The post below updates the UAH record of air temperatures over land and ocean. Each month and year exposes again the growing disconnect between the real world and the Zero Carbon zealots. It is as though the anti-hydrocarbon band wagon hopes to drown out the data contradicting their justification for the Great Energy Transition. Yes, there was warming from an El Nino buildup coincidental with North Atlantic warming, but no basis to blame it on CO2.
As an overview consider how recent rapid cooling completely overcame the warming from the last 3 El Ninos (1998, 2010 and 2016). The UAH record shows that the effects of the last one were gone as of April 2021, again in November 2021, and in February and June 2022 At year end 2022 and continuing into 2023 global temp anomaly matched or went lower than average since 1995, an ENSO neutral year. (UAH baseline is now 1991-2020). Then there was an usual El Nino warming spike of uncertain cause, unrelated to steadily rising CO2, and now dropping steadily back toward normal values.
For reference I added an overlay of CO2 annual concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa. While temperatures fluctuated up and down ending flat, CO2 went up steadily by ~65 ppm, an 18% increase.
Furthermore, going back to previous warmings prior to the satellite record shows that the entire rise of 0.8C since 1947 is due to oceanic, not human activity.
The animation is an update of a previous analysis from Dr. Murry Salby. These graphs use Hadcrut4 and include the 2016 El Nino warming event. The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4. This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C. Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C. Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.
Importantly, the theory of human-caused global warming asserts that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere changes the baseline and causes systemic warming in our climate. On the contrary, all of the warming since 1947 was episodic, coming from three brief events associated with oceanic cycles. And in 2024 we saw an amazing episode with a temperature spike driven by ocean air warming in all regions, along with rising NH land temperatures, now dropping below its peak.
Chris Schoeneveld has produced a similar graph to the animation above, with a temperature series combining HadCRUT4 and UAH6. H/T WUWT
With apologies to Paul Revere, this post is on the lookout for cooler weather with an eye on both the Land and the Sea. While you heard a lot about 2020-21 temperatures matching 2016 as the highest ever, that spin ignores how fast the cooling set in. The UAH data analyzed below shows that warming from the last El Nino had fully dissipated with chilly temperatures in all regions. After a warming blip in 2022, land and ocean temps dropped again with 2023 starting below the mean since 1995. Spring and Summer 2023 saw a series of warmings, continuing into 2024 peaking in April, then cooling off to the present.
UAH has updated their TLT (temperatures in lower troposphere) dataset for August 2025. Due to one satellite drifting more than can be corrected, the dataset has been recalibrated and retitled as version 6.1 Graphs here contain this updated 6.1 data. Posts on their reading of ocean air temps this month are ahead the update from HadSST4 or OISST2.1. I posted recently on SSTs July 2025 Ocean SSTs: NH Warms Slightly. These posts have a separate graph of land air temps because the comparisons and contrasts are interesting as we contemplate possible cooling in coming months and years.
Sometimes air temps over land diverge from ocean air changes. In July 2024 all oceans were unchanged except for Tropical warming, while all land regions rose slightly. In August we saw a warming leap in SH land, slight Land cooling elsewhere, a dip in Tropical Ocean temp and slightly elsewhere. September showed a dramatic drop in SH land, overcome by a greater NH land increase. 2025 has shown a sharp contrast between land and sea, first with ocean air temps falling in January recovering in February. Then land air temps, especially NH, dropped in February and recovered in March. Now in July SH ocean dropped markedly, pulling down the Global ocean anomaly despite a rise in the Tropics. SH land also cooled by half, driving Global land temps down despite Tropics land warming.
Note: UAH has shifted their baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 beginning with January 2021. v6.1 data was recalibrated also starting with 2021. In the charts below, the trends and fluctuations remain the same but the anomaly values changed with the baseline reference shift.
Presently sea surface temperatures (SST) are the best available indicator of heat content gained or lost from earth’s climate system. Enthalpy is the thermodynamic term for total heat content in a system, and humidity differences in air parcels affect enthalpy. Measuring water temperature directly avoids distorted impressions from air measurements. In addition, ocean covers 71% of the planet surface and thus dominates surface temperature estimates. Eventually we will likely have reliable means of recording water temperatures at depth.
Recently, Dr. Ole Humlum reported from his research that air temperatures lag 2-3 months behind changes in SST. Thus cooling oceans portend cooling land air temperatures to follow. He also observed that changes in CO2 atmospheric concentrations lag behind SST by 11-12 months. This latter point is addressed in a previous post Who to Blame for Rising CO2?
After a change in priorities, updates are now exclusive to HadSST4. For comparison we can also look at lower troposphere temperatures (TLT) from UAHv6.1 which are now posted for August 2025. The temperature record is derived from microwave sounding units (MSU) on board satellites like the one pictured above. Recently there was a change in UAH processing of satellite drift corrections, including dropping one platform which can no longer be corrected. The graphs below are taken from the revised and current dataset.
The UAH dataset includes temperature results for air above the oceans, and thus should be most comparable to the SSTs. There is the additional feature that ocean air temps avoid Urban Heat Islands (UHI). The graph below shows monthly anomalies for ocean air temps since January 2015.
In 2021-22, SH and NH showed spikes up and down while the Tropics cooled dramatically, with some ups and downs, but hitting a new low in January 2023. At that point all regions were more or less in negative territory.
After sharp cooling everywhere in January 2023, there was a remarkable spiking of Tropical ocean temps from -0.5C up to + 1.2C in January 2024. The rise was matched by other regions in 2024, such that the Global anomaly peaked at 0.86C in April. Since then all regions have cooled down sharply to a low of 0.27C in January. In February 2025, SH rose from 0.1C to 0.4C pulling the Global ocean air anomaly up to 0.47C, where it stayed in March and April. In May drops in NH and Tropics pulled the air temps over oceans down despite an uptick in SH. At 0.43C, ocean air temps were similar to May 2020, albeit with higher SH anomalies. Now in August Global ocean temps are little changed since SH rose, offsetting NH cooling and Tropics plummenting down to 0.16C from its peak of 1.24C March 2024.
Land Air Temperatures Tracking in Seesaw Pattern
We sometimes overlook that in climate temperature records, while the oceans are measured directly with SSTs, land temps are measured only indirectly. The land temperature records at surface stations sample air temps at 2 meters above ground. UAH gives tlt anomalies for air over land separately from ocean air temps. The graph updated for August is below.
Here we have fresh evidence of the greater volatility of the Land temperatures, along with extraordinary departures by SH land. The seesaw pattern in Land temps is similar to ocean temps 2021-22, except that SH is the outlier, hitting bottom in January 2023. Then exceptionally SH goes from -0.6C up to 1.4C in September 2023 and 1.8C in August 2024, with a large drop in between. In November, SH and the Tropics pulled the Global Land anomaly further down despite a bump in NH land temps. February showed a sharp drop in NH land air temps from 1.07C down to 0.56C, pulling the Global land anomaly downward from 0.9C to 0.6C. In March that drop reversed with both NH and Global land back to January values, holding there in April. In May sharp drops in NH and Tropics land air temps pulled the Global land air temps back down close to February value. In August Tropics land air dropped sharply, down from 0.58C to 0.26C, and NH land also cooled by 0.1C, offset by SH rising, resulting in no change of Global land air temps.
The Bigger Picture UAH Global Since 1980
The chart shows monthly Global Land and Ocean anomalies starting 01/1980 to present. The average monthly anomaly is -0.0, 2for this period of more than four decades. The graph shows the 1998 El Nino after which the mean resumed, and again after the smaller 2010 event. The 2016 El Nino matched 1998 peak and in addition NH after effects lasted longer, followed by the NH warming 2019-20. An upward bump in 2021 was reversed with temps having returned close to the mean as of 2/2022. March and April brought warmer Global temps, later reversed
With the sharp drops in Nov., Dec. and January 2023 temps, there was no increase over 1980. Then in 2023 the buildup to the October/November peak exceeded the sharp April peak of the El Nino 1998 event. It also surpassed the February peak in 2016. In 2024 March and April took the Global anomaly to a new peak of 0.94C. The cool down started with May dropping to 0.9C, and in June a further decline to 0.8C. October went down to 0.7C, November and December dropped to 0.6C. Now in August Global Land and Ocean is down to 0.39C
The graph reminds of another chart showing the abrupt ejection of humid air from Hunga Tonga eruption.
TLTs include mixing above the oceans and probably some influence from nearby more volatile land temps. Clearly NH and Global land temps have been dropping in a seesaw pattern, nearly 1C lower than the 2016 peak. Since the ocean has 1000 times the heat capacity as the atmosphere, that cooling is a significant driving force. TLT measures started the recent cooling later than SSTs from HadSST4, but are now showing the same pattern. Despite the three El Ninos, their warming had not persisted prior to 2023, and without them it would probably have cooled since 1995. Of course, the future has not yet been written.
Previously I have demonstrated that temperature changes are predictive of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. That includes the remarkable GMT spike starting in January 2023 and rising to a peak in April 2024. The most recent study was June 2025 Update–Temperature Falls, CO2 Follows employing Mauna Loa CO2 data and UAH GMT data.
More recently another researcher, Bernard Robbins, found similar causation between ML CO2 and SST fluctuations reported by NOAA Global SST dataset. See More Evidence Temperatures Drive CO2 Levels, Not the Reverse. Along with some comments on my blog, I wondered whether the entire ML record of CO2 levels could be predicted from global temperature changes, which would require a GMT dataset covering 1959 to the present. This post shows that HADCRUT5 qualifies and indeed confirms other studies by researchers. I was particularly interested in the lack of warming in the 1960s and 70s, before the satellite temperature data became available.
The answer is yes: Just as temperature spikes result
in a corresponding CO2 spike as expected. Cooler temperatures are predictive of lower CO2 levels.
Above are HadCRUT5 temperature anomalies compared to CO2 monthly changes year over year.
Changes in monthly CO2 synchronize with temperature fluctuations, which for HadCRUT5 are anomalies referenced to the 1961-1990 period. CO2 differentials are calculated for the present month by subtracting the value for the same month in the previous year (for example February 2025 minus February 2024). Temp anomalies are calculated by comparing the present month with the baseline month. Note the recent CO2 upward spike and drop following the temperature spike and drop.
The final proof that CO2 follows temperature due to stimulation of natural CO2 reservoirs is demonstrated by the ability to calculate CO2 levels since 1959 with a simple mathematical formula:
For each subsequent year, the CO2 level for each month was generated
CO2 this month this year = a + b × Temp this month this year + CO2 this month last year
The values for a and b are constants applied to all monthly temps, and are chosen to scale the forecasted CO2 level for comparison with the observed value. The values for scaling HADCRUT5 and MLCO2 were “a” = 1.12 and “b” = 1.65 Here is the result of those calculations.
In the chart calculated CO2 levels correlate with observed CO2 levels at 0.9992 out of 1.0000. This mathematical generation of CO2 atmospheric levels is only possible if they are driven by temperature-dependent natural sources, and not by human emissions which are small in comparison, rise steadily and monotonically. For a more detailed look at the recent fluxes, here are the results since 2015, an ENSO neutral year.
For this recent period, the calculated CO2 values match well the annual lows, while some annual generated values of CO2 are slightly higher or lower than observed at other months of the year. Still the correlation for this period is 0.98
Key Point
Changes in CO2 follow changes in global temperatures on all time scales, from last month’s observations to ice core datasets spanning millennia. Since CO2 is the lagging variable, it cannot logically be the cause of temperature, the leading variable. It is folly to imagine that by reducing human emissions of CO2, we can change global temperatures, which are obviously driven by other factors.
Background Post Temperature Changes Cause CO2 Changes, Not the Reverse
This post is about proving that CO2 changes in response to temperature changes, not the other way around, as is often claimed. In order to do that we need two datasets: one for measurements of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time and one for estimates of Global Mean Temperature changes over time.
Climate science is unsettling because past data are not fixed, but change later on. I ran into this previously and now again in 2021 and 2022 when I set out to update an analysis done in 2014 by Jeremy Shiers (discussed in a previous post reprinted at the end). Jeremy provided a spreadsheet in his essay Murray Salby Showed CO2 Follows Temperature Now You Can Too posted in January 2014. I downloaded his spreadsheet intending to bring the analysis up to the present to see if the results hold up. The two sources of data were:
Uploading the CO2 dataset showed that many numbers had changed (why?).
The blue line shows annual observed differences in monthly values year over year, e.g. June 2020 minus June 2019 etc. The first 12 months (1979) provide the observed starting values from which differentials are calculated. The orange line shows those CO2 values changed slightly in the 2020 dataset vs. the 2014 dataset, on average +0.035 ppm. But there is no pattern or trend added, and deviations vary randomly between + and -. So last year I took the 2020 dataset to replace the older one for updating the analysis.
Now I find the NOAA dataset starting in 2021 has almost completely new values due to a method shift in February 2021, requiring a recalibration of all previous measurements. The new picture of ΔCO2 is graphed below.
The method shift is reported at a NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory webpage, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) WMO Scale, with a justification for the difference between X2007 results and the new results from X2019 now in force. The orange line shows that the shift has resulted in higher values, especially early on and a general slightly increasing trend over time. However, these are small variations at the decimal level on values 340 and above. Further, the graph shows that yearly differentials month by month are virtually the same as before. Thus I redid the analysis with the new values.
Global Temperature Anomalies (ΔTemp)
The other time series was the record of global temperature anomalies according to RSS. The current RSS dataset is not at all the same as the past.
Here we see some seriously unsettling science at work. The purple line is RSS in 2014, and the blue is RSS as of 2020. Some further increases appear in the gold 2022 rss dataset. The red line shows alterations from the old to the new. There is a slight cooling of the data in the beginning years, then the three versions mostly match until 1997, when systematic warming enters the record. From 1997/5 to 2003/12 the average anomaly increases by 0.04C. After 2004/1 to 2012/8 the average increase is 0.15C. At the end from 2012/9 to 2013/12, the average anomaly was higher by 0.21. The 2022 version added slight warming over 2020 values.
RSS continues that accelerated warming to the present, but it cannot be trusted. And who knows what the numbers will be a few years down the line? As Dr. Ole Humlum said some years ago (regarding Gistemp): “It should however be noted, that a temperature record which keeps on changing the past hardly can qualify as being correct.”
Given the above manipulations, I went instead to the other satellite dataset UAH version 6. UAH has also made a shift by changing its baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020. This resulted in systematically reducing the anomaly values, but did not alter the pattern of variation over time. For comparison, here are the two records with measurements through December 2023.
Comparing UAH temperature anomalies to NOAA CO2 changes.
Here are UAH temperature anomalies compared to CO2 monthly changes year over year.
Changes in monthly CO2 synchronize with temperature fluctuations, which for UAH are anomalies now referenced to the 1991-2020 period. As stated above, CO2 differentials are calculated for the present month by subtracting the value for the same month in the previous year (for example June 2022 minus June 2021). Temp anomalies are calculated by comparing the present month with the baseline month.
The final proof that CO2 follows temperature due to stimulation of natural CO2 reservoirs is demonstrated by the ability to calculate CO2 levels since 1979 with a simple mathematical formula:
For each subsequent year, the co2 level for each month was generated
CO2 this month this year = a + b × Temp this month this year + CO2 this month last year
Jeremy used Python to estimate a and b, but I used his spreadsheet to guess values that place for comparison the observed and calculated CO2 levels on top of each other.
In the chart calculated CO2 levels correlate with observed CO2 levels at 0.9986 out of 1.0000. This mathematical generation of CO2 atmospheric levels is only possible if they are driven by temperature-dependent natural sources, and not by human emissions which are small in comparison, rise steadily and monotonically.
Comment: UAH dataset reported a sharp warming spike starting mid year, with causes speculated but not proven. In any case, that surprising peak has not yet driven CO2 higher, though it might, but only if it persists despite the likely cooling already under way.
Previous Post: What Causes Rising Atmospheric CO2?
This post is prompted by a recent exchange with those reasserting the “consensus” view attributing all additional atmospheric CO2 to humans burning fossil fuels.
The IPCC doctrine which has long been promoted goes as follows. We have a number over here for monthly fossil fuel CO2 emissions, and a number over there for monthly atmospheric CO2. We don’t have good numbers for the rest of it-oceans, soils, biosphere–though rough estimates are orders of magnitude higher, dwarfing human CO2. So we ignore nature and assume it is always a sink, explaining the difference between the two numbers we do have. Easy peasy, science settled.
What about the fact that nature continues to absorb about half of human emissions, even while FF CO2 increased by 60% over the last 2 decades? What about the fact that in 2020 FF CO2 declined significantly with no discernable impact on rising atmospheric CO2?
These and other issues are raised by Murray Salby and others who conclude that it is not that simple, and the science is not settled. And so these dissenters must be cancelled lest the narrative be weakened.
The non-IPCC paradigm is that atmospheric CO2 levels are a function of two very different fluxes. FF CO2 changes rapidly and increases steadily, while Natural CO2 changes slowly over time, and fluctuates up and down from temperature changes. The implications are that human CO2 is a simple addition, while natural CO2 comes from the integral of previous fluctuations. Jeremy Shiers has a series of posts at his blog clarifying this paradigm. See Increasing CO2 Raises Global Temperature Or Does Increasing Temperature Raise CO2 Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
The following graph which shows the change in CO2 levels (rather than the levels directly) makes this much clearer.
Note the vertical scale refers to the first differential of the CO2 level not the level itself. The graph depicts that change rate in ppm per year.
There are big swings in the amount of CO2 emitted. Taking the mean as 1.6 ppmv/year (at a guess) there are +/- swings of around 1.2 nearly +/- 100%.
And, surprise surprise, the change in net emissions of CO2 is very strongly correlated with changes in global temperature.
This clearly indicates the net amount of CO2 emitted in any one year is directly linked to global mean temperature in that year.
For any given year the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be the sum of
all the net annual emissions of CO2
in all previous years.
For each year the net annual emission of CO2 is proportional to the annual global mean temperature.
This means the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be related to the sum of temperatures in previous years.
So CO2 levels are not directly related to the current temperature but the integral of temperature over previous years.
The following graph again shows observed levels of CO2 and global temperatures but also has calculated levels of CO2 based on sum of previous years temperatures (dotted blue line).
Summary:
The massive fluxes from natural sources dominate the flow of CO2 through the atmosphere. Human CO2 from burning fossil fuels is around 4% of the annual addition from all sources. Even if rising CO2 could cause rising temperatures (no evidence, only claims), reducing our emissions would have little impact.
When Americans hear about carbon dioxide (CO2), it’s often shown as a harmful pollutant that threatens the planet. Politicians, activists, and media outlets warn that if we don’t reduce emissions right away, disaster will happen.
Preeminent “climate scientist” Al Gore told Congress in 2007, “The science is settled. Carbon dioxide emissions – from cars, power plants, buildings, and other sources – are heating the Earth’s atmosphere.” He continued warning, “The planet has a fever.”
What if the fever is instead a cold plunge? As CNN reminded us earlier this year, “Record-breaking cold: Temperatures to plunge to as much as 50 degrees below normal.”
The Weather Channel posted on Facebook last week, “Record-breaking cold temperatures for the month of August provide many their first taste of fall.” What happened to global warming?
Let’s not focus on the last year or the last fifty years. Instead, let’s look at the past 600 million years. From this perspective, the story looks very different.
Dr. Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, authored a policy paper in 2016 titled, “The positive impact of CO2 emissions on the survival of life on earth.” Note the organization he cofounded. This is not some far-right, anti-science, fascist, Nazi, white supremacist organization, as the left would characterize anyone questioning “settled” climate science. Since its founding in 1971, Greenpeace has promoted environmental activism.
Dr. Moore, in his paper, presented this graph. The graph caption indicates that temperature and atmospheric CO2 are only loosely correlated, if at all. It’s a graph of global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration over the past 600 million years. Note both temperature and CO2 are lower today than they have been during most of the era of modern life on Earth since the Cambrian Period. Also, note that this does not indicate a lockstep cause-effect relationship between the two parameters.
The main point from the graph is that current CO2 levels are not dangerously high. In fact, they are quite the opposite, being some of the lowest in history. For most of Earth’s history, CO2 concentrations were many times higher than today’s 420 ppm. Even during the Cretaceous period, when dinosaurs roamed, levels were about four times higher than today.
From a geological view, our current CO2 levels are among the lowest in history. Yet climate advocates focus on a tiny rise in CO2 in recent years, ignoring the previous half billion years.
Alarmists scream that 420 ppm is unprecedented and endangers the planet’s survival. However, the reality is nearly the opposite: we could be experiencing a CO2 drought.
To my knowledge, dinosaurs didn’t drive gas-guzzling SUVs, run the air conditioner, or cook on gas stoves. Yet, miraculously, the Earth neither burned up nor became uninhabitable, as Al Gore and other climate alarmists currently predict. Instead, life thrived, diversified, and expanded to the point that I can write this article on my laptop, in the comfort of my air-conditioned home, before I fire up the grill for dinner.
What stands out is not correlation but complexity. Temperature and CO2 did not move in lockstep. Sometimes, CO2 was high during cooling periods, and other times, CO2 decreased while temperatures rose. The “lockstep causation” story falls apart when viewed over millions of years. Earth’s climate is influenced by many factors, such as solar cycles, orbital changes, volcanic activity, and ocean currents, not just a single trace gas.
CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere, less than one part per thousand. The complexity is summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
If CO2 has in the past reached ten times current levels without causing a runaway greenhouse effect, how can today’s modest increase be seen as an existential threat? The Earth system is more resilient than many activists admit. That resilience, demonstrated over hundreds of millions of years of survival, should humble today’s doom prophets.
Fortunately, policymakers are beginning to see that climate alarmism is based on shaky ground. As ZeroHedge reported, Trump’s EPA plans to remove greenhouse gases from the list of regulated pollutants, recognizing that treating CO₂ like sulfur dioxide or mercury isn’t scientifically justified. They summarized the rationale well.
Trump’s reversal of EPA standards and deregulation will help the U.S. economy. More importantly, it starts the much-needed process of removing climate change brainwashing from the federal government’s vernacular. It’s time for Western civilization to abandon the climate hoax and move on.
Published February, 2025
More recently, the New York Times reported a more significant development: The EPA is now revoking its Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gases. That 2009 decision served as the legal, though not scientific, foundation for the federal government’s climate policy.
By rescinding it, the agency admits what skeptics have claimed all along. CO2 is not a poison but a natural part of the biosphere, essential for plant life, agriculture, and human survival. Simply put, CO2 is plant food and vital for life on Earth.
When even the EPA admits that the case against CO2 isn’t as strong as claimed, why should the rest of us accept the narrative of “settled science,” whether it’s about CO2 or COVID-era masks, vaccines, distancing, and lockdowns?
Perhaps the most troubling result of climate panic isn’t faulty science but poor policymaking. Fear opens the door to authoritarian control. We saw this during COVID lockdowns when extreme restrictions were justified in the name of “public health.” Climate alarmists now use the same tactics, claiming that global warming is “an existential threat.”
As HotAir recently reported, three Canadian provinces have implemented sweeping bans on entering woodland areas, citing wildfire risks and climate change. Violators face heavy fines or jail time. Critics quickly pointed out the striking similarity to so-called “climate lockdowns,” once dismissed as conspiracy theories. Yet here they are, with citizens barred from a common outdoor activity in the name of climate policy.
This isn’t environmental stewardship; it’s authoritarian social control. A government willing to close forests today will be willing to restrict cars, air travel, or even personal diets tomorrow, all justified as part of a “climate emergency.”
Once rights are limited in the name of carbon, what boundaries remain? After all, humans exhale CO2, making all human activity a threat to the species, activities that should be restricted or stopped at any cost. In other words, population control by any means necessary.
None of this is to deny that climate science involves uncertainty. Proxy data are imperfect, and today’s industrial society introduces variables that weren’t present millions of years ago. Climate sensitivity to CO2, although debated, may not be zero, but is probably negligible and not worth imposing overwhelming socioeconomic regulations and burdens on working families and developing nations.
But uncertainty cuts both ways. If the science is uncertain, then the justification for strict, top-down rules collapses. Policy should demonstrate humility, not arrogance. Instead of harsh restrictions, we should focus on balanced adaptation, resilient infrastructure, responsible energy choices, and innovation, all while maintaining freedom and prosperity.
The real irony is that the more you zoom out, the less CO2 seems to be the “control knob” of climate. Over 600 million years, CO2 levels were much higher than today’s, yet Earth stayed habitable and life flourished. If anything, our current levels could be too low, raising worries about agricultural productivity and plant growth in a CO2-deficient atmosphere, which might cause starvation and desolation.
We are told to fear things that could actually be helpful. Higher CO2 levels increase crop yields, support reforestation, and restore dry lands. Calling it “pollution” goes against biology itself. CO2 is plant food, and without it, humans might face extinction like the dinosaurs.
It’s time to replace fear with perspective. Instead of shutting down people, destroying industries, or labeling farmers as villains, we should understand that CO2 is not our enemy. Climate alarmism is. Believing otherwise isn’t science; it’s superstition.
They shoot, they miss, we score. David Wojick reports on the laughable failure of alarmists in his CFACT article Attack on DOE Climate Report is a comedy of criticism. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
The DOE science report saying the impact of CO2 on climate is exaggerated was quickly followed by a massive alarmist report. The alarmist report claimed to refute the DOE report, and the press dutifully reported it doing that.
On close inspection, I find this claim to be not even close to true. In fact, it looks laughable. Mind you, this is a preliminary finding, as the two reports together run about 600 pages. I just took what is arguably the key DOE chapter and compared the two reports on that.
This is the chapter on CO2 sensitivity, which is how much warming will occur (in theory) if the atmospheric concentration doubled. It is a convenient metric that is widely used to assess the potential adverse impact, if any, of increasing CO2.
I first looked at the DOE report, then at the alarmist report, anxious to see how they claimed to falsify the DOE version. What I found instead was that they did not disagree with a single thing the DOE report said. No falsification, no refutation, not even a simple disagreement. Nothing! I could not stop laughing.
On reflection, this is not surprising, because what the DOE report says is simple and well known. They point out that:
♦ the range of sensitivity estimates is getting bigger, not smaller; ♦ some of the modelshave gotten so hot that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) no longer accepts their results; that ♦ observation-based estimates are a lot lower than the model estimates; and that ♦ sensitivity could be lower than the IPCC suggests.
Figure 8: Warming in the tropical troposphere according to the CMIP6 models. Trends 1979–2014 (except the rightmost model, which is to 2007), for 20°N–20°S, 300–200 hPa.
There is lots of criticism in the alarmist report to be sure, but it is all editorial, not scientific. Basically, the alarmists wish the DOE report said something else — which is no surprise. They say the report “misrepresents” the science (because it is not alarmist), even though everything it says is true.
They list six specific criticisms. These six are scientifically irrelevant, but some are actually wrong. For example, they say the DOE report ignores that there are multiple lines of evidence, when in fact the chapter begins with a discussion of that very fact.
More deeply, they say the report ignores Transient Sensitivity (decades) in favor of Equilibrium Sensitivity (centuries). This is astoundingly wrong, because the chapter finishes with a section making the point that Transient Sensitivity is both better and much lower than Equilibrium Sensitivity. It is a primary point of the chapter.
In both cases, “ignores” is their word, not mine, and clearly wrong. Conversely, they also attribute claims to the DOE report that are not made. Assuming things not stated is a common tendency among those who disagree.
The alarmist report is grandly titled “Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report” and is available here
The DOE report – “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” – to be found here.
The alarmist site proudly lists some of the ridiculous press coverage it received. For example:
in this video, John Robson deconstructs the recent attempt to indict hydrocarbon fuel producers and deprive the world of 80% of the primary energy it needs. The transcript is in italics with my bolds and added images.
This just in. Canadian companies convicted of burning up planet after show trial. Hydrocarbon bureaucrats sentenced to economic death. As you see, this breaking news caught me on the road here in this hotel. But somebody has to say something. So for the climate discussion nexus, I’m John Robson, and this is our quick reaction response to the pseudoscientific claim that Canadian companies are destroying the earth a bit.
And that response is that this court has no legitimacy at all. What it’s doing is no more science than what Lysenko did. It’s politics in a wig and ugly politics at that. According to a media friendly study in Nature, complete with its own lurid press release, sorry, news article:
The weather attribution wizards have nailed not just human CO2, but yes, individual firms for causing bad weather, and they shall be sued into extinction. After all, this new weather attribution was invented to bypass the tedious necessity of detecting trends in weather before explaining them, for the very purpose not to facilitate understanding, but to facilitate lawsuits.
As Roger Pielke Jr. recently growled while examining a hatchet job on the US Department of Energy skeptical red team climate report, he said, quote, “In my areas of expertise, he had found numerous statements that were simply false. among them that world weather attribution was not created with litigation in mind.”And how does he know that that claim is false? Because he did actual research, including finding a quotation from WWA’s chief scientist, Fredericke Otto:
Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind.”
Of course, it was. And here we go. As the Nature propaganda said:
Legal experts say it’s a line of evidence that could feed into climate litigation that focuses on specific events such as the 2021 heatwave that hammered the US Pacific Northwest in 2021. Already, a county government in Oregon has filed a 52 billion US civil lawsuit against fossil fuel companies for contributing to that event.
So, it’s revealing, and not in a good way, that the Nature Study itself credits upfront “approaches promoted by the World Weather Attribution (WWA) initiative and other Methods.”
Alarmists don’t love Weather Attribution because it conducts fair trials. They love it because it convicts everybody with roughly the subtlety of Andrey Vyshinsky or Lavrentiy Beria. But it is not science. As Patrick Brown pointed out this January, their tricks for stacking the jury box include, in this case, in order to attribute droughts to human evil and folly, they overwhelmingly studied places where drought had increased, even though globally there were more places where it decreased. You know, just in case their models let them down, but they’re not likely to. [See Beware Claims Attributing Extreme Events to Hydrocarbons]
As we noted in June, dizzy with success, the fellow travelers at CNN touted a study where:
“Using a combination of scientific theory, modern observations, and multiple sophisticated computer models, researchers found a clear signal of human-caused climate change was likely discernable with high confidence as early as 1885.”
That is before the invention of the internal combustion automobile. Now, the obvious implication here, and the correct one, is that these models would find such a signal anywhere because we’re told that in 1885, atmospheric CO2 was around 293 parts per million, just a whisker above the 280 parts per million that alarmists wrongly believe was constant in pre-industrial times. That very small change couldn’t possibly have measurably affected the weather. Such a fluctuation is very obviously noise, not signal. Especially when it’s coming from ice cores whose bubbles take decades or even centuries to seal.
Yet the source here tells us that in 1885 it was 293.3 parts per million. And this mathiness looks impressive, but it’s actually another key warning sign that something that is not science is lurching about in a stolen lab code. Real science deals in uncertainties. It shows error bars. Fake science bludgeons the public with spurious decimal places. According to the CBC’s credulous take:
“I was surprised that even the smallest carbon majors were actually very substantially contributing to the probability of the heat waves, said Yan Quilkai, a climate scientist at ETHZurich, who led the study.”
Oh, come now. Surely you suspected your rigged models would convict the defendant of a serious crime. After all, it’s what they’re for. And here we go. The study allegedly found that major oil companies alone caused more than half the supposed 1.3° C warming since pre-industrial times. And that of that share, Canadian companies caused 0.01°C.
I mean, one might retort, De minimis non curat lex ( The law does not concern itself about trifles.) if not educated in a government school, but instead in Latin or in sound constitutional and legal principles. Or you might say, get the heck out of my lab if you’ve been educated in science because there is no way, no way at all that 0.01 out of 1.30 is signal and not noise here.
Now to his credit or that of the shattered remains of his conscience, nature’s Jeff Tollefson does admit that:
“despite the eyepopping estimates for responsibilities allocated to individual carbon majors, the uncertainties remain high in many instances in large part because the most extreme heat waves are statistically rare.”
Yeah, indeed they’re so rare that there’s no statistically sound way of determining how likely they are. As we pointed out in our turning down the heat waves fact check video with regard to that 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome that the alarmists so love:
“The heatwave could be viewed as virtually impossible without global warming. But it was virtually impossible with it as well. Sometimes weird things happen.”
What’s more, World Weather Attribution’s gleeful attribution of it to humans and our carbon original sin was eventually submitted to a serious journal and so rubbished by one of the reviewers that they had to add a bunch of disclaimers saying that of course they couldn’t really know. But did it dent their popularity or their self-confidence? Hooha. This study in Nature says, “The median estimate indicates that climate change has also increased the probability of heat waves by more than 10,000.” 10,000 what? we ask. Percent? Times?
But it gets worse because this kind of talk suggests that they know how common and intense heat waves were around 1850, and how common and intense they are now. But they don’t. They have no idea. There weren’t systematic measurements of daily temperature in most of the world even into the mid 20th century. And the proxies when you go further back certainly give no idea how common or intense they were even a century ago, let alone 500 years.
So they’re making it up, then hiding it with decimals, saying in a spreadsheet attached to the study that, for instance, Cenovus Energy alone increased the probability of an early 2009 heatwave in Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania’s northern provinces by 1.01% and its intensity by, get this, 0.0003°C. Four decimal places. As the Duke of Wellington once said, “If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.”
It’s also anti-scientific to claim to give a change in global temperature to two decimal places over the last 175 years when nobody knows the temperature anywhere to within one decimal place a century ago. And another thing we actually do know that during the Holocene era the earth has cycled regularly between warmer and cooler periods including down from the medieval warm period into the little ice age and back up after 1850.
So at least some of the warming since must by any logical standard have been natural. In which case they’re blaming oil companies alone for more than the entire human contribution. But the attributors duck this absurdity by absurdly assuming that it’s basically all on us. The chutzpah here is astounding. But it’s exactly the kind of thing they do.
And if you use the same warped modeling to assess the shares of some other human activity, you’d dependably get a searing indictment. And in fact, if you used it on all of them, I’ll bet you you’d get over a 100% of that 1.3 degrees C, never mind if whatever smaller share actually wasn’t natural. But they don’t run that kind of test because what they’re doing isn’t science. They’re not seeking truth and testing theories ruthlessly. They’re zealots shrieking about enemies of the people.
They also write:
“with reference to 1850 to 1900, climate change has increased the median intensity of heat waves by 1.36°C over 2000 to 2009, of which 0.44°C is traced back to the 14 top carbon majors and 0.22°C to the 166 others. These contributions correspond respectively to 32% and 16% of the overall effect of climate change.”
And again, it sounds precise, all right, but climate change is a statistical description of changes in long-term weather. It isn’t a causal force. So, they don’t even know what climate change is. And all those double decimals swirling around trying to hypnotize you are a dead giveaway that they’re in over their heads or worse. And it is worse because they also don’t know what science is. They don’t do counterfactuals and consider what extreme events might have been prevented by warming as well as caused by it.
And they’re certainly not comparing known extreme events today with known extreme events in the past.Instead, they take what did happen and sometimes what didn’t, match it against invented scenarios to prove that we caused bad weather. And then they say, “Gotcha.” when the computer Julie says, “Yes, we caused bad weather.” And then they speed dial their lawyer.
That CBC item included the usual guff from the usual suspects, including Naomi Oreskes. It said,
“referring to previous research from her and other experts showing major oil companies knew about the impacts of carbon emissions and the dangers of global warming decades before countries started enacting climate policies.”
Right? Trotsky was a conscious agent of fascism and imperial oil has been trying to incinerate the earth for half a century and now it’s been proved to two decimal places to the satisfaction of people in the media who barely survived grade 10 math. So, while speaking of people not doing science when it is their job, let us also mention people not doing journalism when it is their job.
CTV, for instance, pounced on the supposed study and shrieked, “These Canadian companies among humanity’s biggest carbon emitters study says.” But the study says nothing of the kind. And in fact, nor really does the story, which includes this bit:
“The 14 largest carbon emitters were led by fossil fuel and coal producers from the former Soviet Union and China, followed by oil companies Saudi Aramco, Gasprom, and Exxon Mobile. Together, they made the same contribution to climate change as the remaining 166 entities, according to the study.”
So, Canada’s eight enemies of humanity actually ranked between 70th and 163rd. And together, they supposedly warmed the planet by 0.01°C over nearly two centuries. Which means if they kept at it for another 1750 years, they might warm the place by 0.1° C. And anyone who tells you they can calculate the impact on the weather of such a trivial change is a charlatan and a rogue. And journalists who parrot such claims without any attempt to do basic math, let alone probe how the authors think they know these things, or what other views exist, belong at Pravda, not in free world newspapers.
Now, before concluding, your honor, we wish to say one thing directly to the prisoners currently slumped in the dock or on the lam. The CBC reported that it: “reached out to several carbon majors mentioned in the story, but they either declined to comment or didn’t respond by publication time.” Likewise: “Nature also reached out to the following companies for comment on the study’s findings, but did not receive a response. BP, Shell, Chevron, National Iranian Oil Company, and Coal India.”
And what indeed could they say? The hydrocarbon energy companies have for too long and with too few exceptions followed a strategy of appeasement, confessing on the science and groveling on the policy, endorsing net zero in the hope of being the last one shot. But since everybody gets shot, it was always a terrible plan. And with the execution fast approaching, it’s time to abandon it.
Of course, if you honestly believe that your product is destroying the Earth, you should say so and get the heck out of that line of work. But if you don’t believe it, stand up for yourselves and not just by saying that the other companies are worse. Because these climate fanatics are not going to stop. They plan to destroy you using pseudoscience to win lawfare. They intend to sue you into oblivion. You, the companies that the rest of us rely on to avoid starving and freezing, and then they’re going to wonder why it got dark all of a sudden. And darkness at noon in the lab definitely has something to do with it.
So, please don’t just stand there. Say something.
Plead not guilty because you’re not and they are.
For the climate discussion nexus, I’m John Robson and that’s our quick response to this Nature study indicting oil companies for setting the planet on fire.
As expected, climatists were aghast at content in the DOE Climate Review, and the usual suspects complained to the court (Massachusetts, no surprise) on a technicality. The legal maneuvers are twisted, also usual when deployed by wealthy obstructionist pros like EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) and UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists). After some digging, I found the documentary trail with excerpts highlighted below and links in red to official docs for those interested. Source: Court Listener Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright (1:25-cv-12249)
The Climate Working Group worked in secret for months to produce a report for DOE and EPA that would provide justification for their predetermined goal of rescinding the Endangerment Finding. In May, unbeknownst to the public, the group transmitted its report to EPA, and EPA then relied extensively on the report in preparing its proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding.
It was not until the same day that EPA released that proposal, July 29, that the existence and work of the group was made public. Secrecy was so important to Defendants that when the New York Times asked one of the group’s members in early July about his role at DOE, the member obscured his work for the group and simply said that he is an “unpaid person who’s available to them if they need it.”
But federal law does not permit agencies to create or rely on such secret, unaccountable groups when engaged in policymaking. In the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Congress mandated transparency in the establishment and operation of any federal advisory committee, including by requiring that the group’s formation be promptly disclosed and that its meetings, emails, and other records be open to the public. Here, Defendants did not disclose the Climate Working Group’s existence until months after it began working, and not a single meeting or record has been made public other than the group’s report. Defendants also violated FACA’s prohibition on stacking an advisory committee with adherents of only one point of view; the Climate Working Group’s members were all chosen for their skepticism of climate science, and the group does not have a single member that agrees with the consensus of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community on the effects of climate change.
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists bring this action to enjoin Defendants’ flagrant violations of FACA, to bring transparency to the Climate Working Group’s work to date as the law requires, and to compel Defendants to follow the law if they wish to rely on outside scientific advisors to justify their actions going forward. If DOE and EPA wish to establish an advisory committee for the enormously consequential purposes for which they have put the Climate Working Group to use, they must comply with the rules that Congress has prescribed.
Plaintiffs invoke the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”), and contend that the Department of Energy (“DOE”) and Secretary Christopher Wright violated its requirements in establishing the now-dissolved DOE Climate Working Group (“CWG”). But the true goal of their lawsuit is not promoting openness and transparency in public decision-making. While Plaintiffs complain that they only recently learned of the CWG’s existence, DOE released its Report publicly weeks ago, and the Government provided opportunities for public comment on the CWG’s work. Instead, as the introduction to their Complaint makes clear, Plaintiffs’ objective is to delay and prematurely undermine a contemplated future policy decision by a different agency: namely, EPA’s proposed reconsideration of its 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Their sole hook for that relief is that EPA cited the CWG report—among numerous other sources—in a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”). That gambit fails at every level. Plaintiffs’ requested relief is foreclosed by Article III, the scope of FACA, and equitable principles.
More broadly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction or, in the Alternative, For Summary Judgment or Consolidation Under Rule 65(a)(2), ECF Nos. 15-16, fails for at least three different reasons. First, Plaintiffs fail to establish that they are likely to succeed on the merits, because the CWG is not an entity covered by FACA; the statutory requirements are inapplicable to groups assembled to exchange facts or information with federal officials. In all events, most of Plaintiffs’ claims are now moot due to the CWG’s dissolution.
Second, Plaintiffs have identified no imminent irreparable harm requiring judicial intervention at this early juncture. They face no harm (irreparable or otherwise) from the prospect of ongoing work performed by the CWG because the group has already been dissolved. And EPA’s upcoming September 22, 2025, deadline for public comment on its NPRM poses no harm, because Plaintiffs are free to raise their concerns about the CWG report via public comment. Nor would any alleged harm stemming from an inability to comment be irreparable. Plaintiffs request that this Court ultimately issue declaratory relief finding the CWG unlawful and an injunction preventing Defendants from relying on its work. Either remedy would fully repair any injury suffered by Plaintiffs from the FACA violations they allege if they ultimately prevail on the merits, rendering a preliminary injunction unnecessary.
Third, Plaintiffs have not shown that the balance of the equities or the public interest weighs in their favor. These factors favor allowing the Government to use the information provided by the scientists of the CWG, promoting dialogue based on honest scrutiny and scientific transparency in the public sphere, and not prematurely pretermitting an ongoing rulemaking process. Even if the Court were inclined to grant some relief, the remedies sought by Plaintiffs are overbroad. Even when a FACA violation is proven on the merits, injunctions preventing the use of committee work are a highly disfavored remedy, as declaratory relief can fully remedy all injuries alleged. Plaintiffs have certainly shown no entitlement to such an extraordinary remedy at the preliminary injunction stage. And because the CWG has been dissolved, no practical purpose is served by an order compelling it to comply with FACA’s procedural requirements going forward. Nor is extension of the comment period on EPA’s NPRM warranted or proper. Plaintiffs cannot circumvent the Clean Air Act or APA finality requirements by alleging a FACA violation in order to indefinitely delay a pending rulemaking with which they disagree.
For months, Defendants brazenly violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act. They constituted the Climate Working Group (CWG) in secret, had it meet in secret to produce a report with advice and recommendations for policymakers, and then provided the report to EPA in secret for use in a proposal to rescind EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Defendants present no serious argument that they did not violate FACA in taking all of these actions. Instead, when these actions were challenged in court, Defendants purported to dissolve the CWG the day before their opposition was due, and in their filing the next day, they argued that the dissolution mooted the case and left the Court powerless to provide relief for their many legal violations.
But the rule of law is not a game of catch me if you can. DOE, EPA, and the CWG violated FACA with every action they took producing and utilizing the CWG Report, and those unlawful actions continue to harm Plaintiffs in myriad ways. Indeed, Defendants do not dispute that the CWG lacked fairly balanced views—including views representative of those held by Plaintiffs—and was subject to inappropriate influence from Secretary Wright. The continued existence and use of the CWG Report produced with these legal infirmities significantly harms Plaintiffs, and there are multiple forms of declaratory, injunctive and Administrative Procedure Act relief that this Court may enter to redress these injuries.
Amicus writes to explain why censoring the CWG Report in EPA’s ongoing rulemaking is inappropriate and beyond the power of this Court. The extraordinary request for censorship here should fail for multiple reasons, but AmFree covers five.
First, Plaintiffs lack standing to seek relief against EPA because censoring the study would not redress any cognizable Article III harm. See Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Peña, 147 F.3d 1012, 1020–23 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (so holding). Second, the Clean Air Act strips district courts of power to enjoin EPA’s actions in ongoing Clean Air Act rulemaking proceedings or to control the agency’s rulemaking docket, making courts of appeals (in this case, the D.C. Circuit) the “sole forum” for these disputes. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b), (d)(8). Third, censorship remedies are not available under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) or through a writ of mandamus, because such an order does not compel a discrete action required by FACA. Fourth, censoring the government’s use of the CWG Report is punishment that exceeds this Court’s remedial equity jurisdiction. Fifth, Plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm because they have adequate avenues for judicial relief namely, challenging EPA’s rulemaking record in the D.C. Circuit, after a final rule.
Plaintiffs “are champing at the bit to challenge EPA’s anticipated rule [repealing] carbon dioxide emission[]” standards for new motor vehicles. In re Murray Energy Corp., 788 F.3d 330, 333 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Kavanaugh, J.). “But courts have never reviewed proposed rules, notwithstanding the costs that parties may routinely incur in preparing for anticipated final rules.” Id. at 335. This Court should not do so here.
Our report is the first from Washington in years that deviates from the narrative of a climate headed for catastrophe. That these findings surprised many speaks to a governmental failure to communicate climate science accurately to the public.
Reports like ours may draw a lot of anger, but our work accurately portrays important aspects of climate science.
Our work has attracted strong criticism, despite its grounding in established science. Almost 60,000 comments were submitted to the Federal Register during the month after its publication, and the Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit to prevent the Energy Department or Environmental Protection Agency from using the report in decision-making.
Though scientists supporting the so-called consensus on climate change have organized several serious critiques, these at most add detail and nuance to our findings, without negating the report’s central points.
They still merit a response, which will form the next round in an overdue public debate on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate policies must balance the risks of climate change against a response’s costs, efficacy, and collateral effects.
Reports like ours may draw a lot of anger, but our work accurately portrays important aspects of climate science. Acknowledging the facts is essential for informed policy decisions.
From November 10-21, 2025, Brazil will host COP30 in the Amazonian city of Belém, with tens of thousands of delegates, journalists, civil society, and industry representatives expected to attend the summit. The COP meeting serves as the main decision-making platform for the parties to the UNFCCC and convenes annually, unless determined otherwise. These conferences are designed to assess how well countries are meeting their climate goals and to track each party’s progress toward the overarching objectives of the Convention. Source: COP30: What to Expect from Fiker Institute, based in Dubai.
What’s On the Agenda
COP30 must do the difficult job of restoring confidence in the process following the disappointment of COP29. In preparation for COP30, the summit’s President, Brazilian Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago, released a fourth open letter addressed to all delegates, laying out the Action Agenda for Brazil’s hosting of the conference. Rather than introducing new frameworks or making fresh promises, the Brazilian presidency has signaled a desire to focus on delivering on existing commitments, which amount to approximately 400 pledges made over the last few COPs. The letter identifies six thematic priorities:
♦ accelerating the transition in energy and transport systems; ♦ safeguarding biodiversity; ♦ overhauling agri-food systems; ♦ building climate-resilient cities; ♦ advancing human development; and ♦ unlocking finance and technology.
What Does perplexity.ai Expect from COP30?
Q: About the IPCC COP30, what failures are likely to occur?
A: The most likely failures at IPCC COP30 will include insufficient financial commitments, lack of ambitious national climate targets, deadlocks in negotiations, and ineffective enforcement of agreed actions.
Persistent Finance Shortfalls
Developed countries have repeatedly failed to meet climate finance pledges, particularly the $100 billion per year commitment for developing nations.
Weak enforcement means finance promises often remain symbolic, undermining support for vulnerable nations.
Lack of Ambitious Climate Targets
Many countries are expected to delay or avoid submitting stronger climate plans (NDCs), threatening global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.
Negotiation deadlocks, such as disagreements on monitoring national progress, may stop meaningful advances.
Fragmented and Inadequate Adaptation
Adaptation efforts are often incremental, poorly funded, and not well-integrated into broader policy plans, leaving communities at risk.
Planning is prioritized over actual implementation, causing delays in urgent climate action.
Continued Fossil Fuel Dependence
Global fossil fuel use remains high, with little meaningful reduction, despite decades of negotiations.
Major emitting countries may continue to obstruct ambitious global decarbonization agreements.
Weak Enforcement and Accountability
With insufficient accountability or sanctions for non-compliance, many countries may not deliver on their climate promises, resulting in fragmented progress.
Inadequate Response to Deforestation and Food Systems
COPs have failed to effectively address tropical deforestation and emissions from food systems, both critical for climate adaptation and mitigation.
Lack of binding, global treaties against deforestation and food-system emissions is a major gap.
In summary, the most likely failures at COP30 will center on inadequate funding, weak and delayed national commitments, governance gaps, continued reliance on fossil fuels, and the lack of implementation for both mitigation and adaptation pledges.
Q: How could finance pledges fail again at COP30?
A: Finance pledges at COP30 could fail again due to several recurring issues: vague commitments, lack of accountability, limited transparency, under-developed reporting mechanisms, geopolitical tensions, and insufficient mobilization of private capital.
Vague and Non-Binding Commitments
Previous COP promises (like the $100 billion annual goal) were not legally enforceable, allowing donor nations to fall short without consequence.
Language in COP30 agreements may again lack concrete deadlines, binding obligations, or penalty mechanisms.
Ineffective Accountability and Transparency
Tracking finance flows—especially from private sources or indirect support—is technically complex and prone to inconsistent or optimistic reporting.
Transparency protocols, such as biennial reports, will not come into effect until 2028, meaning interim pledges may remain unverifiable or inflated.
Geopolitical and Economic Constraints
High debt burdens and tough capital markets in both donor and developing countries could limit new investments or redirect funds away from climate action.
International tensions, recession fears, or shifts in political priorities may reduce the willingness of major economies to contribute robustly.
Inadequate Mobilization of Private Sector Capital
COP30’s ambitious $1.3 trillion annual finance goal relies on mobilizing private investment, but there is chronic uncertainty in how private money will be counted, standardized, and guaranteed for climate impact.
Public sector funding alone is insufficient, and incentives for private sector participation remain weak or poorly designed.
Delayed Implementation of New Strategies
Key reports and strategies for unlocking climate finance (such as the “Baku to Belém Roadmap”) may not translate into immediate action, leading to a gap between pledges and real monetary flows.
Developing countries face challenges in preparing robust project pipelines, which delays the actual disbursement of pledged funds.
In summary, finance pledges at COP30 are at high risk of failing due to weak enforcement, slow implementation of transparency tools, geopolitical uncertainty, untested reliance on private investment, and past tendencies to over-promise and under-deliver.
Background COP Briefing Post
Nine years ago French Mathematicians spoke out prior to COP21 in Paris, and their words provide a rational briefing for COP30 beginning Belém this November. In a nutshell:
Fighting Global Warming is Absurd, Costly and Pointless.
Absurd because of no reliable evidence that anything unusual is happening in our climate.
Costly because trillions of dollars are wasted on immature, inefficient technologies that serve only to make cheap, reliable energy expensive and intermittent.
Pointless because we do not control the weather anyway.
The prestigious Société de Calcul Mathématique (Society for Mathematical Calculation) issued a detailed 195-page White Paper that presents a blistering point-by-point critique of the key dogmas of global warming. The synopsis is blunt and extremely well documented. Here are extracts from the opening statements of the first three chapters of the SCM White Paper with my bolds and images.
Sisyphus at work.
Chapter 1: The crusade is absurd There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ‘disturbed.’ It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable. Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events — they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes….
Chapter 2: The crusade is costly Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ‘virtuous’ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ‘energy saving,’ which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed — it is the price we have to pay for our virtue….
Chapter 3: The crusade is pointless Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let’s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth‘s rotation.
Full text in pdf format is available in English at link below:
A Second report was published in 2016 entitled: Global Warming and Employment, which analyzes in depth the economic destruction from ill-advised climate change policies.
The two principal themes are that jobs are disappearing and that the destructive forces are embedded in our societies.
Jobs are Disappearing discusses issues such as:
The State is incapable of devising and implementing an industrial policy.
The fundamental absurdity of the concept of sustainable development
Biofuels an especially absurd policy leading to ridiculous taxes and job losses.
EU policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% drives jobs elsewhere while being pointless: the planet has never asked for it, is completely unaware of it, and will never notice it!
The War against the Car and Road Maintenance undercuts economic mobility while destroying transportation sector jobs.
Solar and wind energy are weak, diffuse, and inconsistent, inadequate to power modern civilization.
Food production activities are attacked as being “bad for the planet.”
So-called Green jobs are entirely financed by subsidies.
The Brutalizing Whip discusses the damages to public finances and to social wealth and well-being, including these topics:
Taxes have never been so high
The Government is borrowing more and more
Dilapidated infrastructure
Instead of job creation, Relocations and Losses
The wastefulness associated with the new forms of energy
Return to the economy of an underdeveloped country
What is our predicament?
Four Horsemen are bringing down our societies:
The Ministry of Ecology (climate and environment);
Journalists;
Scientists;
Corporation Environmentalist Departments.
Steps required to recover from this demise:
Go back to the basic rules of research.
Go back to the basic rules of law
Do not trust international organizations
Leave the planet alone
Beware of any premature optimism
Conclusion
Climate lemmings
The real question is this: how have policymakers managed to make such absurd decisions, to blinker themselves to such a degree, when so many means of scientific investigation are available? The answer is simple: as soon as something is seen as being green, as being good for the planet, all discussion comes to an end and any scientific analysis becomes pointless or counterproductive. The policymakers will not listen to anyone or anything; they take all sorts of hasty, contradictory, damaging and absurd decisions. When will they finally be held to account?
Footnote:
The above cartoon image of climate talks includes water rising over politicians’ feet. But actual observations made in Fiji (presiding over 2017 talks in Bonn) show sea levels are stable (link below).
It is a valuable description of the temperature metrics and issues regarding climate analysis. They conclude:
None of the information on global temperatures is of any scientific value, and it should not
be used as a basis for any policy decisions. It is perfectly clear that:
there are far too few temperature sensors to give us a picture of the planet’s temperature;
we do not know what such a temperature might mean because nobody has given it
any specific physical significance;
the data have been subject to much dissimulation and manipulation. There is a
clear will not to mention anything that might be reassuring, and to highlight things
that are presented as worrying;
despite all this, direct use of the available figures does not indicate any genuine
trend towards global warming!
Close examination of the small perturbations within the atmospheric CO2 trend, as measured at Mauna Loa, reveals a strong correlation with variations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs), most notably with those in the tropics. The temperature-dependent process of CO2 degassing and absorption via sea surfaces is well-documented, and changes in SSTs will also coincide with changes in terrestrial temperatures, and temperature-dependent changes in the marine and terrestrial biospheres with their associated carbon cycles.
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. 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. A further pointer to this balance may come from chemical measurements that indicate a brief peak in atmospheric CO2 levels centred around the 1940s, and that coincided with a peak in global SSTs.
Research into the influence SSTs have on changes in atmospheric CO2 includes the work by Humlum et al. (2013). When examining phase relationships, they found a maximum correlation for changes in atmospheric CO2 lagging 11-12 months behind those of global SSTs [1]. A paper by the late Fred Goldberg (2008) noted their correlation by examining El Niño events [2]. He also considered Henry’s law [3] in relation to SSTs, i.e. a temperature-dependent equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and its solubility in seawater. Spencer (2008) also noted similarities between surface temperature variations with changes in atmospheric CO2 [4].
For the oceans specifically, areas of surface CO2 absorption and degassing are shown in maps provided by NOAA [5] and ESA [6] for example. These maps show that colder sea surfaces towards the poles are net absorbers of CO2 whilst the warmer surface waters of the tropics are net emitters. An analogy often cited is the greater ability of carbonated drinks to retain CO2 at cooler temperatures; this ability drops as the drinks get warmer.
Figure 1: Deseasonalised atmospheric CO2 data (Mauna Loa).
A strong correlation between changes in atmospheric CO2 and SSTs can be readily discerned from the relevant datasets. To illustrate, the upper graph in Fig. 1 plots atmospheric CO2 in parts per million (ppm) as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1982. The data [7] has been ‘deseason-alised’ by NOAA to remove natural annual CO2 cycles.
The similarity between the two traces is striking: short-term fluctuations in CO2 readings at Mauna Loa appear particularly sensitive to tropic conditions (if tropic SSTs are substituted for global SSTs in Fig. 2, the correlation is less strong). Warm tropical seas, with surface temperatures typically around 25-30 oC, cover almost one third of the earth’s surface. The most prominent peaks in the figure coincide with strong El Niño events. Taken at face value, and ignoring any influence from anthropogenic emissions, Fig. 2 suggests that if the tropic SST anomaly dropped to around -1 oC (with related drops globally) then the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, as measured at Mauna Loa, would level off.
Robbins, 2025 Figure 2: Global tropic SSTs overlaid onto monthly atmospheric CO2 increases (Mauna Loa)
An important point is that changes in SSTs will coincide with those of terrestrial temperatures, temperature-dependent changes to both terrestrial and marine carbon cycles and, taking into consideration the research by Humlum et al. (2013) who found that changes in atmospheric CO2 followed changes in SSTs, an assumption in the work presented here is that nature’s influence on atmospheric CO2 levels, as a whole, follows on from changes in SSTs.
Discussion
The techniques used in Analyses 1 and 2, aimed at discerning and estimating the human contribution to recent increases in atmospheric CO2, are based on processing of monthly data from both SST and atmospheric CO2 datasets. Using the technique described in Analysis 1, no contribution from human emissions to the measured increases in atmospheric CO2, since 1995, was discerned. Given an approximate 60 % increase in annual human emissions since 1995 this suggests, by itself, that any human contribution to the measured increases is likely to be relatively small compared to nature’s contribution.
For the technique described in Analysis 2, a figure of ~27 ppm was estimated for a possible human contribution out of a total increase of 143 ppm since 1850, equating to around 19 % of the total increase in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution. Thus the results of these two analyses, taken together, suggest that nature appears to account for around 80 % or more of increases in atmospheric CO2 since 1995.
The technique described in Analysis 3 examines the relationship between longer-term trends in SST datasets and atmospheric CO2 measurements. This data analysis goes as far back as the late 1950s, when the ongoing acquisition of atmospheric CO2 measurements began at Mauna Loa. The resulting three graphs show an apparent almost-linear long-term relationship between SSTs and atmospheric CO2. Linear trend lines fitted to these graphs produce gradients of between ~120 and ~145 ppm/ 0C for the three SST datasets examined.
Figure 15: Atmospheric CO2 as a function of global SST trend since 1958
As for anthropogenic CO2, published figures (e.g. GCB data) suggest a roughly linear relationship between cumulative anthropogenic emissions as a function of time, and atmospheric CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa. If it’s reasoned that this mostly accounts for the linear trends as calculated in Analysis 3, this reasoning would not fit with the findings of the first two analysis methods that suggest 80 % or more of recent atmospheric CO2 increases are of natural origin.
Conclusions
Analyses of SST and atmospheric CO2 data, acquired since 1995, produce an estimated atmospheric CO2 increase, possibly attributed to human emissions, of around 20 %, or less, of the total increase since the industrial revolution, thus inferring that around 80 % or more of the increase is of natural origin.
Further data examination points to an almost linear longer-term relationship between SSTs and atmospheric CO2 since at least the late 1950s, and is suggestive of nature working to maintain a temperature-dependent atmosphere/surface CO2 balance. Recent historical evidence of such a balance may come from chemical measurements that indicate a brief peak in atmospheric CO2 levels centred around the 1940s, and that coincided with a peak in global SSTs.
Human emissions of CO2 are about 1/20-th of the natural turnover, and the findings of the analyses presented here suggest that this relatively-small human contribution is being readily incorporated into nature’s carbon cycles as they continually adjust to our constantly-changing climate.
As for surface temperatures, the research by Humlum et al. concluded that changes in atmospheric temperature are an ‘effect’ of changes in SSTs and not a ‘cause’ as some might advocate. And Humlum’s ‘take home’ message from a recent presentation was:
‘What controls the ocean surface temperature, controls the global climate’ [33]. He suggests the sun would be a good candidate, modulated with the cloud cover.
WUWT just published a graph regarding a study of Ocean Air Sheltered (OAS) station records compared to higher temperatures at ocean affected places. The diversity of microclimates is often lost in the concern over global climate change. So this post is pertinent to understanding these complexities.
Background
Amidst all the concerns for social diversity, let’s raise a cry for scientific diversity. No, I am not referring to the gender or racial identities of people doing science, but rather acknowledging the diversity of climates and their divergent patterns over time. The actual climate realities affecting people’s lives are hidden within global averages and abstractions. A previous post Concurrent Warming and Cooling presented research findings that on long time scales maritime climates can shift toward inland patterns including both colder winters and warmer summers.
It occurred to me that Frank Lansner had done studies on weather stations showing differences depending on exposure to ocean breezes or not. That led me to his recent publication Temperature trends with reduced impact of ocean air temperature Lansner and Pederson March 21, 2018. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
Abstract
Temperature data 1900–2010 from meteorological stations across the world have been analyzed and it has been found that all land areas generally have two different valid temperature trends. Coastal stations and hill stations facing ocean winds are normally more warm-trended than the valley stations that are sheltered from dominant oceans winds.
Thus, we found that in any area with variation in the topography, we can divide the stations into the more warm trended ocean air-affected stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered stations. We find that the distinction between ocean air-affected and ocean air-sheltered stations can be used to identify the influence of the oceans on land surface. We can then use this knowledge as a tool to better study climate variability on the land surface without the moderating effects of the ocean.
We find a lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature data – with less impact of ocean temperature trends – after 1950. The lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.
As a contrast to the OAS stations, we compare with what we designate as ocean air affected (OAA) stations, which are more exposed to the influence of the ocean, see Figure 1. The optimal OAA locations are defined as positions with potential first contact with ocean air. In general, stations where the location offers no shelter in the directions of predominant winds are best categorized as OAA stations.
Conversely, the optimal OAS area is a lower point surrounded by mountains in all directions. In this case, the existence of predominant wind directions is not needed. Only in locations with a predominant wind direction, the leeward side of the mountains can also form an OAS region.
Figure 2. The optimal OAA and OAS locations with respect to dominating wind direction.
A total of 10 areas were chosen for this work to present the temperature trends of OAS areas (typically valley areas) and OAA areas from Scandinavia, Central Siberia, Central Balkan, Midwest USA, Central China, Pakistan/North India, the Sahel Area, Southern Africa, Central South America, and Southeast Australia. In this work, we have only considered an area as “OAS” or “OAA” if it comprises at least eight independent temperature sets. In the following, temperature data 1900–2010 from individual areas are discussed.
As an example, we show in Figure 3 the results for the Scandinavian area where we have used a total of 49 OAS stations and 18 OAA stations. The large number of stations available is due to the use of meteorological yearbooks as supplement to data sources such as ECA&D climate data and Nordklim database.
Figure 3. OAS and OAA temperature stations, Scandinavia.
The upper set of curves is from the OAS areas: Here the blue lines show one-year mean temperature averages for each temperature station, the red lines show the average of all stations of the area, and the thick black line is a five-year running mean of the station average. The reference period is 1951–1980. The middle set of curves is from the OAA areas. Here the orange lines show one-year mean temperature averages for each temperature station, the red lines show average of the stations of the area, and the thick black line is a five-year running mean of the station average. The reference period is 1951–1980.
On the lower set of curves labeled “OAS vs. OAA areas,” a comparison of the two data sets of stations is shown. The blue lines are the one-year average of OAS stations of the area and the red lines are the one-year average of OAA stations of the area. The reference period is 1995–2010. We note that these Scandinavian OAS stations are not well shielded from easterly winds.
Although easterly winds are not frequent (see Figure 2), the OAS area used cannot be characterized as an optimal OAS area. Despite this, we find a difference between the OAS and OAA area temperature data. While the general five-year running mean temperature curves (left panel in Figure 3) show resemblance in warming/cooling cycles, the OAA stations show less variation than the OAS stations.
We also find the absolute temperature anomalies for the Scandinavian OAS areas deviate from the OAA area with the OAS stations showing less warming than the OAA stations during the 20th century. For the years 1920–1950, we thus find temperatures in the OAS area to be up to 1 K warmer than temperature in the OAA area. In recent years, there is a closer agreement between OAS and OAA trends and even though the Scandinavian OAS data generally are warmer than OAA data for 1920–1950, we also note that in some very cold years, OAS temperatures are slightly colder than the OAA temperatures.
The paper presents all ten regions analyzed, but I will include here the USA example to see how it compares with other depictions of US regions. For example, see the map at the top shows the dramatic difference between temperature records in Eastern versus Western US stations. Here is the assessment from Lansner and Pederson. Note the topographical realities.
For the USA (Figure 6), we defined the OAS area as consisting of eight boxes, each of size 5° X 5°. The boxes were defined as 40–45N X 100–95 W, 40–45N X 95–90W, 35– 40N X 100–95W, 35–40N X 95–90 W, 35–40N X 90–85W, 35–30N X 100– 95W, 35–30N X 95–90W, and 35–30N X 90–85W. A total of 236 temperature stations were used from this area. Full 5 X 5 grids were not found to be suited as OAA areas, but 27 stations indicated on the map were used for the OAA data set. All data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. The OAS area in the US Midwest is well protected against westerly oceanic (Pacific) winds due to the Rocky Mountains. The US Midwest is also to some degree sheltered against easterly winds due to the Appalachian mountain range. Again the temperature trends from the OAS area as defined above show the 1920–1955 period in most years to be around 1 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.
Summation
Figure 13. OAS and OAA temperature averages, Northern Hemisphere.
In Figure 13 we have combined average temperature trends for all seven NH OAS areas (blue curves) and OAA areas (brown curves) were areas are divided into low (0–45N) and high (45–90N) latitudes (dark colors are used for low and light colors for high latitudes). Both for the OAS areas and the OAA areas we see that the seven NH areas have similar development of temperature trends for 1900–2010. The larger variation in data from high latitudes (45–90N) is likely to reflect the Arctic amplification of temperature variations. OAS temperature stations further away from the Arctic (0–45N) seem to show less temperature increase during 1980–2010 than the OAS areas most affected by the Arctic (45– 90N). The NH OAS data all reveal a period of heating of the Earth surface 1920–1950 that the OAA data do not reflect well.
Figure 19. OAS and OAA temperatures, all regions.
Conclusion
Bromley et al. raise shifts in seasonality as a factor in climate change. Now Lansner and Pederson show differences in temperature trends due to ocean exposure, and also greater fluctuations with higher latitudes. Note that the cooling in the USA is replicated in the pattern shown worldwide in OAS regions. The key factor is the hotter temperatures prior to 1950s appearing in OAS records but not in OAA records.
Despite all the clamor about global warming (or recently global cooling since the hiatus), it all depends on where you are. Recognizing the diversity of local and regional climates is the sort of climate justice I can support.
Footnote:
I do not subscribe to Arctic “Amplification” to explain latitudinal differences. Since earth’s climate system is always working to transport energy from the equator to poles, any additional heat shows up in higher latitudes by meridional transport. Previous posts have noted how anomalies give a distorted picture since temperatures are more volatile at higher (colder) NH latitudes.
Clive Best provides this animation of recent monthly temperature anomalies which demonstrates how most variability in anomalies occur over northern continents.
This report will examine the scientific basis for claims of harmful effects from climate change in Texas. Assertions have been made that many areas around the world are experiencing negative impacts from unusual and unprecedented warming driven by increasing human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). Texas is no different. Promotion of the need to achieve “net zero” emissions is predicated on fear of existing and future devastating calamities resulting from CO2-enhanced warming.
The Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) report (USGCRP, 2023) says that climate change is “putting us at risk from climate hazards that degrade our lands and waters, quality of life, health and well-being, and cultural interconnectedness.” The NCA5 report lists “warmer temperatures, more erratic precipitation, and sea level rise,” as well as “drier conditions” and “extreme heat and high humidity,” as the “climate hazards” affecting the Southern Great Plains, which encompasses the State of Texas (Figure 1).
In addition, Texas A&M University has published a Texas-specific report, Future Trends of Extreme Weather in Texas (Nielsen-Gammon et al., 2024), which warns of future harm to the citizens of Texas from man-made climate change. Predicted effects include increasing temperature, precipitation, drought, floods, storms, sea-level rise and wildfires.
Within this report, we analyze scientific data from various sources, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and reports published in peer-reviewed journals.
Based on these data, we arrived at the following key findings:
The temperature in Texas has shown no unprecedented or unusual warming, despite increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Recent temperatures in Texas are similar to those found more than 100 years ago.
The annual number of 100 °F days in Texas has an overall decreasing trend.
Texas has had a modest increase of 0.0245 inches per year of precipitation during 1850– 2023, which means that Texas is in no immediate danger of becoming drier.
Droughts in Texas are not becoming more severe or numerous.
Tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods are not becoming more frequent in Texas.
Sea-level rise and coastal subsidence are not threatening or inundating the Texan coast.
Wildfires are not becoming more frequent or severe in the United States.
Air quality in the United States is generally good and getting better.
Agriculture in Texas is thriving.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is essential and beneficial for life on Earth, as CO2 greens the Earth and more CO2 allows plants to grow bigger, produce more food and better resist drought.
The evidence presented here is clear: there is no climate crisis in Texas. Not only is CO2 beneficial, but it is essential for life on Earth. Therefore, any measures for combating a purported climate crisis and for reducing CO2 emissions are not only unnecessary and costly but would also cause considerable harm to agriculture with no benefit.
Science Matters 