The Fragile Assumption of Anthropogenic Dominance
I’ve long argued that the cornerstone of the entire climate crisis narrative rests on a fragile assumption: that virtually all changes in atmospheric CO2 levels since preindustrial times are due to human activity (i.e., anthropogenic). [some emphasis, links added]
This attribution is essential for justifying the trillions of dollars in policies, subsidies, and societal upheavals aimed at “net-zero” emissions. Without it, the urgency crumbles.
But let’s be clear, this assumption isn’t rooted in unassailable science. Earth’s history tells a different story.
Long before humans evolved, CO2 levels fluctuated wildly, often soaring into the thousands of parts per million (ppm) during warm periods that supported lush biodiversity.
There’s no natural “upper threshold” for CO2; in fact, higher levels have historically correlated with thriving ecosystems.
The real danger lies at the lower end… below about 150 ppm, photosynthesis grinds to a halt, starving plant life and collapsing food chains.
We’re nowhere near that, but the narrative insists on portraying any deviation from a cherry-picked preindustrial baseline as an existential threat caused solely by us.
The Smoking Gun That Isn’t: Questioning the Suess Effect
The Suess Effect, the dilution of atmospheric carbon isotopes (depleted ¹³C and absent ¹⁴C) from fossil fuel burning, has been hailed as the “smoking gun” proving human dominance.
It’s compelling evidence, but not infallible. Natural sources, like thawing permafrost or weathered rocks, can produce similar isotopic signatures.
In my earlier article, “Is It Really Our CO2? New Evidence Questions Humanity’s Role in the Carbon Cycle”, I delved into how recent discoveries, including massive underestimations of ancient carbon from rivers, blur this fingerprint. These natural fluxes mimic fossil fuels, forcing us to question how much of the rise is truly “ours.”
This isn’t just academic nitpicking. If we’re overattributing CO2 to humans, we’re misdirecting resources and policies. Worse, it exposes a pattern of scientific fraud by omission, deliberately ignoring contradictory data to prop up the alarmist consensus.
I’ve covered this before in “Is the Latest AMOC ‘Collapse’ Paper Scientific Fraud?”, where authors cherry-picked models and omitted stabilizing evidence to hype a “tipping point.” It’s eerily reminiscent of Climategate, where emails revealed efforts to redefine peer review and block dissenting views.
WMO’s Omission: Fraud by Silence
Now enter the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) latest Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, released on October 16, 2025. It reports record CO2 levels in 2024 (423.9 ppm) and the largest annual increase ever (3.5 ppm from 2023).
The bulletin attributes this almost entirely to human emissions, claiming we’ve pumped 500 ± 50 gigatons of carbon (GtC) into the atmosphere since 1960, with nature’s sinks absorbing about half. It warns of weakening sinks due to warming, framing it as a dire feedback loop.
But here’s the fraud: the bulletin completely omits a bombshell Nature paper published just months earlier, ”Old carbon routed from land to the atmosphere by global river systems,” that I discussed above.
This study reveals rivers emit 2.0 PgC/year of CO2, with 59% (1.2 ± 0.3 PgC/year) from ancient (millennial or older) sources—equivalent to 13% of current fossil fuel emissions.
This old carbon, isotopically indistinguishable from fossil fuels, isn’t accounted for in global models. If rivers are leaking preindustrial carbon at this scale, our carbon budgets are wildly off, and the “human-only” attribution falls apart.
And who funds this omission-laden narrative? The United States is the WMO’s largest contributor, channeling millions in taxpayer dollars annually to an organization that seems intent on propping up the climate crisis industry… essentially using taxpayer dollars to mislead those same taxpayers.
Why ignore it? Because acknowledging this would dismantle the narrative. Subscribe now to unlock the full analysis, where I’ll break down the WMO’s claims word-for-word, contrast them with Dean et al.’s findings, explain why our trillion-dollar “transition” is not only futile but counterproductive—leading to more emissions in the short term—and detail how much of your tax money is funding this rot.
Read rest at Irrational Fear
Irrational Fear is written by climatologist Dr. Matthew Wielicki and is reader-supported. If you value what you have read here, please subscribe and support the work that goes into it.
In the circulating air nitrogen is continually being converted to carbon 14 by cosmic rays. Carbon 14 has half-life of 5,730 years and converts back to nitrogen. So in the free air carbon 14 is always being created but also reverts back to nitrogen. When carbon is isolated from the free air, carbon 14 is no longer created and due to its decay given enough time the concentration approaches zero. Such isolated carbon can be thought of as old carbon. This is what is in fossil fuels.
The natural processes in the earth adsorb and release carbon continuously. However, there is change is some of those processes. Due to our recent slight warming, permafrost and old bogs are releasing more carbon dioxide. Much of this is old carbon. The Antarctic Peninsula has had a significant increase in volcanic activity in the past 50 years. The carbon dioxide released from volcanic activity is old carbon, the same as fossil fuels. This makes it impossible to determine how much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is from anthropogenic activity.
No, the Antarctica Peninsula has not experienced a significant increase in volcanic activity over the past 50 years.
You are confusing the gradual discovery of underseas volcanoes with a rise of the total count of underseas volcanoes.
Man made CO2 emissions are the only explanation of why the CO2 in the atmosphere increased over 50% since 1850.
I noticed you didn’t mention the increased out gassing from the permafrost which contains old carbon. As far as the increased volcanic activity in the Antarctic Peninsula, perhaps you got your information from a Google search which states there has been no increase. Such sources are not reliable. Google also says that renewable energy is the cheapest. My source is the book “The Plate Climatology Theory: How Geological Forces Influence, Alter, or Control Earth’s Climate and Climate Related Events.” It documents increased volcanic emission and not from the discovery of new volcanoes. I apologize for the lack of detail but at the moment I can’t find my book.
What really counts in issues like this is not one or two points, but the preponderance of data. During the COVID shut down there are graphs that clearly show a decrease of carbon dioxide emissions from anthropological sources. Yet, a graph of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at the same time is a straight line. If the only source of increasing carbon dioxide is man’s emissions, then there would have been an impact.
Data presented in Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth showed in the geological past that changes in temperature and carbon dioxide level were tracking each other. What was over look at the time was temperature changes were leading carbon dioxide changes. That means temperature was controlling the level of carbon dioxide, not the other way around. I can buy into man’s emissions increasing the concentration of “old carbon” in the atmosphere and thus the total concentration, but it isn’t the only factor.
Global CO2 emissions were approximately 40.5 to 41.6 billion metric tons in recent years, with 2023 fossil fuel emissions totaling about 36.8 billion metric tons and projections for 2024 reaching 41.6 billion metric tons total.
Melting permafrost in the Arctic is releasing a net average of 300 to 600 million metric tons of carbon (as CO2) into the atmosphere each year. v. 1%
99% v. 1%
The real smoking gun here is that during the dip in anthropological emissions of carbon dioxide during the COVID shut down, the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was unaffected. If the essentially all carbon dioxide build up was man’s emissions, then there would have been an impact.
Don’t expect a reply from Greene. At least addressing what you wrote.
Humans added from 250 to 300 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere since 1850.
Atmospheric CO2 increased from about 280 PPM to 434 PPM.
Nature has been a net CO2 absorber for billions of years.
Nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits in the long run.
Author who can’t figure out why atmospheric CO2 increased over 50% since 1850 is not worth listening to. It’s manmade CO2 emissions, not volcanoes, and not rivers
Once again Greene shows up to refute an author’s article where the author actually has both the education and research in the area he’s writing about. What is Greene’s education and research that gives him credibility to state we should ignore the author? He doesn’t.
The false claim that CO2 emissions are dangerous is supported by a majority of Ph.D. climate scientists.
Must they be right because they have PhDs?
Bunton throws out the appeal to authority logical fallacy once again.
No science in his comments, just criticism.
So Green(sic) can’t read what the spelling of my name is but somehow either lies about the number of “scientists” who say that CO2 emissions are dangerous or cannot show who are these scientists. And how many are them have been bought and paid for their stating that CO2 emissions are dangerous. Given CO2 was much higher in the past which the author showed and somehow the world didn’t collapse. Instead it was periods when biodiversity increased due to the growth of plants and animals.