November 2025 Atmospheric CO2 Content: 426.46 ppm; November 2024: 423.85 ppm; November 2023 420.46 ppm

[hatrack]

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

[jfz9580m]

1. Hoax!

I wish Bjorn Lomborg would drop dead. (I am surprised he supports family planning assistance in Africa. It would be more on brand for him to claim that family planning assistance is racist. He is typically of the Mises school of thought which makes convoluted arguments like these: regulations preventing child labor oppress children and deprive them of the right to work! The family planning might be more Gates’ idea though. Although Gates is a sleazy asshole, he has a stopped clock quality like some of these guys on stuff like vaccines and family planning).

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/04/eight-of-the-top-10-online-shows-are-spreading-climate-misinformation/

Nevertheless, many online personalities, including Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and Russell Brand, have platformed Danish political scientist, author, and climate denier Bjørn Lomborg. Climate scientists have pleaded with Lomborg to stop misrepresenting and misinterpreting their science.

Several show hosts also claim that climate change is a hoax designed to control and oppress. Kirk said, “Climate change is the wrapper around Marxism. You have Marxism at its core and you have climate change on the exterior. Climate change activism, environmentalism, pseudo-paganism – we call it a Trojan horse.”

‘New denial’ is gaining momentum

Like Kirk, some influencers lean into the idea that climate change is a conspiracy by governments to control their residents. That’s similar to conspiracy theorizing about efforts by governments to reduce illness and death from COVID-19, Tortoise Media, a British news website, noted recently. “Climate-sceptic narratives have merged with Covid-sceptic ones, and some of the personalities are the same,” the site reported.

We have been trying to find a good company to install solar panels. But it’s taking longer than we thought…for one thing we want to be sure that they can be contacted after for follow up work in case repairs are needed etc.

[Botany]

2. In Germany in the 1800s it was shown that the more CO 2 you had in a body of gas the more

heat that body of gas would hold. That has never been disproven.

We are cooking the planet. The earth will always be here …. cept when our sun becomes a red
giant ….. but humans don’t have to be here.

[hatrack]

4. Fundamental science on this predates the American Civil War

Eunice Foote demonstrated the absorption of heat energy from sunlight by CO2 and water vapor in a paper published in 1856. John Tyndall proved in a paper published three years later that it was infrared radiation providing heat energy.

Expanded groundwork in climate science came in the 1890s from Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius and Edward Teller (of all people!) presented to the American Petroleum Institute's annual meeting around 1960, laying out in clear, simple terms what would happen if we kept on burning coal, oil and methane.

None of this is new, and none of it is remotely controversial.

[Botany]

5. What is controversial is the way the fossil fuel industries has been able to spend billions on disinformation

…. to get millions of Americans to deny the reality of proven science. I am 2 miles from the
Ohio State University’s institute of polar studies (Lonnie Thompson) that doesn’t have one or
two data points that confirm global warming and man’s influence on it by the burning of fossil fuels
fuels but literally millions of data points in ice cores that go back 400,000 years but I have seen
and heard people get very upset and deny reality because they have been brainwashed with bull
shit. I stopped going to a nice little local pub (great Italian subs) because the owner is an in your
face Trumper and climate change denier who got in your face about it.

[hatrack]

6. I hear you - I came up with a handy, time-effective response to people like that.

I start laughing when they cite Fred Singer or Judith Curry, and point (as needed) for additional emphasis.

Asking them to name the six GHGs designated under the original Kyoto Protocol is also good for demonstrating they're morons. I'll occasionally hear them say "carbon dioxide".

[thought crime]

3. And we have deniers bashing renewable energy.

Industrial scale development of renewable energy is underway but deniers (and some poor misguided folks who cling to nuclear energy as the only solution) pretend it can't fully replace use of fossil fuels. Even if that were true (it's not, of course), it would still make sense to develop renewables as a partial solution to mitigate the problem. This argument exposes their complete disregard for the problem of climate change. The same is true for the Nukesters who see nuclear vs renewables as a zero-sum game.