The article summarizes the study by Frans J. Schrijver titled “Historical CO2 Levels in periods of global Greening” which NTZ’s author Kenneth Richard posted here.
The Report24 article questions the traditional measurements of CO2 values from ice cores, which suggest levels of about 280 ppm (parts per million) for the early Holocene (10,000 years ago).
The recent study by Schrijver argues that the Earth was significantly greener 10,000 years ago, with a forest area over 50 percent higher than today. To enable such growth, CO2 levels at least equivalent to today’s level of approximately 420 ppm would have been necessary. This is justified using the Mitscherlich Law, which describes the relationship between CO2 fertilization and plant growth.
It is claimed that the Earth itself has quadrupled its natural CO2 emissions since 1750 (from 166 to 210 gigatonnes of carbon per year). In comparison, the human contribution is said to be tiny, increasing from 0 to 11 gigatonnes.
The article concludes that the idea of low historical CO2 levels and a dramatic, human-caused increase is untenable. The Earth was already green in early times and CO2 levels were high, with practically no human influence.
It is widely acknowledged that the enhanced CO2 fertilization effect due to the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 is the predominant driver of the dramatic increases in global greening, or “gross primary production” (GPP). Global greening attribution estimates for CO2 fertilization range from 70% (Zhu et al., 2016) to 86% (Haverd et al., 2020).
As noted in a new study, Earth is thought to have been much greener than today during the Early Holocene (10,000 years ago), with over 50% more forest cover.
Since an increase in the CO2 concentration is recognized as the most dominant factor in greening, it would not be consistent with what we know about the requisite physics of GPP (CO2 residence time, water and nutrient availability, the diminishing returns effect of CO2 fertilization) to assume the lower levels of CO2 (under 300 ppm) suggested by Antarctic ice core records are accurate reflections of the actual CO2 levels from 10,000 years ago.
To achieve the high levels of Early Holocene greenness, CO2 levels needed to be as high or higher than today’s 420 ppm at that time too. The Earth could not have been as green as it was back then with atmospheric CO2 concentrations of only 280 ppm or less.
“Employing Mitscherlich’s Law, the research models the global GPP response to increasing CO₂, based on the mean value of eight different long-term GPP datasets. It illustrates a diminishing return of vegetation associated with rising CO₂, as additional factors such as nutrient and water availability impose constraints on the fertilization effect. Due to this diminishing return the average residence time of CO₂ in the atmosphere increases significantly with higher GPP values. High CO₂ levels, similar to today’s, were therefore necessary for comparable GPP during green periods like 10,000 years ago. A CO₂ concentration of 280 ppm would only be possible if nature’s response to CO₂ were fundamentally different from what we observe today, with other constraining factors exceptionally more favorable.”
Interestingly, a chart from the paper uses the IPCC’s carbon cycle estimations to asses nature’s CO2 emission rates have risen 4 times more (+44 GtC/year net, or from +166 GtC/year in 1750 to +210 GtC/year in 2022) than human emissions rates have (from 0 GtC/year in 1750 to +11 GtC/year today). Since Earth’s natural sinks don’t distinguish between natural vs. human CO2 emissions, the bulk of the modern increase in CO2 can be said to have been derived from rising natural CO2 emissions, not human activity.
The global temperature did not change in October compared to August. The cooling trend remains intact. The American National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) foresees a cool LA NINA developing in the Pacific this winter, which will lead to a further decline in global temperatures as well.
Belém – All that fuss for nothing
The 30th World Climate Conference in Belém is not yet over, but it is already becoming apparent that the event, announced as the “Conference of Truth,” will go down in the history of climate conferences as a turning point.
No head of state from the four largest CO2-emitting nations—China (33%), the USA (12%), India (8%), and Russia (5%)—is showing up in Belém.
Even before the conference, the New York Times headlined: “The whole world is fed up with climate policy.” And the fact that Bill Gates, one of the biggest supporters and sponsors of climate policy, explicitly warned against excessive, shortsighted climate policy just 14 days before the conference, and put prosperity back in focus — a major blow.
Glenn Beck, a prominent American television host, explains the change of heart by Bill Gates: “It’s not about science, it’s about Trump.” Expressed differently: it’s not about conviction; it’s about damage control for his own company, which is planning multibillion-dollar investments in data centers in the USA and globally. And given the situation, these will have to rely on electricity from new gas-fired power plants in the short term, as the reactivation of old nuclear power plants will not suffice, and the construction of new nuclear power plants will still take several years in the USA.
Only 1/3 of the states actually submit a plan
For the Climate Conference in Belém, states had to report on their future plans for the use of coal, oil, and gas. The fact that only one-third even submitted a statement already hints at the dissolving importance of the climate issue in most nations around the world. But the reports that were submitted are revealing. Most states reported continuously increasing use of coal, oil, and gas. The reports show an increase in global coal usage by 30%, oil by 25%, and gas by 40% by 2030 compared to 2015. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hoped to reduce global CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2015; now they are continuing to rise.
Only Europe onboard
Only Europe remains unshakably committed to the goal of achieving Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Germany, the industrial heart of Europe, is even more ambitious and, according to Axel Bojanowski, is “the ‘leader’ among industrialized countries: It aims to be climate-neutral by 2045 – a self-destructive plan: Germany’s reduction will inevitably be compensated by rising emissions in other EU countries. This is because the European Emissions Trading System ensures that emission allowances not used in Germany are consumed in other EU countries.
It is becoming increasingly clear what the Wall Street Journal meant when it called Germany’s energy policy the ‘dumbest in the world.’
A few days before the conference, the European states agreed on a common goal, namely to achieve a 90% CO2 reduction by 2040 compared to 1990. 5% of the self-commitment could come from emission reductions abroad, which, of course, must also be expensively paid for. The German Minister for the Environment celebrated this agreement as “good news for the German economy, as everyone would now have the same competitive conditions.”
This statement reveals how little the German federal government and its ministers understand about the global economy. As if German industry only exports goods to European countries. German goods, however, compete in a global market that does not have the burdens of CO2 taxes and high energy prices on German products and can therefore always offer them more cheaply. 50% of exports go to countries outside the EU.
Chancellor Merz and his Environment Minister Schneider are blatantly downplaying the German situation. Germany has set self-imposed shackles with the Climate Protection Act that will become highly painful in the coming years.
German climate policy: “script for an economic catastrophe”
Welt journalist Axel Bojanowski: “The German Climate Protection Act, cemented by the Federal Constitutional Court, seems to be a script for an economic catastrophe. It only allows Germany a remaining budget of 6.7 gigatonnes of CO2, which is likely to be used up by the early 2030s. According to the law, penalties, shutdowns, and restrictions on freedom are then threatened to meet the climate goals.”
6.7 gigatonnes was the remaining permissible budget after the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court from 2020 onwards. As of today, only 3.6 gigatonnes of this remain. The buffer is reduced by about 0.5 gigatonnes each year. By 2032 at the latest, the remaining budget will be exhausted, and Germany will have reached the end of the line set by the Federal Constitutional Court. This will happen in the next legislative period, not just in 2040.
Chancellor Merz whitewashes
And in his 5-minute speech in Belém before a half-empty hall, Chancellor Merz spreads negligent whitewashing: “The economy is not the problem. Our economy is the key to protecting our climate even better.” Does the Chancellor not know the perilous state our industry is in?
Scandal surrounds tropical forest Ffund (TFF)
Probably the only outcome of the Belém conference will be the establishment of an investment fund, proposed by Brazilian President Lula, to finance the protection of tropical forests.
The fund works as follows: Donor countries pay $25 billion into the fund. Private investors (investment funds) are supposed to pay in $100 billion. The donor countries receive a return of about 4.0-4.8%, which corresponds to the return on their government bonds, as they generally have to raise the money through government debt. The return for private investors is 5.8% to 7.2%. The fund’s money is invested in emerging market government bonds, which yield comparatively high interest due to the higher risk (Brazilian government bonds are currently at 12.25%). Private investors are served first, followed by the donor countries. If anything remains after the distribution of profits to private investors and donor countries, the amount is paid out to 74 countries with tropical forests. It is hoped that this way, $3-4 billion will be distributed annually to the tropical forest countries.
The catch is this: To entice investors, private investors are given preference in the payment sequence: first the private ones, then the donor states. Furthermore, the donor countries must insure the fund against default. A default by an emerging market could quickly lead to the fund’s insolvency. In that case, the taxpayers of the donor countries would be held liable and, in an extreme scenario, lose their capital.
Disadvantageous for the German taxpayer
In preparation for Belém, there was fundamental disagreement over Germany’s participation in the fund between the Ministry of Finance and the Chancellor’s Office. The Chancellor’s Office clearly advocated for participation and a contribution of at least $1 billion. It was assisted by the Ministry for the Environment under Minister Schneider and the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development under Minister Alabali-Radovan. The Ministry of Finance, under Lars Klingbeil, strongly objected, viewing the fund as a billion-dollar risk and doubting the viability of the fund’s structure.
And indeed, the model is structurally disadvantageous for the German taxpayer. One could also say: We are subsidizing the returns of private investors with public money and providing the default guarantee for BlackRock and Co. That is why the Federal Ministry of Finance is persistently blocking Germany’s participation in the fund. It can be unequivocally stated that the Federal Ministry of Finance has thus far bravely defended the interests of the German taxpayer against the interests of BlackRock and Co.
This is the background to Chancellor Merz being unable to name a figure (“a noteworthy amount”) in Belém. The billion € or $ is now supposed to be found in the budget reconciliation for the 2026 federal budget, which is taking place this week, so that the federal budget can be adopted on November 28. It is to be expected that the SPD will concede. But it could be a Pyrrhic victory for Chancellor Merz, who would then visibly be prioritizing the interests of international financial investors, especially if the fund were to run into difficulties.
Whether the fund will ultimately materialize is still questionable, as it only comes into effect if the donor states commit to $10 billion. So far (excluding Germany), $5.6 billion has been raised.
The USA and the UK have already declined.
If the fund comes into being, the investment companies will profit first, with high returns secured by states, and then the emerging markets, which can sell their high-risk government bonds. Whether the tropical forest will benefit in this confusing financial jungle is not yet certain. The biggest risk remains with the donor countries, who are putting their taxpayers’ money at risk with the catchy story of saving the rainforest.”
Klimaschau 235, presented by the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) analyzes the new “Global Tipping Points Report 2025” and puts the alarmist reports into perspective.
Just in time for the 30th UN World Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil, the second “Global Tipping Points Report 2025” was presented by around 100 scientists, including those from the University of Exeter and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
The report warns of so-called tipping points—stages of negative development from which a process becomes irreversible and self-reinforcing. The purpose of course is to spread urgency.
The central message of the report: The 1.5°C warming limit could be exceeded in the next decade, entering the world into a “high-risk phase.”
Tropical coral reefs, especially the massive Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Northeast Australia, serve as one of the central examples in the report. The narrative suggests the reef has been dying since the 1980s due to CO2, heat, medicinal residues, and sediments from agriculture.
However, the video highlights a counter-position. The real dangers to the corals are primarily tropical cyclones, which occasionally devastate parts of the reefs.
EIKE also calls the claim that the thermal tipping point for warm-water coral reefs— 1.2 °C warming above pre-industrial levels—has already been exceeded and the upper threshold of 1.5 °C could be reached within the next 10 years into question.
Natural recovery occurs
Graphics show living coral coverage reveal natural, cyclical variations. A massive die-off around 2010 (cyclone-induced) was significantly worse than current events, yet the corals recovered as nature finds a way back toward equilibrium.
The drop in coral coverage in 2024 (El Niño-induced) also does not provide grounds to claim a tipping point has been reached. The mass mortality is reversible.
Iffy model projections
The dramatic projections that predict coral bleaching—the expulsion of the coral’s plant symbionts due to excessively warm water—will become extremely frequent in the future (up to the 2090s) are based on computer models of sea temperatures and pH values (e.g., CMIP6). Models, especially those used for future projections, are wrong extremely often.
Klimaschau heavily criticizes these models for their “one-sided fixation on CO2” and the resulting “runaway” predictions. It cites NASA researcher Gavin Schmidt, who emphasized that the scientific community must move away from viewing the raw model average as conclusive.
Conclusion
EIKE summarizes in the video that the panic surrounding corals, released shortly before the UN Climate Change Conference, is mostly “flashy headlines but little substance.”
Now that the season is winding down, we are able to start concluding and summarizing the season: it’s going to come in as near normal activity. The forecast made earlier this year was a bit on the hyped side.
Huricane season forecasts have not really improved, despite all the claims that models are better than ever:
“In my 30 years at the National Weather Service, we’ve never had more advanced models and warning systems in place to monitor the weather,” said NOAA’s National Weather Service Director Ken Graham. “This outlook is a call to action: be prepared. Take proactive steps now to make a plan and gather supplies to ensure you’re ready before a storm threatens.”
NOAA’s outlook for the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, which goes from June 1 to November 30, predicted a 60% chance of an above-normal season, and a 10% chance of a below-normal season. The agency forecast a range of 13 to 19 total named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher). Of those, 6-10 were forecast to become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including 3-5 major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5; with winds of 111 mph or higher).
Alarmists have claimed tropical storm activity would increase with the onset of global warming. Though the globe has warmed over the past 50 years, global cyclone activity has not escalated as feared:
Twleve-month running average counts of global hurricanes (top) and major hurricanes (bottom), 1980 to March 10, 2025. Source: Ryan Maue.
Quite to the contrary, the overall trend has been somewhat downard since 1990, with no real trend since 1970:
Total annual global ACE (which integrates frequency and intensity) 1970 to March 10, 2025. Source: Ryan Maue.
The reality hasn’t cooperated with the alarmist climate hype. It’s been a disapoointing season for catastrophe prophets.
According to a new study, Greenland temperature stations indicate there was an abrupt 2.9°C warming trend from 1922-1932 (10 years) that was almost identical to the 3.1°C warming trend from 1993-2007 (14 years).
Between the two warming periods (identified as WP1 and WP2 in the study) was an overall ~3°C cooling from 1933-1992.
Thus, as the temperature charts from the study illustrate, there has been almost zero net warming across Greenland in the last century.
This temperature trajectory is consistent with the Box (2009) analysis that said “the annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”
“The course of the AT [air temperature] anomaly between 1900 and 2015 relative to the reference period (1986–2015) at the stations UPV, ILU, NUK, QAQ and TAS, the 20CRv3 area average for the globe, the Arctic, Greenland as well as 20CRv3 interpolated to WEG_L shows two distinguished WPs [warm periods]. These two periods are observed at all stations and show a continuous increase over more than 5 years. Based on this, we determine WP1 between 1922 and 1932, and WP2 between 1993 and 2007. During WP1, the AT anomaly increased on average by 2.9 °C across stations, while in WP2, it increased by 3.1 °C, though WP2 spans a longer period (14 years compared to 10 years for WP1). The average annual increase for both WPs across all stations is 0.2 °C yr−1.”
Interestingly, the authors estimate Greenland ice sheet (GIS) melt has added just 1.08 cm to global sea levels since 1900. This is too small to justify alarmist narratives about dramatic warming and ice melt contributions to sea level rise.
Nearly 900 companies—including dozens of large international corporations—have quietly withdrawn from the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), reports Blackout News here.
The move is being touted as an “overdue return to economic common sense.”
Symbol image created by Grok AI.
The SBTi requires its members to set scientifically validated climate targets, essentially aligning their emissions goals with international standards.
The recent exodus of 893 firms signals a growing discontent. According to the reporting, many companies are questioning the practical feasibility of the initiative’s stringent requirements. The core argument?
Political climate policies that ignore technical and financial limitations end up jeopardizing long-term economic viability and weakening global competitiveness.
The message to policymakers is clear: excessive regulations often translate directly into higher operating costs, stalled investments, and declining market competitiveness. For many corporations, their commitment to the SBTi began to feel like “symbolic politics” rather than a sustainable business strategy. The withdrawal is therefore a strategic move—a shift back toward focusing on operational stability and profitability as the bedrock for any meaningful long-term investment.
Great Britain, the USA, and China have seen the highest number of companies ending their participation.
The hundreds of corporate withdrawals mark a pivot toward economic realism and suggests that self-determined, pragmatic strategies are replacing politically mandated ones, asserting that a credible, long-term environmental policy must first respect economic strength.
Bill Gates calls off “humanity’s demise”
Bill Gates’s recently called for a “strategic pivot” in climate change, shifting the world’s primary focus from near-term emissions goals and “doomsday” scenarios to improving human welfare, fighting poverty, and preventing disease in the world’s poorest countries.
He laid out this perspective in a recent memo titled “Three tough truths about climate”. Gates argues that the central metric for global efforts should be improving lives and that climate change, will not lead to “humanity’s demise,” and that a “doomsday outlook” is diverting limited resources from interventions that would have the greatest immediate impact on human suffering.
He also stressed that climate and health efforts often compete for funding in national budgets.He gave an example of this pragmatic view by stating he would choose to: “let the temperature go up 0.1 degree to get rid of malaria” if forced to choose between the two.
Germany’s online Blackout News reports on a brewing showdown: US and Qatar threaten EU LNG supply over new sustainability law
The European Union’s push for stricter environmental standards is now clashing head-on with its need for energy security.
The EU’s two largest Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) suppliers, the United States and Qatar, have issued a strong warning, threatening to halt critical gas deliveries over the bloc’s proposed Sustainability Act (Nachhaltigkeitsgesetz).
Europe’s Guide to drive out its industry.
The core issue is the EU’s new due diligence legislation. This law is designed to force companies to scrutinize their global supply chains for environmental and human rights violations, and prove how they plan to align their emissions with the Paris Agreement targets by 2050.
It’s the ever more irrelevant Europe’s way of demanding the rest of the world do as it says. Non-compliance could result in severe penalties for companies, potentially up to 5% of global annual turnover. But the rest of the world is t about to take it.
Harsh sustainability directive
Europe’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, CS3D) is a proposed regulation that aims to make companies accountable for their impact on people and the planet. In short, it requires companies 1) to scrutinize their global supply chains to identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse impacts on human rights and the environment, and 2) to show how they will align their emissions with the Paris Agreement climate targets by 2050.
But both Washington and Doha view the regulation as a damaging intrusion into free trade and a risk to Europe’s energy supply. They have warned that the current form of the law could lead to a sensitive loss of energy security for the continent.
Already there’s been a mass exodus of industry out of Germany as political leaders remain stuck in climate protection fantasies.
Ultimatum from Key Energy Partners
Qatar’s Energy Minister, Saad Sherida Al-Kaabi, stated that the national energy giant, QatarEnergy, could simply withdraw from the European market if the legislation is implemented as is, calling the potential fines “unacceptable.” This move would place serious strain on Europe’s energy supplies, especially as the EU seeks to completely phase out Russian gas by 2027.
The US is also not going to put up the meddling and with the threat of fines. The US Energy Secretary warns that the regulation could endanger the 2020 transatlantic energy partnership and “impair investments” across partner nations, potentially jeopardizing the supply of American LNG.
Europe will likely stonewall, buy time
The EU now faces a high-stakes balancing act. The proposed law is crucial for upholding the bloc’s global climate goals, but enforcing it would trigger a serious energy crisis and trade conflict with its most vital energy partners. Pressure is mounting within Europe, with key leaders reportedly calling for a delay to the law’s introduction to safeguard fragile energy security. The coming weeks will determine whether Brussels can navigate this complex situation without sacrificing either its climate agenda or its energy stability.
Europe’s strategy will likely involve biding its time while hoping Democrats regain power over the next election cycles.
Another alarmist narrative debunked by observations.
Coral coverage was supposed to be existentially devastated by the modern tenths-of-a-degree increases in sea surface temperatures and recurring bleaching events.
However, a new study points to assessments of coral cover percentages in the Great Barrier Reef and concludes is “at its highest since monitoring began in 1985.”
Further, the analysis reveals there is “no consistent correlation between rising temperatures and reduced coral cover,” and that “most corals [are] demonstrating rapid recovery” from bleaching.
The Australian Government also documents significant decadal variability in coral cover, but no overall trend or decline in coral coverage since the early 1980s.
Recent warming is mostly due to natural climate factors…only 1/3 is attributable to the rising GHG concentrations.
CO2’s impact on warming is likely wildly overstated.
A recent paper by Ad Huijser, “Global Warming and the ‘impossible’ Radiation Imbalance,” published in Science of Climate Change, presents a detailed analysis that challenges the widely held assumption that rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are the sole, or even the primary, drivers of recent global warming.
By comparing observed energy trends with theoretical forcings, the study concludes that natural factors play a significant and dominant role in the warming observed since the mid-1970s.
The Discrepancy: GHG Forcing vs. Observed Warming
The study scrutinizes the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis, which attributes all observed warming solely to human-caused GHG emissions. Using satellite data from the CERES program and Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data from the ARGO float program, the author analyzed the Earth’s Top of Atmosphere (TOA) radiation imbalance—the net energy flux into the Earth’s thermal system.
Natural factors dominate
The central finding is that the assumed radiative forcing trend from GHGs is insufficient to account for the magnitude of the observed TOA radiation imbalance. The discrepancy suggests that another, significant factor must be involved in heating the planet.
The analysis points strongly toward natural forcings, specifically a long-term increase in incoming shortwave solar radiation, as the significant, dominant factor.
The paper’s findings:
Two-thirds of the observed global warming must be attributed to natural factors that increase incoming solar radiation. This is due to a natural forcing trend of about 0.035 W/m2.
Only one-third is attributable to the rising GHG concentrations. This is due to a GHG-related forcing of about 0.019 W/m2.
This increase in incoming solar energy is likely due to natural changes in factors like cloud cover and surface albedo (the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface). The study argues that the observed radiation imbalance correlates strongly with these natural processes, appearing largely unrelated to GHGs.
Implications for Future Climate Policy
The study’s findings show the planet’s warming is largely being driven by external factors (increased solar input) and not solely by an internal atmospheric resistance (GHGs), thus implying a much lower climate sensitivity than that suggested by most IPCC-endorsed Global Circulation Models (GCMs).
This new paper questions the alarmist claims about “heat in the pipeline” and suggests that future warming will be driven by natural forcings as long as they are acting, rather than historical emissions.
It underscores the importance of fully accounting for natural variability, especially in solar input, when evaluating both historical warming trends and the effectiveness of future climate mitigation policies.
This is not supposed to be happening, according to the climate models.
Symbol image: NASA
While the headlines relentlessly holler about “exploding global warming” and “dramatic melting” of the polar caps, the South Pole is telling a starkly different story.
On October 15, the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station registered an astonishing temperature of minus 61.3 degrees Celsius and it isn’t even winter there. It’s springtime and temperatures should be on the rise.
Coldest October since 1981
According to Report 24, the numbers are clear: It was the coldest October measured at the station since 1981.
This extreme cold is not an isolated event. As the article points out, even CNN reported in 2021 that the continent had experienced its coldest winter since records began.
The data from stations like Amundsen-Scott, Vostok, and Dome C show that instead of a linear, CO₂-driven heating trend, the South Pole is dominated by naturally occurring, extreme temperature fluctuations, including pronounced cold snaps.
Natural factors dominate
This directly contradicts the dominant narrative that “extreme heat is the new normal” and challenges the core assumption that the trace gas CO₂ is the overwhelming, all-determining factor in our climate system. Climatological mechanisms like stratospheric waves, polar vortex stability, and cloud cover appear to be the actual drivers of weather events.
Even growing colder
For decades, we’ve been told that polar regions would experience the strongest warming. Yet, the Antarctic region has stubbornly resisted, in some parts even growing colder.
The Report 24 article argues that this recurring cold record is a “nail in the coffin of the CO₂ dogma.” If carbon dioxide were truly the dominant climate control knob, such an extreme, decades-long cold minimum shouldn’t be happening.
The underlying models—like the IPCC forecasts from the 1990s—have systematically overestimated temperature trends. When faced with such real-world deviations, one must ask: are the climate models flawed, or is the CO₂-centric theory of climate incomplete?
For those politicians and policymakers who are basing sweeping, economy-altering decisions on the idea that the “science is settled,” the stubborn cold of the South Pole presents a critical challenge that can no longer be ignored.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy
Recent Comments