If CO2 is a non prob that makes it hard to explain why tomato growers raise the concentration in greenhouses to 600 ppm up from the measly 420 outside. Personally I'm not too concerned if it was hotter hundreds of millions of years ago. Earth didn't have 8bn humans all dependent on just in time water and food supply.

If Earth is in a slow natural heating or cooling cycle we now have to try to keep it in the Goldilocks zone. As I regularly point out fossils fuels will one day deplete (refer WA gas) so using less is prudent with or without climate change.

This is cherry picked "science"! For starters, 450 million years ago the oxygen levels in the atmosphere were around 51%. So, the effects of CO2 would have been moderated, except for plant growth which would have been massively stimulated. So, forests would have flourished.

Moreover, Antartica would have been ice free and possibly habitable, as would have been most of Gondwana. Ditto Greenland, Iceland etc. Where life may have survived.

We know, e.g. that the oceans preserved much marine life which then served as the origins of land-based life as we know it.

Yes, the sun does drive climate change, or it did until quite recently. When it waxes (heat up) the world heats up also. when it wanes (cools down) the world cools and people are forced to move/relocate, as was the case for the Vikings.

But this measurement science has been put on its head by manmade CO2 emissions which are now in uncharted territory if you include that absorbed by seawater/the oceans.

The sun went into a waning phase/cooling phase in the late seventies. (NASA) Since then, we've hard record temperatures and record, granny killing heat waves, the worst droughts in living memory and the worst firestorms.

All because our gutless, gormless, greedy politicians are welded to coal and gas. like we had no other viable alternatives! And patently untrue!

MSR thorium, green hydrogen, methane sourced from sewerage, biodiesel from algae and native wisteria and all manner of hydrocarbons from seawater utilising nuclear power.

And with that, fuel self-sufficiency.

I believe the problem there lies in the shares politicians own and the income they generate for their retirement trust funds? Any other possible reason simply escapes me.
Alan B.

The simplest and most accurate comment on the crock that is Net Zero comes from Mark Lawson (‘Dark Ages: the looming destruction of the Australian power grid’) :

“ … the increasing talk about net zero comes from those who simply have no idea what it means or what it entails and ignores a history of many countries making token efforts only to reduce emissions”.

“ … the usual deadline of 2050, or even 2030, is so far beyond the usual media cycle that they are never going to be held to account for the promises”.

WTF?

Geological discovery upends politically correct climate science?

Don't get too excited.

Veizer acknowledges the CO2 greenhouse effect. He is suggesting that there could be an upper limit.

His paper also states that largest temperature variations are in the high-altitude regions "for which we do not have any isotope record".

It does no such thing. We are dependent on the climate for food, water and the staples of life.

Desertification is happening around the globe and threatening that, and promoting regional wars as the water and arable land becomes a shrinking commodity. Even as we march to a nine billion population outcome.
Alan B.

With this planet being a dynamic system Climate Change will ALWAYS take place.
With 8 billion, and increasing out of control, human polluting consumers we must surely be having an affect on our only life support system. We are in plague numbers.
Reduce this human plague to a sustainable level and perhaps we may survive a tad longer.
Climate change will, despite what the Greens may think, still happen.
Maybe not as severely as at present.
Methinks it is too late and I am happy I do not have grandchildren.