The next two weeks of COP30 will see three favourite climate scares relentlessly broadcast to promote the fast-fading hard-Left Net Zero fantasy. They are: breaching a 1.5°C global ‘threshold’ leading to runaway temperatures; human-caused tipping points producing unimaginable natural disasters; and attribution of single-event bad weather to the use of natural hydrocarbons. The 1.5°C figure is a meaningless number invented by politicians and activists to concentrate Net Zero minds; tipping points are climate model codswallop; and ditto attribution crystal ball-gazing. None of them are backed up by credible scientific evidence and observation. Which of course is why political elites have trashed the scientific process of inquiry, banned and cancelled any dissenting discussion and declared the matter ‘settled’.
The foundation scam is temperature. The world is said to be warming dramatically, leading to tipping points and worsening extreme weather. Changes are said to be occurring at unprecedented rates and are caused primarily by humans increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. In fact the temperature rise is small, about 1°C over 200 years (making allowance for all the fake temperature estimates and urban heat-ravaged measurements) and similar rises are commonplace in both the historical and paleo record. The recent ‘hottest evah’ rises have been seen in the past – sudden changes in temperature are caused by sudden local events such as volcano eruptions. As it happens, the underwater Hunga Tonga volcano released vast quantity of water vapour into the upper atmosphere in 2022, a ‘greenhouse’ warming event that would have been helped along by a recent strong El Niño oscillation. Recent accurate satellite measurements show the overall global temperature has been falling during 2025.
Don’t take my word for all this natural movement. Professor Mark Maslin is a Professor of something termed Earth Systems Science at UCL and one of the authors of a recent tipping point report timed for COP30. This particular computer model-based bilge suggested that warm water corals may already be crossing their “thermal tipping points”, despite the fact that coral has been around for hundreds of millions of years and survives in waters between 24-32°C. This would appear to be the same Mark Maslin who as a humble geography lecturer in 1999 wrote a paper that said possibly most of the large climate changes involving movements of several degrees occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, “and perhaps even a few years”. These days he whines that “Earth is already becoming unliveable”, while climate change politics helps build “a new political and socio-economic system”. In 2018, he was one of a number of eco-activists who signed a letter to the Guardian saying they would no longer “lend their credibility” by debating climate science scepticism.
No wonder people like Maslin – needless to say a BBC regular on all learned climate Armageddon matters – walked away from climate science debate. Tying CO2 levels to rising temperatures to make Left-wing political capital relies on observations from just a few recent years. Widen the observations out to hundreds and then hundreds of millions of years gives a different picture. Sometimes temperatures rise and fall at the same time as CO2, sometimes not. Sometimes even CO2 levels rise before the following temperatures, more often than not they don’t. The simple explanation that warming gases such as CO2 become ‘saturated’ once they pass certain concentrations, with heating falling off a logarithmic cliff, is a scientific hypothesis or opinion, but it has much to offer when past observational evidence is considered.
Let us consider some of these observations starting with the long term record over 600 million years. The graph below shows wide temperature-CO2 divergence.

Over 600 million years it is difficult to observe any general lockstep connection between temperature and gas. It might, however, be noted that over 600 million years, CO2 has generally been declining in the atmosphere to the near denuded levels seen today. As we have seen over the last 40 years even small rises in CO2 lead to significant planet-wide biomass growth. All that CO2 was good for the dinosaurs who roamed the Earth until 66 million years ago, with levels more than three times higher than today. The little extra has also been good for humans since recent crop yields have soared and helped to alleviate naturally-occurring world famine.
These records of course are very long term and are compiled from proxies with accuracy only to a few thousand years. In the more immediate record we find additional and conclusive proof that CO2 is not the main climate thermostat. Temperatures in medieval times were similar to today, possibly slightly higher in the Roman period and often 3-4°C higher in the Holocene thermal maximum around 8,000 to 5,000 years ago. During these periods, CO2 was remarkably stable around 260 parts per million, a mark that is in fact dangerously low to sustain life on Earth. The notorious Michael-Mann-1,000-year temperature ‘hockey stick’ removed the linking problem by abolishing the medieval warming period and the subsequent little ice age that ran up to around 1800.
Remarkable recent scientific evidence has emerged to suggest that abrupt rises in temperature have been a feature of the global climate going back to the iceless Jurassic period over 150 million years ago. Dramatic temperature changes based on 1,500-year cycles, as the younger Maslin can testify, have been known to have occurred in Greenland and the North Atlantic. But a group of French scientists led by Slah Boulila from the Sorbonne found large temperature hikes going back millions of years across the globe. The scientists noted warming up to 15°C within a few decades, “pointing to abrupt and severe changes in Earth’s past climate”. The 1,500 year cycles are often called Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) events after the scientists who discovered them. Some scientists have downplayed the initial DO findings and suggested the short term temperatures rises of around 1.5°C were caused by specific northern hemisphere oscillations of ice sheets and surrounding waters.
However, the French scientists note: “The 1,500-year cycle is documented in both hemispheres, in other oceans and in continents.” Their work is said to support the global nature of DO-like events, and in particular that their potential primary cause is independent of ice sheet dynamics. Meanwhile, scientific evidence continues to grow indicating much higher temperatures a few thousand years ago. One recent paper found the plant Ceratopteris had grown 8,000 years ago at 40°N in northern China, suggesting winter temperatures 7.7°C higher than today. Another found types of molluscs surviving in the Arctic Svalbard 9,000 years ago that indicated temperatures were 6°C warmer.
The current Net Zero fantasy rests on catastrophising tiny temperature rises that frankly are not even measured properly, demonising CO2 boosts that are helping Earth return to a more healthy biosphere and atmospheric balance, inventing ‘tipping points’ using junk computer models and insulting the intelligence with untestable tales claiming humans are making the weather worse.
And they call us sceptics the ‘deniers’.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The error bars on that 600 million year “global average temp” graph are probably wide enough to drive a planet through. Adding to the fact that GAT is a fantasy.
But I do find it amusing/baffling that I have seen that exact chart prominently displayed in more than one science museum, out in the open for all to see, and still the CO2 scare exists to this day.
“Adding to the fact that GAT is a fantasy.”
Thank you.
Almost half of the supposed net warming since 1900 occurred when human CO2 emissions were insignificant; that does not mean human emissions have no effect but that nothing useful can be inferred from the data at all.
There are 2 kinds of people in the climate issue…Truth Tellers … And … Soothsayers.
Those who tell the truth are open to debate as Lies can’t out debate Truths.
Those who act like Soothsayers require belief as they have no concrete proof.
It is also interesting to note that the rate of warming from 1900 to 1950 was not much different than 1975 to today. Since the rate in the first was not caused by humans the difference in rates should be the human released CO2 signature.
The current rate of global warming is about 0.25°C to 0.27°C per decade, which is more than three times the rate observed since 1850. This acceleration is leading to record-breaking temperatures, with 2024 being the warmest year on record by a significant margin and all of the 10 warmest years occurring in the past decade.
The World Meteorological Organization itself notes that the 30 year baseline may differ depending on the type of climate analysis being performed . A baseline is being chosen to give the desired result which is, of course, not science.
Misinterpretation of the scientifically useless short term rolling baselines misleads both the public and decision-makers, especially when rapid apparent changes are products of statistical artifacts rather than genuine climate phenomena.
The 30-year baseline convention is largely a matter of politics, tradition and agenda, and regular updates to the baseline obscure and misrepresent the magnitude of change, well established long term trends, and extremes in a non-stationary climate system.
Agree. Much of the disagreement about climate stems from torturing the data to show a trend in a 30-yearlong window instead of a more reasonable 300 years, or my personal preference of 1000 years, a quick blink in geologic time.
There once was a definition, micro climate – a 30 year average of weather in a specific area, region, or locale. The purpose was to give people considering moving to the area and idea of the kind of weather they would encounter.
Enter the climate dragon.
Global climate once was in terms of 100Ks of years or longer. Micro climate got repurposed so people could be emotionally impacted (eliminates the “not in my lifetime” retorts) and due to advent of satellites.
So, please strikethrough the word “tradition” from your summary statement.
The 30 year window is based on statistics, ie when noise is obscured by the trend.
False assumptions, cherry picked data and circular reasoning is all the pseudo-scientists have to support their empirically invalidated delusions.
Chris is just another idiot denier denying the warming of the world
I want to thank you for the detailed data you have provided disproving the claims by Chris. After all that is how science is supposed to work.
The Spirit (emotion) is strong but the Flesch is weak.
He doesn’t need to provide the evidence, because there is overwhelming evidence for his statements already published in the body of peer reviewed research. Eg, the IPCC assessments , NAS reports, or https://climate.nasa.gov
Yet you cannot counter, with any relevant science, anything he said.
Why is that? 😉
And NO, Chris does not “deny” there has been some slight, but highly beneficial, warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.
In fact, everything he says about temperature is basically correct.
The rate of warming since 1970 has not been ‘slight’, but rather the fastest in several thousand years
Where exactly did he say that? Could you quote the exact words?
Seems to me he was quite plain that the world has warmed. But feel free to show me where he said it hasn’t. I’m eager to learn from your obvious vast knowledge on the topic.
Indeed. Something like – ”he’s wrong!!, So there! nah nah n-nah nah”
It’s the difference between soft denial and hard denial —a matter of degree but denial just the same.
Would you rather we had been getting colder for the last 150 years? It’s one or the other; it’s not going to remain static.
Who cares about his opinion? Just like mine, his opinion will change nothing. Worthless. Why do you value worthless opinions?
I want to hear his “argument” for a continued LIA and possibly glacial advances, which would cause a LOT more problems than a little more heat.
Why? If he convinces you to accept something that is factually incorrect by his seductive arguments and cunning rhetoric, then all you have achieved is to display your gullibility and ignorance to the world!
Your choice, of course. I’m more impressed by Feynman’s comment –
Without experimental support, all dreams and fantasies are equal.
The LIA was not a globally synchronous event, but rather just regional.
What’s that got to do with anything? You believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter.
Is that the result of ignorance and gullibility, or just insanity?
You deny that co2 is a greenhouse gas? Cite any scientific reference for your claim.
Do I? What is this “greenhouse gas” to which you refer?
You must be one of those supremely ignorant and gullible people who believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter!
It doesn’t, in case you haven’t noticed!
Who here has ever denied the temperature record shows temperatures are going up?
Come on, name and shame them, but only if you have proof (because you say so, isn’t proof).
It’s clear Chris is attempting to downplay the warming:
“Recent accurate satellite measurements show the overall global temperature has been falling during 2025.”
So, not denial then.
Redge, there was also cooling between 2018 and the beginning of the El Nino at May 2023….
No doubt caused by CO2 😉
Yes, denial
only in your fevered imagination
““Recent accurate satellite measurements show the overall global temperature has been falling during 2025.””
Which is a completely correct statement. They have in fact been falling since mid 2024.
Did you know the ONLY warming in the UAH data comes from major El Nino events.
Basically near zero trend between those El Nino events
There is no evidence of any CO2 caused warming whatsoever.
And?
That is what the well known Christy/ Spencer graph shows. Compared to that peak in 2023-24 which might have occured because of the HT eruption. Prior to that is has been going up and down w a slight increasing trend.
You must be kidding. Denial of data and science is rampant on this website.
True
But not in the way you mean
🤣🤣🤣
And you didn’t answer my question.
Behold, everyone, here we have the epitome of the level of argument from the climate zombie set.
For a full, detailed picture of an idiot, you should refer to a mirror.
I’m sure he’ll look into it, when he has time.
The World has ALWAYS Warmed…And Cooled…if it never cooled then it couldn’t re-Warm.
CO2 (and there’s no difference between the CO2 nature releases and the CO2 humans release) has been significantly higher in the past…prior to ice age Earth…with somewhat warmer temperatures and both Plant and Animal Life Flourished without the fear of a Thermogeddon. Increasing CO2 cannot and will not bring about a Thermogeddon or we wouldn’t be here today to discuss it.
Now now, Eric–be nice, especially if you won’t do your part in eliminating human CO2 emissions by not exhaling. Personally, having lived through a couple of these little temperature cycles, I can say warmer is much preferable to the alternative.
Human co2 exhalation is absorbed by plant photosynthesis and has nothing to do with the climate problem which is entirely caused by human activities, mostly the burning of fossil fuels.
What exactly is this climate problem you speak of. CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is also absorbed by plant photosynthesis —plants can’t tell the difference between different sources. One can look at fossil fuels as nothing more than fossilized solar energy. BTW, I am not a climate denier, but I do remember that historical geology class some 50 years ago, and understand that the climate is always changing–has been for much longer than you or I or any human have been alive. Typically much warmer than now , but this snowball earth situation we are in has temperatures not seen very often in the planets history. Get a grip guy.
You are correct that plants absorb any CO2. But it’s the QUANTITY thats at issue. The human race exhales approximately 3 billion tons of CO2 annually
which is significantly less than the amount emitted by burning fossil fuels, which reached 36.8 billion tons of CO2 in 2023.
The key distinction is that the CO2 from human respiration is part of the Earth’s natural, fast carbon cycle, while the CO2 from fossil fuels is a net addition to the atmosphere and which the Earth cannot absorb in its carbon cycle.
And yes, certainly, the climate has always been changing — in cycles that are tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years long. What distinguishes modern day warming is that a) it is far more rapid, achieving equivalent warming in a couple of HUNDRED years, and b) is caused entirely by human activities, mostly the massive emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
Climate is the statistics of weather. No problem – a competent 12 year old Chinese could handle the task.
He’s not denying anything – he’s sceptical about the reasons given for the increases and the need for any proposed solutions which will reduce everyone’s living standards.
He should be skeptical about the lack of scientific evidence for the climate denial on this forum.
Climate is the statistics of weather. Name one commenter who denies this simple fact.
If you can’t, feel free to provide evidence that you are not a gullible and ignorant dummy who believes that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect is basic physics, taught in every secondary school. You believe in some sort of alternate reality?
Would you believe a dimwitted unsupported assertion like that, coming from someone stupid enough to believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter?
I’b be sceptical, to say the least.
My question for the climate catastrophe freaks is after the trillions of dollars spent, the rise in energy costs, the danger to the grid, the drop in reliability, the loss of choices, the energy poverty created and many other things what good has come from us doing the things you ask? I can’t think of a single good. It has been all sacrifice for not a single gain.
Certainly for the Trillion$ invested over the last 30 years, NET ZERO warming has been attenuated. Quite in fact the ONLY thing being attenuated for the Trillion$ spent is the ability of the Hoi Polloi to afford both Groceries and Energy.
Bob, they weren’t trying to do good for humanity. Remember, they think we’re a disease that needs eradicating; they just refuse to go first.
The Population Bomb.
Per UN statements: It is not about the environment. It is about reshaping the world’s economies.
There have been numerous similar dips in temperature throughout the satellite record, for example, after the 1998, 2010, 2016 El Nino events, yet in every case, the long term warming trend persisted.
It’s difficult to imagine that anyone with even a basic understanding of climate science would find this a convincing argument.
The more plausible explanation is that Chris Morrison deliberately tailors his writing to mislead a general audience with little to no background knowledge, fully aware that anyone even moderately informed would see through it and never defend it.
Utter drivel taken out of context entirely.
-…..”the underwater Hunga Tonga volcano released vast quantity of water vapour into the upper atmosphere in 2022, a ‘greenhouse’ warming event that would have been helped along by a recent strong El Niño oscillation. Recent accurate satellite measurements show the overall global temperature has been falling during 2025”.
-…..”in fact the temperature rise is small, about 1°C over 200 years”
And before you say, the fact that Hunga Tonga effect is speculative is not the point here.
Yes, the temperatures have been falling during 2025. They have also been falling for most of 2024, too (see the UAH satellite chart on the sidebar panel of this webpage). If temperatures continue to cool for about three more months, that will make it two years of cooling since early 2024. The temperatures are currently about 0.5C cooler than the high point in 2024 (Hunga Tonga?).
You just assume it will continue to warm.
According to the written record, the climate has behaved in a cyclical manner since the end of the Little Ice Age (1850, or thereabouts), where the temperatures warm for a few decades, and then they cool for a few decades, and this cycle repeats, and the difference between the high temperature and the low temperature in the cycle is about 2.0C.
That’s what history tells us. Not very scary at all.
Perhaps this warm phase is over. 🙂
Talk about misleading. The rate of warming since 1970 is the highest in thousands of years
“general audience with little to no background knowledge”
You seems to have mainly “anti-knowledge”..ie brain-washed mantra malinformation.
There is no warming in the UAH data except around those major El Nino events, which manifest in the UAH data as a spike followed by a small step change.
No evidence of any human causation whatsoever.
Chris just states the facts.. none of which you have been able to counter.
Another candidate for the Sophistry Class 1 award.
Send in 10 box tops and $1.99 (S&H) to get your medal and certificate.
The current Net Zero fantasy…… Yes, its an imaginary problem. But the remedies are also total fantasies.
The idea is move everyone in the West to generating power from wind and solar. With no way of managing intermittency. It will have little effect on global emissions since power generation is less than 30% of emissions and anyway, no-one outside the English speaking countries, that’s 80% of global emissions, is going to even try to do it.
Then move their transport and home heating to electric. Can’t be done, it will double power demand at the same time as renewables have made it unreliable and lowered capacity.
There is one positive aspect to this craziness. Usually when cultures go off their heads like this its homicidal. In the 20C it was mass murder and wars which were forms of it. This time at least they are not killing each other or themselves, they are just driving themselves into bankruptcy. I guess its progress, of a sort.
Excellent post! Solid.
Apart from fossilised plant material found in place that mustve been much warmer in the past there is much to do about icecores and what they mean.
But those icecores are often taken from places w sufficient density to establish for instance CO2 which means taking average over a period of 4000-5000 years which doesnt say anything.
In the end, what happened after the last iceage ended some 20.000 odd years ago and flux of warm and cold periods followed each other and then compare which trend follows which period. If you exclude vulcanic eruptions above and below the surface It is very odd to conclude that warmer is worse than colder, let alone be alarmed by it. And then claim nothing will actually adapt to those circumstances and simply die, like coral reefs presumably is bizarre.
I’ve witnessed climate change in a particular location. Growing season has increased over my lifetime. The spring thaw earlier the fall freeze later. This is good for farming. Hardly a catastrophe.
The list of failed catastrophic predictions increases over time.
False premises –> false conclusions.