CO2’s ‘Moneyball’ Moment 

‘If CO2 is such a good climate driver, why doesn’t it drive the climate good?’ CO₂concentrations may contribute to temperature changes, but they do not drive the climate

By Ron Davison, Friends of Science, January 2024

The alarmist narrative (more accurately a mantra) is simple. Humanity’s fossil fuel use is almost exclusively responsible for the atmospheric Greenhouse Gas (primarily CO₂) concentration rise since the pre-industrial era. Notwithstanding that the narrative ignores water (roughly 95% of the Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere), those rising concentrations will lead to catastrophically high temperatures and complete global ecosystem destruction. 

Just one major problem: There is no empirical CO₂/Temperature dataset that shows CO₂ driving the climate on any statistically significant historical time scale (a very basic Scientific Method requirement). CO₂concentrations may contribute to temperature changes, but they do not drive the climate. The natural forcings (solar, ocean, volcanic, etc.) easily and regularly dominate CO₂. 

Those points will not be adjudicated here. This discussion (through several segments) will just put forward empirical data showing how insignificant CO₂‘s (and even humanity’s) influence really is. 

The premise driving this discussion revolves around a quote by Billy Beane (played by Brad Pitt in the movie Moneyball), “If he’s a good hitter, why doesn’t he hit good?” The concept applies equally well to CO₂and Climate Change. If CO₂ is such a good Climate Driver, why doesn’t it drive Climate good? My apologies for the grammar. 

CO₂concentrations may contribute to temperature changes, but they do not drive the climate. The natural forcings (solar, ocean, volcanic, etc.) easily and regularly dominate CO₂. 

The empirical data does not back up the simplistic, unscientific “All CO₂, All the Time” alarmist narrative. The list below is a quick review of CO₂’s ineffectiveness (all of which are backed up by empirical data). 

• CO₂ does not control the temperature in Greenland or Antarctica (where virtually all our planetary ice exists). Our ability to produce CO₂ will end centuries to millennia before polar temperatures allow any significant melting.
• Temperatures fluctuated significantly over most of the last 10,000 years while CO₂ remained virtually flat (i.e., CO₂ does not act alone). Those natural forcings were still active through the Modern Temperature Record (MTR) and will continue to be active in the future.
• CO₂ does not correlate to and is not driving sea level changes.
• The “All CO₂, All the Time” computer models are self-acknowledged to run way too hot and use unrealistically (implausible to impossible) high emission scenarios. 
• Extreme weather events are declining as CO₂ concentrations continue to rise.
• The solar forcings (ignored in the computer models that run way too hot) correlate to the Modern Temperature Record better than CO₂ alone. 
• CO₂’s Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS, the temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO₂) is unsettled science. The likely value is somewhere below 1 °C (well below the IPCC’s very unsettled 1.8 to 5.6 °C range). CO₂ is not dangerous at 1.8 °C ECS (where the models get close to reality). In the real world not dangerous at all.
• Our ability to mitigate “Climate Change” is pathetic. Based on 100% global adherence to the 2015 Paris Accord commitments, an expenditure of US$2 trillion per year ($150+ trillion) would reduce the temperature rise in 2100 by just 0.17 °C (using the IPCC science and the implausibly high RCP8.5 emission scenario). With the NetZero ideology push, those costs have gone up to the $10+ trillion per year range.
• The cost-benefit analysis based on the Paris Accord commitments is ridiculous and dangerous. What does that say about NetZero ideology? There is no economic, technical, scientific, safe, or even environmental justification for the ideological energy transition being forced on the entire world (a transition that we cannot afford). 

Ultimately, CO₂ is a minor contributor to “Climate Change.” A more practical and realistic approach to “Climate Change” is adaptation, with continued energy conservation, real pollutant reductions, and research and development on energy alternatives. 

CO₂ is not a pollutant; it is essential to all life on this planet. We should be celebrating rising CO₂ levels and promoting clean CO₂ emission opportunities.

Ron Davison is president of Friends of Science. This is the first part of his article, CO2’s Moneyball Moment. For the complete text click here.