How The World Meteorological Organization Lies To You—Using Your Taxes

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.