New Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 has Zero Impact on Climate Change

A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures. The study concludes that even though most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact, the case. Instead, the study authors deduced that their research unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.

The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited, with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”

In a 2022 interview, Curry remarked that the basic facts of the climate situation are clear—global temperatures have been warming, humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 has an infrared emission spectra that, overall, acts to warm the planet. However, after that, there is much disagreement over the most consequential issues propagated to fuel the climate change narrative, such as how much of the warming has been caused by humans and how significant is human-caused warming relative to solar-variability, ocean circulation patterns, and so on?

Why are politically active scientists exaggerating the truth for political objectives? Many are now certain that, like the COVID-19 pandemic, the massive climate change scheme is about greed, power, and control. Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has become known as an outspoken scientist who doubts the “scientific consensus” on climate change. Unsurprisingly, akin to the doctors who dared speak up about the deadly mRNA COVID-19 shots, Curry was “academically, pretty much finished off” and “essentially unhirable.” But that has not stopped her from speaking up. When asked how far from reality the picture of doom and gloom painted by those pushing the climate agenda really is, Curry stated:

“It’s very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and right over bad weather. Governments, oil companies, and everything because they’re not doing enough.

People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a pipe dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It would be hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate is going to do what the climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot of inertia in the system.

If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as some people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for a very, very long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change that trajectory very much.

So, we must look forward and try to understand what’s happened. But thinking that we’re going to control the climate by going to net zero very quickly is not good.”

Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any measure than it is now. When you look at the data, she insists that period was inundated with forest fires, droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes. It makes no sense to rapidly revamp our entire energy infrastructure to rely on wind turbines and solar energy, which require a massive land and water footprint.

According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels. Dr. Curry is right. Even if society transitions to all wind and solar, massive amounts of fossil fuels will be needed to do all the mining, establish the supply chains, transport, and everything else. So, in the near term, even if the plan is to use all renewable wind and solar energy, we will need large amounts of fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat these mantras without any thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a good place.”

And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have the Science Direct study reaffirming the madness bestowed upon humanity by a despicable cohort of greedy souls. Conducted by researchers from the Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology in Warsaw, Poland, the study authors found that even if we dug up all the world’s coal, extracted all the world’s oil, and burned it in one giant pyre, the CO2 emissions from that endeavor would not heat up planet Earth. Indeed, this is because carbon dioxide does not cause the Earth to warm up indefinitely.

As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s atmosphere can only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase temperatures anymore since the saturation point was reached a long time ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse consistently emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling can contain only so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2 together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus, amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge that many things, including changes in solar activity heavily influence Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the Earth is warming, it is not a dangerous thing, commenting:

“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of what’s good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And that’s a slow creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to the West Antarctic ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens there, that’s as likely to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as it is to be with global warming.”