 90% of the excess heat from global warming is absorbed by the oceans. Measurements show that ocean heat content has been rising along with increasing atmospheric CO2, further evidencing the role of CO2 in driving global temperature increases.
Studies of the “fingerprints” of warming show that the pattern of temperature increases matches what is expected from CO2-driven warming. For instance, the lower atmosphere (troposphere) is warming, while the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is cooling—a pattern consistent with increased greenhouse gases trapping heat near the surface rather than allowing it to escape to space.
Numerous studies have used statistical methods to attribute the observed warming to different factors. These studies consistently find that the majority of the warming over the past century is due to increases in greenhouse gases, particularly CO2.
The evidence linking CO2 increases to temperature rises is extensive, grounded in both empirical data and well-established physical principles. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas that traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, and its increase over the past century due to human activities is the primary driver of the current warming trends.
All the best,
Art
I’m one of those ‘white guys’ who can see through the stupidity of AGW.
By the way Art, Robin is exactly why women should not be allowed to vote or have any elected office.
I don’t think is too educated either and resources were wasted on her. Too bad you allow comments like that insulting others.
If you believe in AGW, you should be living like the Amish, but none of you are going to do it.
Don,
You wrote, “I don’t think is too educated either and resources were wasted on her.”
I recommend a remedial course in elementary school grammar and syntax.
Art