Just-released Norwegian research says that over the past 200 years, there is no real world data that shows any significant link between rising so-called greenhouse gasses like Carbon Dioxide (C02) and global temperature variations.

Unlike many other studies, researchers John K. Dagsvik and Sigmund H. Moen at Statistics Norway confined their study to using statistical temperature and emissions data.

The agency is the official recorder of such statistics for Norway.

Researchers eschewed computer “modeling” and other analytics that climate studies often use.

They concluded:

“Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.”

(“To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?”)

Researchers outlined the broad scope of statistical information they assembled, and noted that much of what has been publicly peddled regarding climate change is not the result of looking at available hard data:

“At present, there is apparently a high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made). This is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media. For non-experts, it is very difficult to obtain a comprehensive picture of the research in this field, and it is almost impossible to obtain an overview and understanding of the scientific basis for such a consensus (Koonin, 2021, Curry, 2023). By looking at these issues in more detail, this article reviews past observed and reconstructed temperature data as well as properties and tests of the global climate models (GCMs). Moreover, we conduct statistical analyses of observed and reconstructed temperature series and test whether the recent fluctuation in temperatures differs systematically from previous temperature cycles, due possibly to emission of greenhouse gases.”

The study goes into some detail about the history of recorded temperature data, after noting that prior to about 250 years ago, virtually all temperature variation in Earth’s history could be reasonably attributed to natural causes.

Researchers took into account ice core, tree ring, lake sediment and other so-called “reconstructed” temperature data, that can be gleaned, apart from temperatures directly recorded from thermometer readings, and technologies such as satellite data, etc., which have been relatively modern gauges.

Following a very detailed explanation of the breadth and scope of their data analysis, the paper summarizes that there is no objective scientific basis for attributing the most recent temperature patterns to C02 or other greenhouse gas emissions, given the overall picture from the last 420 thousand years of data and reconstructed data:

Researchers note:

“In this paper we have reviewed data on climate and temperatures in the past and ascertained that there have been large (non-stationary) temperature fluctuations resulting from natural causes.

“Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.

“…[T]he results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.”

TRENDPOST: Will the rigors demonstrated in this latest major study change the equation or the policies related to the supposed goals of the Climate Change agenda?

Of course not. Rigorous science, as opposed to shrill “crisis” faux science, infected by grant providers and their rancid anti-human and elitist ideologies of human degrowth and depopulation, have affected climate research since the 1970s. That accelerated in the early 1990’s, with the advent of the COP, and UN initiatives seeking to dictate the course of humankind, to narrowly favor the world’s financial and political elites.

Only widespread resistance by the bulk of humanity diminished in freedoms, and left behind by the increasingly draconian dictates of these masters of the universe, will change the tide of the Carbon War.

That popular uprising isn’t quite there yet. But the upheavals of The COVID War, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and now portents of an Armagehddon like situation in the Middle East, are opening eyes.

A new Gallup poll, for example, shows that a significant percentage of Americans—some 39 percent—have next to zero trust in what they are told by mainstream media. The trust deficit eclipses previous lows of 2016, when Americans were being force fed contemptible “pissgate” and “Russian collusion” propaganda about Donald Trump in the midst of that election season.

Cracks in the climate agenda narrative, like cracks everywhere else, continue to grow—partly thanks to alternative media exemplified by The Trends Journal. 

The game is far from over.