Is It Really Our CO₂?

Its been higher long before any industry existed
In the last two million years, it has never been as high as it is now.

Over the last million years, CO2 levels have fluctuated significantly, with notable trends:
 



Where do you get the CO2 data from beyond 2 million years ago?


Antarctic Ice Cores with usable gas samples end close to a mile down at 900k years. Under that, there isn't gas in the samples, it has been absorbed into the pressurized ice.
 
well yes CA.......and it hasn't done any damage yet....is my point......~S~
I agree, but I get caught up in the democrat BS living in WA. These morons figure carbon is the boogey man and use it as reason to raise taxes on fuels and since that is pretty well saturated Jay Inslee, the former governor, decided we need to pay a carbon tax on all fuels as well, so LOL, I end up being influenced by their BS.
 
CO2 comes from a variety of sources. I think the argument becomes moot when the removal of 100s of thousands of acres of rain forest is taken into account. Each full grown tree removes approximately a ton of carbon every year from the atmosphere. I believe the democrats wouldn't need a war on fossil fuels or carbon taxes at all if a moratorium on rain forest removals were enacted world wide.

Just the rain forests? ... not the eastern half of North America? ... only brown people need to pay the price, not whites? ...

Everyone else has to change ... not you ... good luck with that ...
 
Normally I don't post articles that require a paid subscription but the Author has unlocked three of his articles for everyone to see in full, I am a paid subsciber because he is very good writer and rational scientist.

I chose this one to post.

===================

Irrational Fear

Is It Really Our CO₂?

New Evidence Questions Humanity’s Role in the Carbon Cycle

Dr. Matthew Wielicki
Jun 21, 2025
Excerpt:

Questioning the Fundamental Basis of Climate Science and Policy

As an isotope geochemist, I’ve spent years studying the subtle signatures that reveal Earth’s hidden stories. Isotopes, variants of elements like carbon, act as chemical fingerprints, tracing the movement, age, and origin of materials through time. They don’t lie, and they don’t bend to narratives. Early in my career, I was struck by the Suess Effect, a shift in atmospheric carbon isotopes that seemed to pin the rise in CO₂ squarely on fossil fuel combustion. The evidence was compelling: burning ancient coal and oil, devoid of radiocarbon (¹⁴C) and depleted in ¹³C, was diluting the atmosphere’s isotopic ratios. It didn’t make me fear catastrophic climate change, but it convinced me humans were reshaping the atmosphere.

Now, I’m not so sure. Recent discoveries and lingering contradictions suggest the story isn’t as clear-cut as we’ve been told. At the heart of climate science lies a critical assumption: we fully understand the carbon cycle, the complex dance of carbon through air, oceans, plants, soils, and rocks. This assumption underpins every climate model, policy, and trillion-dollar investment. But what if the foundation is shakier than we thought? What if nature is playing a larger role in rising CO₂ than we’ve accounted for?

Let’s explore the cracks in this narrative and ask a critical question: Are we really responsible for the carbon in the atmosphere?

Cracks in the Foundation​

The carbon cycle is Earth’s grand accounting system, tracking how carbon moves between vast reservoirs: the atmosphere (850 petagrams of carbon, PgC), oceans (38,000 PgC), soils, vegetation, and fossil fuels. According to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, Working Group 1, Chapter 5), natural processes like photosynthesis, respiration, and ocean-atmosphere exchange shuffle hundreds of gigatons of carbon annually, orders of magnitude more than human activity, which adds roughly 9.5 PgC per year through fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. Figure 5.12 in the IPCC report illustrates this beautifully, with yellow arrows showing natural fluxes and pink arrows marking human contributions. The deep ocean alone holds 40 times more carbon than the atmosphere, and natural fluxes dwarf our emissions.

LINK


True, it is not about CO2, it is about control by the people who control the World Economic Forum.


The World Economic Forum has been explicit about its ambitions. Climate is not merely an environmental issue to be addressed; it is the justification for what Klaus Schwab calls "stakeholder capitalism"--a reorganization of the relationship between corporations, governments, and citizens that would subordinate democratic accountability to technocratic management.

Whether one views this as visionary or dystopian, the financial stakes are clear: climate has become an asset class, carbon a currency, and sustainability a compliance regime worth hundreds of billions annually. It also provide a powerful justification for globalist, totalitarian, biopolitical control of the world's citizenry. The question of whether the climate is changing has been absorbed into a much larger question: who benefits from the answer?


 
What an idiot ... why should I read anymore? ... he admits to being easily fooled ... thank God he went into chemistry instead ...

The cool people all knew CO2's mass is too small to "reshape the atmosphere" ... what a laugher ... I'll bet this guy's been sniffin' O-18 ... that stuff causes brain damage ... there's your Suess Effect for ya ...

Many scientists were confused or fooled by the misleading narrative, but as you seem to have failed to notice he is one of those who admits he was wrong who changed away to a better understanding what is really going on.
 
Many scientists were confused or fooled by the misleading narrative, but as you seem to have failed to notice he is one of those who admits he was wrong who changed away to a better understanding what is really going on.

I don't think it was scientists who are confused ... that's more of a political matter ... follow the money ...
 
I don't think it was scientists who are confused ... that's more of a political matter ... follow the money ...

No he isn't one of them he has for years been speaking out against the global warming scam, he is one who realized his mistake ad backed off.
 
15th post
These fluctuations illustrate the complex relationship between CO2 levels and global climate changes over geological time.

Or to just put it simply, CO2 is the natural and inevitable byproduct of life. Life, living and life processes give off CO2 while other life processes take it in as food.

More CO2, usually more life, more plants and more living. Life needs oxygen, water and CO2; without any one of these, we would all be up the creek without a paddle.
 
No he isn't one of them he has for years been speaking out against the global warming scam, he is one who realized his mistake ad backed off.

But he's a geologist ... why is he commenting on meteorology at all? ... he has no qualifications ... and yes, I checked his published papers, mostly about zicrons in Tibet ... {Cite} ... and from the link in the OP we get this self-description: "Earth science professor-in-exile, climate and cultural realist, political orphan, pluralist, husband, father, friend, optimist, Irrational Fear Substack" ... he only claims to be a climate realist, whatever that is ...

What was his mistake ... other than being unqualified to comment at all? ...
 
Look.
They are transitioning your rodent brains away from this useless horseshit.
Why?
AI and these data centers are poppin up like mushrooms.
Big power is in our master's best interests.
Have you noticed how cool and trendy Nuke power has suddenly become?

NUKE IS THE FUTURE----OUR MASTERS HAVE SPOKEN.
 
Back
Top Bottom