Eight billion humans living on the Earth breathe out two pounds of carbon dioxide every day, yet Net Zero fanatics have long argued that this gas of all planetary life is a pollutant. Despite all the observable evidence going back at least 600 million years, the activists link increasing levels of the gas to runaway high temperatures and concoct a politically-inspired story that suggests that humans control a chaotic and non-linear climate. Their computer models tell them so, particularly when provided with all the correct data. One vital cornerstone of all this nonsense is an ‘Endangerment Finding’ from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that in 2009 termed CO2 a ‘pollutant’ of something termed clean air. The pollution scare has been influential around the world and has been used to justify countless regulations and bans in the interest of the Net Zero fantasy. Such is the totemic nature of this finding it is perhaps not surprising that it hasn’t taken long for the Trump Administration to strike at the heart of the Green Blob with the new head of the EPA reported to be urging the White House to rescind the ruling.
Back in 2007, the EPA charged that greenhouse gases “endangered both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations”. It said that emissions from motor vehicles contributed to greenhouse gas “air pollution” that endangered public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act. The science was suspect then, it is even more dodgy now.
As it did with medical matters over Covid, so with Net Zero, the Daily Sceptic has always taken a keen and investigative interest in the underlying science backing any major political course of action. It is obvious that any acceptance that human-caused CO2 does not control the climate thermostat would lead to the entire Net Zero edifice, cherished particularly by control freaks on the Left, falling like a House of Cards. As with Covid, the need to keep populations onside with the scare means that every effort is taken in the mainstream to shut down debate.
Carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas that has warming properties in the atmosphere. But it has long been known that these properties diminish with higher atmospheric volumes, an observation that explains why runaway global temperatures have not been recorded in the past when levels were over 10 times higher. Plants have evolved to thrive in CO2 amounts three times higher than current denuded levels. There is still widespread speculation as to the rate of global temperature increase that will occur if CO2 doubles in the atmosphere, with estimates ranging from a ‘saturated’ low around 0.5°C to the alarming claims of 10°C or more. Many computer models are deliberately fed with ‘pathways’ that assume very high future temperature rises, all the better to produce clickbait stories of imaginary climate ‘tipping’ points.
Because nobody knows what the correct figure is, although much of the evidence points to lower, even negligible amounts, it is reasonable to state that the hypothesis (opinion) that humans control significant climate change by releasing CO2 is unproven without a single science paper to validate the claim. It is for this reason that political activists invented the lie that there is an overwhelming consensus on anthropogenic warming and the science is hereby ‘settled’. Not only was it deemed settled, but any further discussion risked comparison with denying the Jewish Holocaust in Nazi Germany. Every now and then some idiot can be relied on to suggest the deniers should be sent to jail. As a result the activists, aided by mainstream media, have been able to promote the fantastical notion that the world can do without hydrocarbons and rely instead on breezes and sunbeams backed by controls and lifestyles more suited to a pre-industrial, less civilised age.
Such is the essential silliness behind Net Zero that, coupled with a growing realisation that much of the ‘settled’ science is based on models and junk data, it is unsurprising that it is unravelling so fast in the United States and elsewhere. Unlike Trump 1.0, the latest incarnation of the Donald has been long in the planning. The entire woke agenda including Net Zero has been struck hard and with devastating precision. The EPA endangerment finding is the “holy grail” of the climate agenda, noted Marc Morano of Climate Depot. “If you want to permanently cripple the United States climate agenda you have to go at the heart of it”, he wrote. “This is the heart of it.”
There is still some way to go to remove the CO2 endangerment finding since it is tied into the Clean Air Act. Changes of the law, in addition to executive action, might be needed to protect against the inevitable lawsuits funded by the almost unlimited amounts of money provided by the still powerful Green Blob. However, hearings in a Republican Congress could help clear the air and define the actual ‘danger’ that human-caused CO2 presents. The suggestion that CO2 is a risk is ubiquitous in the original EPA finding but considerably more scientific information is now available on the actual ‘risk’ posed by the gas. It is getting more difficult to argue that CO2 is a clear and present danger when a little extra warmth has saved lives and increased food supplies, while the gas itself has boosted global leaf growth by up to 15% in recent years. Activists will no doubt claim that there is now more extreme weather such as hurricanes, flooding, droughts and wildfires, a line of argument that might be hampered by an almost total lack of evidence to back up their contentions.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Not a bad start to Sunday. Let’s hope they can get the Clean Air Act changed ASAP.
Another common sense article
And here’s a graph I got off this website (can’t remember who posted it, but thankyou)
I use this chart anytime anyone starts bleating on about Co2, the dumbstruck look on their face’s ought to be bottled!
‘The Science’. So much of it, is simply stupid and fraud chasing money and power, not to mention winds and vanities.
Co2 as a pollutant? Honestly, the level of brain dead in our world is simply off the charts. Surely there are real issues to worry about and deal with?
Yes, brilliant piece of work showing the stupidity of believing CO2 as a threat. We could do with a lot more.
The task at hand is monumental, but at last I see a ray of hope, because finally a leading political figure gets it. Without challenging the foundational premise, it is basically impossible to stop the fanatical climate agenda.
A major breakthrough will be when we can say CO2 isn’t a pollutant and we aren’t a threat to the climate without being looked at as if you are mad or stupid.
Spot on
We have already achieved that in Reform UK’s explosive membership. By the end of this year Net Zero policies will be regarded as embarrassing stupidity.
The endangerment of green despotism is a perverted despising of humanity.
Meanwhile over here in Limeyland, with copious funding from green pseuds Imperialist College peddles the voodoo-science of world weather attribution…
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/global-development-hub/shifting-the-climate-misconception/
…Know thine enemy.
If you ask ChatGPT about Climate Change it will spew the same spiel as the activists. You can discuss the ethics about what they plan to do about it with regards to the developing nations and poverty and the like, and it will still stick to it’s guns… extreme weather, boiling seas, Yadda Yadda.
Interestingly though, if you tell it to only use raw data, to look at the frequency of storms, fires, all that jazz, it comes to a very different conclusion; It admits that the activists are alarmist. That nothing is needed to be done.
In the same chat thread, you can ask it to revisit earlier ethical arguements and it will say that with raw data rather than The Guardian as a source, the consequences of fighting ‘Climate Change’ are far worse for humanity than the models.
AI the great humanist.
Interesting. Reminded of you.gov – answer depends on how question framed.
Pretty much. I assume it has some weight put on the perceived ‘trust’ of it’s sources, perhaps it has been told to keep to the zeitgeist so that it’s more relatable.
I initially thought that it simply changed opinion to appease me, but actually I’ve tried with other topics and even started the other way around by asking it to doubt raw data in favour of newspapers and it didn’t do it then.
Manhattan Contrarian on this topic worth a read to get a sense of the legal hurdles involved.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-2-26-the-process-of-rescinding-the-endangerment-finding-has-begun
Yes, MC is good.
Ice cores are the place to look for clues to past climate. CO2 lags temperature when cold returns, completely the opposite of net zero theory. Co2 doesn’t drive temperature, so no need for decarbonaters.
https://climatecite.com/wp-content/uploads/icecore-reappraisal.pdf
you might also be interested in this theory about why only some Milankovitch cycles triggered melts: low co2 in coldest times killed off northern forests and grass lands, ice age duststorms coated the ice sheets, leading to rapid warming.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
Good article. It would be useful to have another article explaining clearly why occasional bad weather events are not the result of, and do not indicate ‘climate change’. This is the argument I hear from people most often.
There have been a wealth of great articles over the years about “Climate Change” on this site. For example, for weather events being falsely attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emmissions, try this recent one about wild fires:
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/01/19/why-wont-the-climate-change-wildfire-link-die/?highlight=wild%20fires
If you use the search function at the top of The Daily Sceptic website – you’ll find many great articles to give you material to refute the arguments of people with whom you are discussing climate.
I’d recommend searching on: “sea level”, “hurricane”, “cooling”, “arctic ice”, “temperature”, and “climate denier” for starters.
I try not to be overly political. Over the years I have grown to despise politics and politicians. If all goes to plan, I intend to more than semi-reitre this year down to the South West. There, I intend to turn off most of the internet and never listen to a news broadcast again.
That being said, when politics negatively influences my life, I pay attention. I don’t think the ‘Climate Crisis’ has unified the Left and Right of politics, I think it has simply brought out those in politics who are left-leaning, including many ‘non’-conservatives.
I get to talk to many people through my job, and ALL of those who believe in the ‘Climate Crisis’ are left-leaning. When I point out to them the harms that Net Zero policies are having on our country, it’s as if they don’t care. Only ‘The Ideology’ matters.
I try not to rely on the opinions of others, especially recognised experts, because opinions can be bought. I prefer to rely on the evidence of my own eyes and ears, and how much money is being sucked out of my bank account.
This has taught me something about politics, for all aspects and not just climate policies; the Left don’t care what damage they cause to our country. They actually dislike our country and are so full of national self-loathing that they will happily nod along to policies which harm their own nation.
In other words, The Left are dangerous.
“Climate Crisis” is the language of Politics, not science. ——It is important to see where that Politics comes from. It comes from the One World Government people at the UN and WEF, who use fear of a “climate crisis” to gain control off the worlds wealth and resources——and YOU.
Agree with you, they are the enemy within. But some people have to step forward and challenge this deliberate sabotage of our country and livelihoods.
Those people will become politicians who are patriotic and love their country enough to try and improve our lot.
Family, Community, Country. Common sense, integrity, honesty.
Without these values we will go to the dogs.
This topic is featured in the latest podcast here:
https://rumble.com/v6pv0cy-backbone-of-climate-agenda-endangered-the-climate-realism-show-the-climate-.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp
Also available on YouTube.
Everything you eat started it’s life as carbon dioxide!
My garden loves CO2, wouldn’t be without it. At 30 parts per million though, they are nervous.
Climate change is the new ‘germ theory’. Swap out CO2 for viral pathogens and, bingo, it all makes sense now.
I think Mr Morrison is being overly generous referring to ‘an almost total lack of evidence’ on extreme weather being caused or made worse by global warming given that every event can be shown to have occurred before global warming was invented. With flooding you can’t rule out human activity in making it worse by building on flood plains, or failing to clear water courses because so creature might live there and now the idiots are preparing to let beavers loose.
When they cover every base how can they ever be wrong? When everything that happens is due to your theory you are not indulging in science. Global Warming is POLITICS. The UN Politics called Sustainable Development ie Communism. Control of the world’s wealth and resources, with climate as the excuse.
I learned in science lessons at school that, excluding water vapour and pollution, the composition of air is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% argon.
The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small that it only appears in the second decimal place (0.04%), which is why CO2 used to be called a ‘trace’ gas before people started calling it a greenhouse gas.
In the same lessons I learned that, with each breath we take, we inhale the 21% oxygen and exhale roughly 16% oxygen and 4% CO2.
So every human being exhales 100 times the amount of CO2 inhaled. We are all CO2 generators. We are, after all, animals (apes).
So, true net zero means we must all stop breathing. It is that ridiculous.
Petrol doesn’t smell as good as it did before they took the lead out. They changed the formula for jet fuel in the 1980s and the smell similarly deteriorated. They screw everything up with their corrupt tinkering.
CO2= WEALTH, not CLIMATE. ——–The richest people and countries emit the most and the poorest emit the least. China and India and other developing countries have in recent decades started to emit much more by using fossil fuels as they try to become as prosperous as us in the wealthy west. With 8 billion people now in the world it is impossible according to the UN and WEF for us all to have same standard of living as the western world has and so we in the west are to stop using fossil fuels because we have used up our fair share. In order to get away with convincing wealthy western societies that their standard of living needs to be reduced, a plausible excuse is required. —–That excuse is CLIMATE CHANGE.