Shock New Evidence Showing No Link Between CO2 and Temperature Over Last Three Million Years Stumps Net Zero Activists

Guest essay by Chris Morrison of the Daily Skeptic

The climate science world (‘settled’ division) is in shock following the discovery in ancient ice cores that levels of carbon dioxide remained stable as the world plunged into an ice age around 2.7 million years ago. Levels of CO2 at around 250 parts per million (ppm) were said to be lower than often assumed with just a 20 ppm movement recorded for the following near three million-year period. In addition, no changes in methane levels were seen in the entire period. Massive decreases in temperature with occasional interglacial rises appear to have occurred without troubling ‘greenhouse’ gas levels, and this revelation has caused near panic in activist circles.

The assumed level three million years ago of COwas around 400 ppm, a convenient mark that has been used to explain the subsequent ice age and a drop to 250 ppm. Due to the recently published paper, this explanation has become more problematic and natural climate variation is correctly noted to have occurred with the temperature changes. Alas, similar explanations are mostly ignored in discussing today’s climate changes in the interests of promoting the Net Zero fantasy. Some cling desperately to a dominant CO2 role, including one of the authors of the findings published in Nature. The co-author states that the results suggest even greater climate sensitivity to the warming effect of CO2. In short, there is a great deal of applying the laws of physics and chemistry to one era, but failing to extend the same courtesy to another.

The title of the paper, produced by 17 America-based scientists, was enough to set alarm bells ringing in the ‘settled’ science, Net Zero-obsessed community: ‘Broadly stable atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels over the past three million years.’ A related paper examining ocean heat content derived from the ice core record was also published. Carrie Lear, Professor of Past Climates and Earth System Changes at Cardiff University, claimed that the papers “don’t rewrite the role of CO2, they underline how sensitive the climate system is… that is why today’s rapid  CO2 rise is so alarming”.

Ah, yes. Even if COmovements are minimal, probably within a margin of potential error, they are still responsible for large variations in temperature. The laws of climate science are ‘settled’ – if the trace atmospheric gas CO2 is rising, falling or generally stable, it is almost wholly responsible for large movements in global temperature. Under this rather shaky assumption, humans must stop burning hydrocarbons and return to a neo-Malthusian pre-industrial age.

Study lead author Julia Marks-Peterson noted: “We definitely were a bit surprised. If correct, the findings may suggest that even small changes in greenhouse gas levels could trigger major shifts in climate.” That’s a little bit of a scary thought, she added, possibly with an eye on future grant funding. “May suggest” is doing a lot of the work here, and it may also be suggested that more plausible opinions are available.

Quoted in New Scientist magazine, Tim Naish, Professor of Earth Science at Victoria University in New Zealand, said it was “way too early to thrown the baby out with the bathwater”. Perish the thought that baby should be given its marching orders, ending a science-lite 40-year demonisation of CO2 and related promotion of a hard-Left Net Zero dream.

The latest Nature-published research gives a snapshot from ancient Antarctica ‘blue’ ice drilled in the Allan Hills area. It looks back further in time past the usual 800,000 ice core records. The key finding is that over the last three million years, when sea levels fell and ice periods intensified, the level of the main ‘greenhouse’ gases remained remarkably stable. For the first time, the work has pushed the direct gas measurements back into the late Pliocene era. Over the last three million years moving into the Pleistocene, global temperatures showed a long-term cooling trend of several degrees Celsius, interrupted by increasingly large interglacial oscillations. Interglacial temperature swings, as in the current Holocene, often see temperatures rise by 5°C and more.

Critics seeking to downplay ice core evidence often suggest it is too imprecise to provide a wholly accurate record of gas levels and temperature. But it is accurate enough to give a broad cyclical insight. It remains the source of some of the best data we have on the past climate. It is undoubtedly more accurate than most proxy evidence from millions of years ago. But whatever the evidence used, it is hard to detect any obvious and continuous link between CO2 and temperature across the entire geological record going back 600 million years to the start of abundant life on Earth. Certainly none to justify the political notion that humans control the climate thermostat by burning hydrocarbons.

In fact the evidence is so slim that Les Hatton, Emeritus Professor in Computer Science at Kingston University, was recently able to determine from ice core records that 100-year rises of 1.1°C in the current interglacial, which started 20,000 years ago, have occurred in one in six centuries. Going back 150,000 years, the frequency was around one in six to one in 20 centuries. None of these findings suggest that current warming is either unusual or primarily caused by human activity. Needless to say, none of these findings trouble the headline writers in narrative-addicted mainstream media.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.8 12 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
KevinM
March 28, 2026 10:06 am

Title: “Shock New Evidence Showing No Link Between CO2 and Temperature Over Last Three Million Years”

Quote from body: Study lead author Julia Marks-Peterson noted: “We definitely were a bit surprised. If correct, the findings may suggest that even small changes in greenhouse gas levels could trigger major shifts in climate.”

These conflicting statements should be reconciled.

David Wojick
Reply to  KevinM
March 28, 2026 10:22 am

Easy. The body quote is a ridiculous attempt at theory saving against contrary evidence.

David Wojick
March 28, 2026 10:21 am

Speaking of film at 11 here is a big new skeptical movie coming:
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/climate-unsettled-real-story/2026/03/27/id/1251014/

March 28, 2026 10:23 am

“…no changes in methane levels were seen in the entire period.”
_________________________________________________

So what?

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Case
March 28, 2026 12:29 pm

Well Methane is a producer of CO2 and H2O (both GHGs) as it oxidizes. So no increase in Methane eliminates the potential for increased CO2/H2O AND Methane is in and of itself another GHG.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
March 28, 2026 10:30 am

It seems to me that more skeptic evidence and opinions are getting print and air time now. It appears that the worm has turned.

KevinM
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
March 28, 2026 10:49 am

Newbies are floating test ideas: What if we print the obvious truth once in a while? I assume that it sneaks through to press on their editor’s “work from home” days.

However the skeptical opinions on this article seem to belong to author Morrison’s evaluation of the data and not the data gatherer’s evaluation of same. The hyphenated data gatherer took the party line, possibly to prolong her career at OSU.

bdgwx
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
March 28, 2026 11:52 am

Did you read the publications cited in the article? I ask because they are not even remotely close to what most of the WUWT audience would categorize as “skeptical”. Quite the opposite actually…most of the audience here would categorize the evidence presented in the article as “alarmist”.

ricksanchez769
March 28, 2026 10:37 am

Trump cures cancer – headlines next day in trad media “Trump relegates thousands of Oncologists to the unemployment line”. The hyperbole among these climate grifters knows no bounds…CO2 is purely something that can be measured. This measurement cannot be correlated to anything (other than a greener \ leafier \ grassier planet. The cognitive dissonance among these grifters is ponderous. CO2 at 400ppm at the same time the planet was in ice age conditions vs today CO2 at 400ppm and supposedly the planet is in pizza oven conditions…wtf. When your livelihood depends on something being the culprit for imminent disaster, you’re always going to contort this something is the culprit for disaster.

ResourceGuy
March 28, 2026 11:04 am

The frozen rhinos of the Canadian arctic will be glad to know.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260324024245.htm

Bruce Cobb
March 28, 2026 11:33 am

One must not ever underestimate the power of The Force I mean,The Carbon.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 28, 2026 12:32 pm

Carbon is Black so it must be “The Dark Side of the Force”.

bdgwx
March 28, 2026 11:45 am

Shock New Evidence Showing No Link Between CO2 and Temperature Over Last Three Million Years Stumps Net Zero Activists

The title here is strikingly contradictory to what the “shock new evidence” says. Like…as in the evidence is the exact opposite of the thesis presented in the title.

And since when did WUWT start publishing content that most of its audience would categorize as “alarmist”?

Mr.
Reply to  bdgwx
March 28, 2026 12:29 pm

See, there’s the difference between this site and the ideology-based “agw narrative” publications and media.

To paraphrase Forest Gump’s mom –
“Climates are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.”

Bryan A
Reply to  bdgwx
March 28, 2026 12:36 pm

If WUWT didn’t publish Alarmist Articles the Gentle Readers here would have nothing to poke holes in.
Nothing to point fingers at and exclaim “The Emperor has no Clothes”.
Nothing to use to shine a Search light on the Hypocrisy of the Liberal Left.

ScienceABC123
March 28, 2026 12:36 pm

When new facts don’t match what you anticipated, do you change what you now know or do you change the facts? Science does one, politics does the other.