An effective challenge to the climate catastrophe narrative

Sept. 16, 2025

Despite the desperate efforts of the climate catastrophe crowd, very good opinion pieces arguing against their narrative keep being released. Another one appeared in the Wall Street Journal, written by Steven E. Koonin.

The article, titled, “At Long Last, Clarity on Climate,” began: “A recent Energy Department report challenged the widespread belief that greenhouse gas emissions pose a serious threat to the nation. It likely soothed Americans irked by forced energy transitions, but you would be wrong to assume it reassured many alarmed by hypothetical climate catastrophes.” 

Koonin, who is an author and a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, continued, writing that “There is a disconnect between public perceptions of climate change and climate science — and between past government reports and the science itself. Energy Secretary Chris Wright understands this. It’s why he commissioned an independent assessment by a team of five senior scientists, including me, to provide clearer insights into what’s known and not about the changing climate.”

He noted that this group has more than 200 years of research experience collectively, most of which was closely related to climate studies.

“The resulting peer-reviewed report is entirely our work, free from political influence — a departure from previous assessments,” he wrote. “It draws from United Nations and U.S. climate reports, peer-reviewed research, and primary observations to focus on important aspects of climate science that have been misrepresented to nonexperts.” 

Among the report’s key findings:

• Elevated carbon-dioxide levels enhance plant growth, contributing to global greening and increased agricultural productivity. 

• Complex climate models provide limited guidance on the climate’s response to rising carbon-dioxide levels. Overly sensitive models, often using extreme scenarios, have exaggerated future warming projections and consequences. 

• Data aggregated over the continental U.S. show no significant long-term trends in most extreme weather events. Claims of more frequent or intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and dryness in America aren’t supported by historical records. 

• While global sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1900, aggregate U.S. tide-gauge data don’t show the long-term acceleration expected from a warming globe. 

• Natural climate variability, data limitations and model deficiencies complicate efforts to attribute specific climate changes or extreme events to human CO2 emissions. 

• The use of the words “existential,” “crisis” and “emergency” to describe the projected effects of human-caused warming on the U.S. economy finds scant support in the data. 

• Overly aggressive policies aimed at reducing emissions could do more harm than good by hiking the cost of energy and degrading its reliability. Even the most ambitious reductions in U.S. emissions would have little direct effect on global emissions and an even smaller effect on climate trends. 

Koonin notes that this group’s report is the first in a good while that challenges the narrative of catastrophic climate change, and that many people are surprised by it because government has failed to accurately communicate climate science.

What is commonly called “climate science” is often more like “climate crises.” The idea is to scare people about the climate so that they will comply with the narrative and the proposed actions to protect us from catastrophe. 

So many of the previous predictions of devastation have not been correct. Here are some of the many examples of false predictions and the year in which they were made:

1967: Dire Famine Forecast by 1975

1969: Everyone Will Disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam by 1989

1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985

1971: New Ice Age Coming by 2020 or 2030

1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018

1989: Rising Sea Levels Will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000

1989: UN Warns Global Warming Will Wipe Nations Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 

2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past

2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy

2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015

2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018

2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013

2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says We Have 96 Months to Save the World

In 2024 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website published the components of our atmosphere, and the dreaded CO2 (carbon-dioxide), the gas that is blamed for leading us to a ¬catastrophic future, makes up just .04% of it. 

Some scientists say that we need twice as much CO2 to enhance plant growth, and more plants produce more oxygen. And they say that reducing the .04% level by half would seriously endanger plant and human life. 

Others who support the global warming theory, admit that lower CO2 levels would lead to lower — perhaps much cooler — temperatures, since CO2 is credited for raising temperatures.

“Climate policies must balance the risks of climate change against a response’s costs, efficacy and collateral effects,” Koonin wrote. “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.”

Given the large number of climate catastrophes that have been predicted, and that have not occurred, and given the relatively moderate current atmospheric conditions, perhaps we should relax on this topic.

An atmospheric scientist “clears the air” on climate change

April 22, 2025

The debate about global warming — or climate change, as some prefer to call it — goes on. There are essentially two sides to this debate, those who believe the environment is under attack by carbon dioxide (CO2), and those who think CO2 is not really a problem. There are regular people on both sides of the debate, and there are also scientists on both sides of it.

One scientist with significant credentials divides those who are pro and con on the global warming/climate change debate into three groups. Two of those groups are scientists, and group three, he says, are mostly politicians, environmentalists and the media.

The authority cited is Richard Lindzen, who was professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for 30 years, who wrote an article for Prager University. During his professional life, Lindzen has published more than 200 scientific papers. He notes that in his 30 years at MIT, “the climate has changed remarkably little.”

He says that during that time, “the cry of ‘global warming’ has grown ever more shrill. In fact, it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get. So, let’s clear the air and create a more accurate picture of where we really stand on the issue of global warming.”

He begins by describing the three groups involved in the debate: “Group one is associated with the scientific part of the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (Working Group 1). These are scientists who mostly believe that recent climate change is primarily due to man’s burning of fossil fuels — oil, coal and natural gas. This releases C02, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere and, they believe, this might eventually dangerously heat the planet.

“Group two is made up of scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem. This is the group I belong to. We’re usually referred to as skeptics.”

He notes that there are many reasons why the climate changes, including “the sun, clouds, oceans, the orbital variations of the earth, as well as a myriad of other inputs. None of these is fully understood, and there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor.”  

He then lists five things that the two groups generally agree on:

1. The climate is always changing.

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.

3. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.

4. Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.

5. Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that, “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

So, where does the heated discussion come from? He explains that, “Most importantly, the scenario that the burning of fossil fuel leads to catastrophe isn’t part of what either group asserts. So why are so many people worried, indeed, panic stricken about this issue. Here’s where Group Three comes in — the politicians, environmentalists, and media.

“Global warming alarmism provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they most want: For politicians it’s money and power. For environmentalists it’s money for their organizations and confirmation of their near religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature. And for the media it’s ideology, money, and headlines. Doomsday scenarios sell.”

He adds that over recent years scientists who are not directly involved in climate science have joined the crowd that believes that CO2 will destroy the Earth. They are “publishing papers blaming global warming for everything from acne to the Syrian civil war,” and others, whom he calls “crony capitalists,” are after the abundant and easily procured government subsidies.

Group three has taken the lead in the public argument, having out-shouted the other side, replacing what ought to be serious debate with organized, but inaccurate noise.

Lindzen concludes his article with this: “But while politicians, environmentalists and media types can waste a lot of money and scare a lot of people, they won’t be able to bury the truth. The climate will have the final word on that.”

We need to understand that quite a few scientists support the idea that we actually need more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less. They say plant life, hence humans, would benefit from twice the CO2, given that plants produce and release oxygen. There is also the fact that global temperatures have been higher several times in the past than they are now.

The scare tactics that the climate change faction is pumping out have done damage to the country and the people. Things such as lost jobs, economic problems, unnecessary changes to what we are allowed to purchase and how we are allowed to live our lives are not justified.

The Earth’s history is extremely long and very complicated

December 24, 2024

Estimates of Earth’s age and how long homo sapiens have been around vary somewhat. Numbers like three-to-four billion years are offered as Earth’s age, and our “ancestors” are estimated to have been here for six million years. However, our form of humans has been around for only about 200,000 years.

Over those countless centuries Earth has experienced many changes, and temperature fluctuations are among them. We have had both warm periods and cold periods along the way, and they have alternated back and forth many times.

Smithsonian Magazine explains that “Our planet’s average surface temperature did not stick close to a central point but instead has swung into very hot and very cold periods through the past 485 million years.”

“Earth has experienced cold periods (informally referred to as ‘ice ages,’ or ‘glacials’) and warm periods (‘interglacials’) on roughly 100,000-year cycles for at least the last 1 million years,” according to climate.gov. “The last of these ice age glaciations peaked around 20,000 years ago.” During these cycles, global average temperatures warmed or cooled anywhere from 5-15 degrees Fahrenheit.

Moving from an ice age to a warm period, and vice versa, is a slow, lengthy process, taking tens of thousands of years. And we are currently in a warming period.

Currently, there is an energetic debate over Earth’s increasing temperatures, with scientists and others on one side expressing a fear of temperatures warming to a dangerous level due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide/greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. 

The scientists and others on the opposing side say that this carbon dioxide level is not dangerous, and in fact that double the amount of it would actually be a good thing, spurring more and stronger plant life. Plants absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen into the atmosphere, and that is a good thing.

The climate alarmist side has predicted several catastrophes over the last 50 years, none of which actually occurred:

* In the 1970s we were warned of global cooling and a descent into a new ice age. 

* Paul Erlich claimed worldwide famine by 1975.

* It was claimed several times since 1988 that “we only have ten years left to save the planet.”

* Global warming “creator” Jim Hanson, predicted that lower Manhattan would be underwater by 2009. It isn’t.

* Al Gore predicted that the Arctic ice cap would be gone by 2015. It isn’t.

*We were told that polar bears were going to be extinct by now, but they are still around in large numbers.

*More droughts were predicted, but there have actually been fewer droughts.

* We were warned of more frequent and more intense hurricanes and tornadoes, but they have actually decreased in numbers and severity.

* Polar ice caps melting due to global warming was going to flood island nations. They are still here.

And now there is another study with a similar message. This one, conducted by the University of Bristol, also focuses on carbon dioxide/greenhouse gasses as the culprit: we must stop burning fossil fuels now, it warns.

As reported by the UK based LADbible Group, “The report suggests that Earth will cease to have any mammal inhabitants that cannot adjust to living with temperatures of between 104 to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Their research showed “all mammals will die … [and] that humans are likely to go extinct in 250 million years,” unless we stop burning fossil fuels and increasing greenhouse gas emissions now.

Obviously, 250 million years is a long way off, so we have a good bit of time to both observe what is happening and adjust if needed.

Science tells us that Earth has experienced much warmer periods in its geological history. It is said that 2023 was the warmest year on record since recordkeeping began in the late 19th century. The warming theorists say this means the Earth is warmer now than at any point in recent history.

But these temperature records only go back about 150 years, and that is a miniscule part of a warming or cooling period.

Furthermore, there are questions about the accuracy of the temperature records. Three scientists from the CERES environmental nonprofit organization — Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly, and Michael Connolly — believe that there is not a strong enough argument for the choice of the available global temperature trends used in these predictions.

In an article on The Heritage Foundation website, they commented that, “The scientific debate is still ongoing, and the scientific community is not yet in a position to establish whether the observed temperature changes since the 1800s are mostly natural, mostly human-caused, or a mixture of both.”

Another article on the Heritage site titled “Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models,” author Roy Spencer — Visiting Fellow in Heritage’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment — notes that “Warming of the global climate system over the past half-century has averaged 43 percent less than that produced by computerized climate models used to promote changes in energy policy.”

The evidence does not support the United States making radical changes in the way we want to live, and the things we prefer to have. Especially when other countries are unconcerned about it. 

What exactly is carbon dioxide, and why is it such a problem?

October 1, 2024

First it was “global warming,” and now it is “climate change.” It is caused, we are told, by too much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. CO2 is one-part carbon and two-parts oxygen. It is the carbon that is the problem.

“Carbon is a planetary paradox,” according to Arizona State University’s ASU News. “As the foundation for DNA, carbon is essential for all life on Earth. Yet, as part of the compound carbon dioxide, too much of it has built up in our air, threatening life on Earth as well.

“Today, carbon-based fuels power our very way of life. They support the global economy, transport networks and energy infrastructures. Addressing our carbon problem is, in a word, complex.

“Fortunately, it’s also a problem we can solve together.

“At Arizona State University, researchers explore many ways to reduce atmospheric carbon. And by working alongside industry, government, nonprofits and communities, they’re seeking solutions that are good not just for the planet but also human well-being.

“Experts from fields across ASU share how we can start to bring these systems into harmony and build a healthier world for ourselves and our children.

Why is carbon dioxide a problem?

“Our planet has an elegant system to recycle carbon. After making its way through plants, animals, soil, rock and ocean, it goes into the atmosphere — mainly as carbon dioxide — where it begins its journey again. But if Earth is so great at recycling carbon, how did we end up with too much in the atmosphere?

“Around 200 years ago, a key disturbance unbalanced this cycle. People found they could extract oil and coal — two forms of carbon called fossil fuels — and burn them for energy.

“In short time, our way of life came to depend on carbon-based fuel. Many of today’s amenities, like long-distance travel, buying food grown far away and lighting our homes, rely on this fuel.

“But these innovations have a hidden cost. As we burn fossil fuels, we release carbon back into the air, bypassing a natural process that would have taken thousands of years.

“From pre-industrial times to 2021, humans have added an extra 1.69 trillion metric tons to the atmosphere, and scientists estimate we added around 37 billion metric tons in 2022 alone.

“CO2 naturally traps heat, so all that extra CO2 increases Earth’s average temperature. This has noticeably affected our climate and weather patterns. These changes increase flood and fire risk, threaten crops and food security, endanger vulnerable species, expose us to new diseases, and force people to leave their homelands.”

So, that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem. What besides CO2 is Earth’s atmosphere made of? While the list of components has 16 gases, it primarily consists of four gases: nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and carbon dioxide.

The function provided by each of these is described thusly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): “Nitrogen dilutes oxygen and prevents rapid burning at the Earth's surface. Living things need it to make proteins. Oxygen is used by all living things and is essential for respiration. It is also necessary for combustion (burning). 

“Argon is used in light bulbs, in double-pane windows, and to preserve museum objects such as the original Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Plants use carbon dioxide to make oxygen. Carbon dioxide also acts as a blanket that prevents the escape of heat into outer space.”

Because CO2 absorbs heat, it is blamed for contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” “global warming,” or “climate change.”

However, the NOAA website from July 2024 tells us that the proportion of these four gases is approximately as follows: nitrogen = 78 percent; oxygen = 20.9 percent; argon = 0.9 percent; carbon dioxide = 0.04 percent.

So, with all that extra CO2 from fossil fuel use, only 4 in 10,000 atmospheric particles are CO2.

As the NOAA said, “Plants use carbon dioxide to make oxygen.” So, plants “eat” CO2 and emit oxygen. That’s a good thing, right?

In Australia, China and nations in Africa, drylands are turning greener. Why? Because of the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

“The primary reason, most recent studies conclude, is the 50-percent rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere since preindustrial times,” according to Yale Environment 360, published by the Yale University School of the Environment.

David McGee, an associate professor in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, is quoted on MIT’s Climate Portal saying that today’s CO2 levels are actually “nothing special.” “In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are today and much lower than they are today.”

And Earth’s temperatures have been both much higher and much lower than they are today.

Conceivably, the comparatively minor temperature and CO2 increases that have been witnessed recently are not so important in the context of those changes over many decades and centuries.

Perhaps these increases are not really the serious problem the climate crisis faction wants us to believe they are. And maybe if we make changes to how we do things, those changes should be less radical than those proposed.

The less frequently published side of the climate change debate

October 31, 2023

One of the hottest issues occurring these days is the debate over whether we are harming the planet and threatening human life by burning fossil fuels and adding dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

There are many people on each side of this debate, including scientists. The more frequently expressed point of view in the media is the climate catastrophe side. But to add a strong opinion to the other side of that argument, the following information from Patrick Moore is offered.

Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace, a Canadian environmentalist who previously served as president of Greenpeace Canada and director of Greenpeace International.

In a video produced by Prager University, he presented his position. “All life is carbon based. And the carbon for all that life originates from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

“All of the carbon in the fossil fuels we are burning for energy today was once in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide before it was consumed by plankton in the sea and plants on the land. Coal, oil and natural gas are the remains of those planktons and plants transformed by heat and pressure deep in the Earth’s crust. 

“In other words, fossil fuels are 100 percent organic, and were produced with solar energy. Sounds positively green. 

“If there were no carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, the Earth would be a dead planet. Period. Talk about catastrophic climate change. Take away CO2 and you’d have it. 

“And yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has deemed this essential ingredient for life a pollutant. But how can something that makes life possible be bad?” 

He went on to say that “carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas which is an indispensable food for all living things. Can you have too much of it? In theory, yes. That’s what climate alarmists say is happening now: CO2 levels are getting too high.

“Are they right? Well, if we look at the big picture, we find something surprising. For most of the history of life on Earth, carbon dioxide has been present in the atmosphere at much higher levels than it is today.”

Continuing, Moore said that “From a big picture perspective, we’re actually living in a low carbon dioxide era. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth, for example, is four to five times what is currently found in our atmosphere. That’s why greenhouse growers worldwide actually inject additional CO2 into their greenhouses.”

That certainly is not a common perspective on CO2 and the environment.

Ian Plimer is a geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. He spoke at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Challenge, a conference for climate change deniers. According to The Australian newspaper, in closing his speech, Plimer stated that "They’ve got us outnumbered, but we’ve got them outgunned, and that’s with the truth." 

An online video produced after the conference shows Plimer saying, “No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Never been shown. 

“And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97 percent of emissions which are natural do not drive global warming. Game over.

“We are dealing with a fraud. That’s a scientific fraud from day one. We hear the propaganda that increases of the gas of life, a trace gas in the atmosphere, will bring a disaster. And that we will have runaway global warming. 

“Sorry, folks. We’ve known for 200 years from chemistry that it’s the exact inverse. When we drill into ice we have chemical fingerprints that tell us what the temperature was, and we have little bits of trapped air [to examine]. And we can show that when we had natural warming, some 650 to 6,000 years later we had an increase in carbon dioxide. 

“It’s not carbon dioxide that drives temperature, it’s the exact inverse. Another fraud.”

Godfrey William Bloom is a former British politician who served as a Member of the European Parliament. His position on the argument is one that often arises when governments attempt to do something that many disagree with.

“Isn’t this really just about the state being able to get its hands in ordinary people’s trouser pockets to still get more tax from them,” he asked. “Isn’t this all about political control? Isn’t all of this about politics and big business?

“The whole thing’s a sham, this bogus hypothesis, this ridiculous nonsense that manmade CO2 is causing global warming.  Enough, please, before we damage irrevocably the global economy.”

It is crucial to recognize the need for carbon dioxide to sustain life, and also that it is possible to have too much of many things. But, if it is possible to have too much carbon dioxide, how much is actually too much? And, are we really there, yet?

This argument is not going to be resolved anytime soon. Both sides of the issue have strongly held positions. And neither side seems ready to give in to the other.

But it is important to have as many different ideas about important topics as possible so that after considering all relevant points, good decisions can be made.

Maybe CO2 isn’t the huge problem we have been told that it is

Two videos have come to light recently addressing Earth’s climate. One is by the World Cycles Institute (WCI), and the other by an Australian geologist and college professor named Ian Rutherford Plimer.

The WCI specializes in analyzing various cycles, such as currency and money, revolutions and wars, governments, markets, and our climate.

Unlike what we see and hear most often these days, presenter Peter Temple began by saying we need “a little dose of reality, because it’s getting colder and dryer, and it’s all because of the sun, and the planets.” He then addressed the cycles of Earth’s temperature over the last 11,000 years.

The video had a chart showing the history of alternating periods of warming and cooling. It showed that we are currently in the “Modern Warm Period,” the most recent of seven throughout the history of the chart.  Two of the longest periods of warming were much warmer than it is today, and occurred long ago. “In fact, the trendline shows that it’s gradually getting cooler,” Temple said, with the chart showing that peak temperatures of the warming periods have been going down. This trend, he said, is because the sun is cooling, adding that no astrophysicist disputes that fact.

Temple then said that we are entering a cooling period. How do we know this? He cited the work of Dr. Raymond Wheeler, whose team of about 200 scientists in the early 1900s researched climate temperatures from 600 BC forward. That research, using tree rings and sun spot records, discovered major cycles of temperatures and rainfall throughout the period of research. Those cycles are roughly 100, 172, 515 and 1,030 years long.

Interestingly, the warm and cold periods matched up precisely with the rise and fall of great empires, which rose in the warming periods, and fell during the cooling periods.

Wheeler’s cycles predicted extreme weather at about the year 2000, followed by a cooling period and long-term drought. Temple then says that is what is now happening. “A recent drop in solar activity is warning of a much colder time coming ahead,” he said.

In fact, Russian astrophysicist, Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov, who is head of the Russian section of the International Space Station, predicted not long ago that a mini ice age is on its way.

Temple then showed a chart from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with data gathered from Greenland ice cores, which he said supports Wheeler’s cycle theory.

Temperatures consistently turned colder every 172 years, and the last of those cycles was in 2007. Temple says that the Earth is going to get a lot colder and dryer, and this period may last several hundred years. This will be accompanied by a major financial collapse, he said, which is a feature of the 172-year cycles.

Ian Plimer appeared in an interview on Sky News a year ago, and responded to a question about the idea that instead of our end being hastened by global warming, we are actually headed toward an ice age by saying that, as Temple noted, our climate is cyclical.

“We are getting towards the end of a warm period … and we are heading for the next inevitable ice age,” Plimer said.

“We have had six major ice ages during which we’ve had glaciations -- that’s when the ice expands -- and warmer periods when the ice retreats. All that happened before humans were on planet Earth, and every single major ice age started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now,” he said. “And to use the words ‘climate emergency’ indicates that you have absolutely no knowledge about the past.”

Responding to a question about the “link between humans and global warming,” and whether these claims are correct or not, he replied, “No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming.”

He then asked anyone with such proof to show him the scientific papers that prove it. Citing the fact that so many people live in cities rather than in rural areas, they have not experienced nature in the same way as those who live in the more rural areas.

“So, we have a city-based population that doesn’t read the scientific literature, and has had no life experience [about climate], and they are telling us the ‘chicken little’ story that the sky is falling in. Well I’m sorry folks, there is a very, very large amount of scientific evidence out there that shows that we live in exceptionally boring times. And we’re just having cycles of climate come and go.”

He then cited the major factor in our climate that makes it warmer and cooler without our permission: the sun.

In the email he was quoted as saying that a four-day eruption of a volcano in Iceland negated every single effort we have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet.

And, as with every similar explanation that contradicts the climate doom narrative, many have criticized him.

There are experienced scientists that provide strong arguments, backed by data, that we are not about to destroy the Earth with CO2.