‘Tenfold variations in CO2 over the past half-billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature’

Israeli Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv
Table of Contents

    Translate this page into your preferred language

    Israeli Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv – Pseudoscience on CO2

    How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted – ‘Tenfold variations in CO2 over the past half-billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature’

    Professor Nir Shaviv, the chairman of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: “The West would then realize that global warming never was and never will be a serious problem…To begin with, the story we hear in the media, that most 20th-century warming is anthropogenic, that the climate is very sensitive to changes in CO2, and that future warming will, therefore, be large and will happen very soon, simply isn’t supported by any direct evidence, only a shaky line of circular reasoning.”

    Shaviv: “There is no evidence on any time scale showing that CO2 variations or other changes to the energy budget cause large temperature variations. There is, however, evidence to the contrary. Tenfold variations in CO2 over the past half-billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature; likewise, the climate response to large volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa.Both examples lead to the inescapable upper limit of 1.5 degrees C per CO2 doubling—much more modest than the sensitive IPCC climate models predict. However, the large sensitivity of the latter is required in order to explain 20th-century warming, or so it is erroneously thought.”

    Censorship: “My interview with Forbes. A few hours after the article was posted online, it was removed by the editors “for failing to meet our editorial standards.” The fact that it’s become politically incorrect to have any scientific discussion has led the public to accept the pseudo-argumentation supporting the catastrophic scenarios.”

    The truth about CO2

    There is no evidence at all from Earth’s long climate history that carbon dioxide has ever determined global temperatures.

    We’re going back in time now 650,000 years. Here’s what the temperature has been on our Earth. Now, one thing that kind of jumps out at you is. Do they ever fit together? The relationship is actually very complicated.

    Professor Ian Clarke is a leading Arctic paleoclimatologist who looks back into the Earth’s temperature record 10s of millions of years.

    Professor Clark and others have indeed discovered, as Al Gore says, a link between carbon dioxide and temperature. But what Al Gore doesn’t say is that the link is the wrong way round.

    So here we’re looking at the ice core record from Vostok, and we see temperature going up from early time to later time at a very key interval when we came out of a glaciation and we see the temperature going up, and then we see the CO2 coming up. CO2 lags behind that increase. It’s got an 800 year lag. So temperature is leading CO2 by 800 years.

    The temperature rises or falls, and then after a few hundred years, carbon dioxide follows. So obviously, Carbon dioxide is not the cause of that warming. In fact, we can say that the warming produced the increase in carbon dioxide.
    CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes. It’s a product of temperature, It’s following temperature changes.

    So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of of climate change due to humans, Is shown to be wrong.

    Humans produce a small fraction in the single digits percentage wise of the CO2 that is produced in the atmosphere. Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories and cars and planes and other sources of man-made carbon dioxide put together. More still comes from animals and bacteria, which produce about 150 gigatons of CO2 each year, compared to a mere 6 1/2 gigatons from humans. And even larger source of CO2 is dying vegetation from falling leaves, for example in the autumn. But the biggest source of CO2 by far is the oceans.

    The ocean is the major reservoir into which carbon dioxide goes when it comes out of the atmosphere or to from which it is re emitted to the the atmosphere….

    The reason is that oceans are so big and so deep, they take literally hundreds of years to warm up and cool down. This time lag means the oceans have what scientists call a memory of temperature changes. The ocean has a memory of past events running out as far as 10,000 years. So for example, if somebody says, oh, I’m seeing changes in the North Atlantic, this must therefore mean that the climate system is changing.

    In reality it may only mean that something happened in a remote part of the ocean decades or hundreds of years ago, whose effects are now beginning to show up in the North Atlantic.

    The current warming began long before people had cars or electric lights. In the past 150 years, the temperature has risen just over half a degree Celsius. But most of that rise occurred before 1940. Since that time, the temperature has fallen for four decades and risen for three.


    The air is 99 per cent nitrogen & oxygen – argon most of the next 1 per cent.

    Does a Global Temperature Exist?

    Physical, mathematical, and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming.

    While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them.

    Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere.

    A given temperature field can be interpreted as both ‘‘warming’’ and ‘‘cooling’’ simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.

    The Models Are OK, the Predictions Are Wrong, Dr. Judith Curry

    2023 The Dr Jordan B Peterson Podcast

    Dr Jordan B Peterson and Dr. Judith Curry discuss climate change, the major error in current models and future predictions, academic fraud, and the need for dissenting opinions.

    Dr. Judith Curry is an American climatologist with a Bachelor’s degree in geography from Northern Illinois University, and a geophysical sciences Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Curry is the professor Emerita and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

    She has had an accomplished career, working with NASA, the US Government, and numerous academic institutions in the field of climate change.

    Curry advocates for a non-alarmist approach, acknowledging Earth’s rising temperature with a grain of salt—in-field research, and a refusal to shut the doors of science to those with opposing views and findings.

    In 2017 Dr. Curry retired from her position at the Georgia Institute of Technology, citing “the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around man-made climate change” as a key factor.

    Curry co-founded and acts as president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN), which seeks to translate cutting-edge weather and climate research into tenable forecast products.

    Dr Peterson’s extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+:

    Arctic summer sea ice stopped declining a decade ago

    Arctic summer sea ice stopped declining a decade ago, but green activists have spared no effort to continue promoting the poster scare that humans will cause it all to disappear within a few years.

    In his recent BBC Frozen Planet II agitprop, Sir David Attenborough claimed it might all be gone by 2035. In an excellent piece of investigative reporting titled Lies, Damned Lies and Arctic Graphs, the climate writer Tony Heller recently lifted the lid on many of the tactics used to keep the scare in the headlines.

    “They bury all the older data and pretend they don’t notice sea ice is increasing again. What they are doing is not science but propaganda,”.

    The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

    There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

    That is, until the NOAA’s statisticians “adjust” the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That’s clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.


    Climate Scientists Destroy Climate Change Alarmism

    It was warmer for at least 95% of the last 10,000. years

    1922: The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface

    Earth can regulate its own temperature over millennia


    Scientists have confirmed that a “stabilizing feedback” on 100,000-year timescales keeps global temperatures in check.

    The Earth’s climate has undergone some big changes, from global volcanism to planet-cooling ice ages and dramatic shifts in solar radiation. And yet life, for the last 3.7 billion years, has kept on beating.

    Now, a study by MIT researchers in Science Advances confirms that the planet harbors a “stabilizing feedback” mechanism that acts over hundreds of thousands of years to pull the climate back from the brink, keeping global temperatures within a steady, habitable range.

    Stanford Academic Freedom Conference Nov 4-5 2022

    Climate: Bjorn Lomborg and Noah Diffenbaugh
    Medicine (min 20) Jay Bhattacharya and John Ioannidis
    Moderator: John H. Cochrane

    There is No Climate Emergency – 1,200 Scientists and Professionals Declare

    The political fiction that humans cause most or all climate change and the claim that the science behind this notion is ‘settled’, has been dealt a savage blow by the publication of a ‘World Climate Declaration (WCD)’ signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals.

    There is no climate emergency, say the authors, who are drawn from across the world and led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.

    Astrophysicist, Piers Corbyn: “Man-made climate change does not exist”.

    March 2018 Dr W Happer, Dr. S.E Koonin, Dr. R. S. Lindzen report

    1. The climate is always changing; changes like those of the past half-century are common in the geologic record, driven by powerful natural phenomena
    2. Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to naturalenergy flows
    3. It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can beascribed to human influences
    4. There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salientclimate variables and today’s projections of future changes are highly uncertain

    David DuByne – a 400 Grand Solar Minimum cycle

    David DuByne presents at Alternative View May 2019 in the UK describing what a 400 Grand Solar Minimum cycle is and how it has effected societies in the past. Based on the past we can get a close in time line for changes you would expect to see. You decide for yourself.

    John Lee Pettimore – As a miner for 40 years I have worked in various mines around the world. 

    As a miner for 40 years I have worked in various mines around the world. Gold, platinum, copper, coal, lead, zinc, oil and salt.I’m going to tell you something, and here it is. We will destroy the earth in the name of “Green Energy” Follow along and I will explain.

    MiningWatch Canada is estimating that “[Three] billion tons of mined metals and minerals will be needed to power the energy transition” – a “massive” increase especially for six critical minerals: lithium, graphite, copper, cobalt, nickel and rare earth minerals

    Over the next 30 years 7.5 billion of us, we will consume more minerals than the last 70,000years or the past 500 generations, which is more than all of the 108 billion humans who have ever walked the Earth.

    Mining requires the extraction of solid ores, often after removing vast amounts of overlying rock. Then the ore must be processed, creating an enormous quantity of waste – about 100 billion tonnes a year, more than any other human-made waste stream.

    Purifying a single tonne of rare earths requires using at least 200 cubic meters of water,which then becomes polluted with acids and heavy metals. On top of that, imagine thedestruction and energy required to obtain these essential metals:

    • 18,740 pounds of purified rock to produce 2.2 pounds of vanadium
    • 35,275 pounds of ore for 2.2 pounds of cerium
    • 110,230 pounds of rock for 2.2 pounds of gallium
    • 2,645,550 pounds of ore to get 2.2 pounds of lutecium
    • Also staggering amounts of ore are needed for other metals.

    Lecture at TU Delft shows the “complete and utter bullshit” of climate politicians.

    Lezing bij TU Delft laat de ‘complete and utter bullshit’ van klimaatpolitici zien.
    Dutch Article on website Google translate version

    Video below in dutch language only. Youtube translation does a good job (for as long as it’s not censored)


    prof. De Lange: The Netherlands does not have a ‘nitrogen crisis’

    Professor Kees de Lange, emeritus professor, but still fully active in science. He recently, together with fellow scientists from the American think tank the ‘CO2 Coalition’, put the finishing touches to an extensive scientific article on the ‘nitrogen problem’. The conclusion is clear: there is no ‘nitrogen crisis’. It is an official fabrication, based on a ‘model’ of the RIVM in which deviations of more than 100% from reality are the rule rather than the exception.

    NASA study – a geothermal heat lies deep below Antarctica

    Although the heat source isn’t a new or increasing threat to the West Antarctic ice sheet, it may help explain why the ice sheet collapsed rapidly in an earlier era of rapid climate change, and why it is so unstable today.

    An environmentalist’s apology: ‘I was guilty of alarmism’

    This article was originally published on Forbes website, but subsequently taken down.

    Here are some facts few people know:

    • Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’
    • The Amazon is not ‘the lungs of the world’
    • Climate change is not definitively making natural disasters worse
    • Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
    • The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
    • Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have declined in Britain, Germany, and France from the mid-1970s 
    • Netherlands is becoming richer, not poorer while adapting to life below sea level 
    • We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
    • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are potentially larger threats to species than climate change
    • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
    • Preventing future pandemics requires more not less ‘industrial’ agriculture

    I know that the above facts will sound like ‘climate denialism’ to many, but that just shows the power of climate alarmism. 

    In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

    Economic “Normalization” of Disaster Losses 1998-2020

    This paper reviews 54 normalization studies published 1998 to 2020 and finds little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales can be attributed to human-caused changes in climate, reinforcing conclusions of recent assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

    Roger Pielke Jr.
    University of Colorado Boulder
    Environmental Hazards (in press, 2021)

    Despite gloomy headlines, our planet is getting cleaner and healthier

    The media sells bad news, but scientific evidence shows that we are making progress toward a greener planet. Cameron English December 20, 2022

    There is no shortage of bad news in media headlines. “Climate change is already killing us,” the World Health Organization (WHO) declared in the run up to the UN’s COP 27 Climate Change Conference. “Low levels of air pollution deadlier than previously thought,” McGill University lamented. “Brazil’s plans to pave an Amazon road could open path to more deforestation,” yet another despondent headline from NPR blared. 

    Most people undoubtedly accept that climate change, air pollution, and deforestation are very real problems we ought to take seriously. What fewer of us seem to realize, however, is that the world has taken these issues seriously and made significant progress toward solving them as a result. This observation leads us to an important but oft-overlooked conclusion: Economic growth and technological innovation are making our planet a cleaner, safer place to live.

    Pollution is plummeting
    More food on less land
    What about climate change?
    Greener planet

    Why global warming is good for us

    But because good news is no news, green pressure groups and environmental correspondents in the media prefer to ignore global greening. Astonishingly, it merited no mentions on the BBC’s recent Green Planet series, despite the name. Or, if it is mentioned, the media point to studies suggesting greening may soon cease. These studies are based on questionable models, not data (because data show the effect continuing at the same pace). 

    The biggest benefit of emissions is global greening, the increase year after year of green vegetation on the land surface of the planet. Forests grow more thickly, grasslands more richly and scrub more rapidly. This has been measured using satellites and on-the-ground recording of plant-growth rates. It is happening in all habitats, from tundra to rainforest. In the four decades since 1982, as Bjorn Lomborg points out, NASA data show that global greening has added 618,000 square kilometres of extra green leaves each year, equivalent to three Great Britains. You read that right: every year there’s more greenery on the planet to the extent of three Britains.

    Vegetation structural change since 1981 significantly enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink

    Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening
    • Long-term satellite records reveal a significant global greening of vegetated areas since the 1980s, which recent data suggest has continued past 2010.
    • Pronounced greening is observed in China and India due to afforestation and agricultural intensification.
    • Global vegetation models suggest that CO2 fertilization is the main driver of global vegetation greening.
    • Warming is the major cause of greening in boreal and Arctic biomes, but has negative effects on greening in the tropics.
    • Greening was found to mitigate global warming through enhanced land carbon uptake and evaporative cooling, but might also lead to decreased albedo that could potentially cause local warming.
    • Greening enhances transpiration, a process that reduces soil moisture and runoff locally, but can either amplify or reduce runoff and soil moisture regionally through altering the pattern of precipitation.

    The North Pacific is cooling and Antarctica is growing.

    Climate change has sparked a major debate amongst top climatology experts on how weather patterns are being affected by rising surface temperatures but it appears not all experts agree on how this effect is happening.

    As it turns out, We were Wrong: The North Pacific is cooling and Antarctica is growing.

    Weather patterns have seen some remarkable changes in the past decades, something which many might attribute to Climate Change but as it turns out, experts disagree that these changes might not be caused by Climate change at all.

    One of the major countries that sits right in the middle of these fluctuating weather changes is Australia. The country has been drastically affected by the famous La Ninã winds resulting in major flooding and cooler summers on the country’s east coast for the past couple of years.

    For those of us who might not be conversant with the La Ninã weather phenomenon, let’s break it down for you. La Niña is a major part of a natural climatic cycle that blows cool air over the tropical Pacific ocean. It is one part of a larger cycle with the other part being El Niño, which blows much warmer winds than La Niña.

    Both weather events alternate effects on both ends of the central and eastern tropical Pacific with sea surface temperatures varying between both events. Both weather events are collectively called the El Nino–Southern Oscillation or ENSO. The varying effects of La Ninã and El Niño have monumental effects on weather patterns bringing severe tropical rains and floods to one region while simultaneously bringing droughts to others and the cycle shifts.

    Although the climatic effects and impacts of ENSO are largely felt in regions around the tropical Pacific, these effects can very well extend to any part of the Globe making ENSO the prevalent force in driving global interannual climate variability.

    The effects of ENSO on precipitation and temperature change are prominently felt around East and Southern Africa, Southeast Asia, Western Americas, Australia, and Antarctica.

    John Coleman – Founder of the Weather Channel

    John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, has long been outspoken against the notion of man-made climate change, and after he penned an open letter, Brian Stelter invited the “climate denier” on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Sunday morning.

    “I resent you calling me a denier, that is a word meant to put me down,” Coleman told Stelter, pulling no punches right off the bat.
    “I’m a skeptic about climate change, not a denier.” Coleman then attacked CNN: CNN has taken a very strong position on global warming, that it is a consensus. Well there is no consensus in science.

    Science isn’t a vote. Science is about facts…[Man-made climate change] has been become a big political point of the Democratic Party and part of their platform, but the science is on my side. He added that he was happy he got a chance to tell CNN viewers,

    Coleman: “I resent you calling me a denier, that is a word meant to put me down. I’m a skeptic about climate change and I want to make it darn clear that Mr. Kennedy is not scientist, I am.
    Stelter: “I don’t think we’re gonna come to a conclusion about the topic right here–” Coleman: “Well, I know we’re not because you wouldn’t allow it to happen on CNN, but I’m happy that I got on the air and got a chance to talk to your viewers . . . Hello, everybody . . . There is no global warming.” Stelter: “What I do wonder is when you see the government, when you see NASA, when you see other institutions say that 97% of climate scientists agree, do you think they’re making it up? What I don’t understand is how you square that.”

    Coleman: “Well, that’s a manipulated figure and let me explain it to you. The government puts out about two-and-a-half billion dollars directly for climate research every year, it only gives that money to scientists who will produce scientific results that support the global warming hypothesis of the Democratic Party, the position, so, they don’t have any choice. If you’re gonna get the money, you’ve gotta support their position, therefore, 97% of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is. It’s real simple, but that doesn’t mean it’s right, that doesn’t make it true, that only makes it bought and paid for, the money goes in circles.”

    Stelter: “I’m not a scientist, I’m not gonna try to refute you on the facts–” Coleman: “Well, that’s the truth. Please stand back from this issue and let the two sides be on the air. There are 31,000 scientists that have signed a petition that says it is not valid, that my position is correct, and we’ll keep battling, and we will prevail in time.”

    Climate facts Website – (Google translate redirect)

    Ferdinand Meeus Doctor in de Wetenschappen (Chemie, fotofysica, fotochemie)
    Lid Alumni KU Leuven. IPCC expert reviewer AR6. Klimaatverandering is van alle tijden.

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” — Richard Feynman

    Twitter Feeds

    Ferdinand Meeus
    Peter Clack

    Science was the final frontier of truth in a complex and evolving world. The United Nations has exploited and damaged the credibility of all science.

    Nir Shaviv

    Professor, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Interests: Astrophysics, Climate, Science. I’ll address *specific* science questions, general comments mostly ignore.