What They Won’t Tell You: CO2 Emissions Are Declining

If alarmists want to play their ‘carbon dioxide is the devil’ game then it has to be led by the data.

Updated global charts reveal CO2 emissions have been flat for a decade, and are now declining.

The figure below shows a Global Carbon Project (GCP) estimation of global CO2 emissions.

The dashed light blue line shows the 2000 GCP estimate of global CO2 emissions, while the solid dark blue shows the updated 2021 estimate, which has been revised down. The shaded area represents the uncertainty from land use/fossil CO2 emissions.

And here’s ‘land-use emissions’ over the past decade, which in 2021 received a “major” downward revision:

You’d think this fact would be cause for celebration, but rarely is it mentioned in AGW Party circles, nor is it published by Covering Climate Now (CCN) coalition media outlets to their 2+ billion audience. Some 500 MSM publications have now signed the ‘CCN pledge’ that demands that they 1) forward ‘catastrophism’, and 2) actively rebut/censor any and all ‘global boiling’ skepticism.

It isn’t reported because ‘good news’ would threaten the multi-billion dollar fear campaign that the establishment has taken decades of meticulous war-gaming to deploy. They don’t want us proles thinking that their anti-CO2, poverty-inducing policies are working and so may soon come to an end, and they certainly don’t want the aforementioned charts exposing their CO2/AGW correlation as false–as emissions decline yet their ‘Mann’-made temperature graphs inevitably continue pointing to the moon.

Climate Scientists Seek To Destroy ‘Inconvenient’ Research Paper

Western nations have made the largest reductions in CO2 emissions in recent decades. Between 2005 and 2020, U.S. carbon emissions declined by 21.5%, which is 4.5 percentage points more than what America promised as part of its United Nations Paris Climate Change commitments (Kate Larsen et al.). This again goes largely unreported.

Instead, the IPCC and others continue to produce dire projections of future climate change, namely how hot it is going to get and how horrid the resulting consequences will be for the economy, infrastructure and our health.

Said modelling will also often presents the worst case scenarios as being the most likely, and in recent years there has been no shortage of studies using highly implausible scenarios from which to draw their doom and gloom conclusions.

Consider Carleton et al.’s 2022 study, for example, is one of many to use the ridiculous high-emissions and low-economic growth (“SSP3-8.5”) scenario to paint a frightening picture of the future, with a typically pessimistic mortality map:

But SSP3-8.5 is a fairy-tale.

It is about as likely to play out as it is Elon Musk rocketing himself to Mars.

“It is a contrived scenario that maximizes future impacts,” notes Roger Pielke, who, with coauthors, performed a review of the scenarios literature and found that there is no scenario that can produce this combination of a pessimistic societal change and a pessimistic climate outcome.

The world is not on track for a high-emissions, low-GDP scenario, writes Micheal Shellenberger in a testimony before the Senate Budget Committee. Even models cannot produce that outcome. And yet many studies assume the world is on track for precisely that. “The combination of SSP3 and RCP8.5 was considered implausible by the SSP developers,” notes Pielke and a coauthor.

Even a cursory glance of the analysis should bring about the end to such absurdly pessimistic outlooks. But it doesn’t, of course, far from it. Members of the CCN coalition, such as The Guardian and AFP, routinely base their everyday climate stories on these extreme scenarios, and as if their gospel, no less, with the ultimate goal appearing to be a further hammering of apocalyptic EOTW fears into a populace that increasingly, and intentionally, removed from reality — which is the way it has to be in order for us hoi polloi to accept the foot-shooting policies being offered; for us to surrender prosperity in favor of a materializing serfdom.

But it must be stated, and in bold: All of this talk of carbon emissions and the related ‘scenarios’ is by-the-by, so states professor emeritus at Princeton, Dr. William Happer. Because while the AGW narrative argues that as people burn fossil fuels they emit higher concentrations of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which absorbs sunlight and creates a “greenhouse effect,” trapping the Sun’s radiation and warming the Earth, one key aspect of CO2 that everybody willingly ignores, and that global warming models fail to take into account, is a phenomenon called “saturation,” continues Happer, or the diminishing effect of atmospheric CO2 at higher concentrations.

“At the current concentrations of CO2, around 400 parts per million, it decreases the radiation to space by about 30 percent, compared to what you would have if you took it all away,” Happer explains. “So that’s enough to cause quite a bit of warming of the earth, and thank God for that; it helps make the earth habitable, along with the effects of water vapor and clouds.”

“But if you could double the amount of CO2 from 400 to 800, and that will take a long time, the amount that you decrease radiation to space is only one percent. Very few people realize how hard it is for additional carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation to space. That’s what’s called saturation, and it’s been well known for a century.”

Happer also stated, in a recent testimony, that modern datasets have been manipulated to fit the climate-change narrative.

“The most striking example of that is the temperature record,” said Happer. “If you look at the temperature records that were published 20 years ago, they showed very clearly that in the United States by far the warmest years we had were during the mid-1930s. If you look at the data today, that is no longer true. People in charge of that data, or what the public sees, have gradually reduced the temperatures of the ‘30s, then increased the temperature of more recent measurements.”

For more:

Calling Out The Climate Scam: A Princeton Professor, An MIT Scientist, And A Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist…