Nature Finally Publishes Climate Science Instead Of Propaganda
The journal Nature has spent at least two decades as the temple of “settled climate science”. However, last month it published a paper with the title: “Broadly stable atmospheric CO₂ and CH₄ levels over the past 3 million years” (Marks-Peterson et al., 2026)
This means that for three million years, carbon dioxide appears to have barely budged. Methane didn’t either.
Yet here’s the thing. During that time, Earth went through titanic climate changes.
This includes the Pleistocene glaciations, when ice sheets over North America were more than a mile thick; and later warm, lush periods such as the Ipswichian Interglacial (~125,000 years ago) when hippos lived in Britain.
If all this occurred while CO₂ was barely twitching, the implications are a snowball straight to the face of the establishment narrative.
What Did They Find, and How?
The researchers analysed ancient air bubbles preserved in Antarctic ice from the Allan Hills Blue Ice Area — a natural freezer stretching deep into the Pliocene epoch. By using isotopic signatures in the trapped gases, they reconstructed atmospheric CO₂ and CH₄ going back 3.1 million years.
They found:
- CO₂ stuck at around 250 ± 10 ppm (that’s parts per million — one molecule of CO₂ for every four thousand molecules of air), with maybe a 20 ppm wiggle over millions of years.
- CH₄ (methane) — same story: no marked change across the long term.
And yet, temperatures and ice coverage went on wild joyrides — up, down, up again. If CO₂ were really the master switch of planetary climate, that data would be impossible.
The Alarmist Narrative Cracks
For decades, the party line was simple:
- Humans burned ‘fossil fuels’, CO₂ concentration went up, therefore the Earth is cooking, and your car is killing the planet.
The problem is: this study shows the same CO₂ levels lasted through entire epochs of major glacial shifts. Apparently, the planet didn’t care. The “carbon thermostat” wasn’t even plugged in.
Furthermore, they found no “runaway” feedback between CO₂ and warming. If CO₂ caused warming, and warming released more CO₂ from oceans and permafrost —as we’re told— we should see massive spikes.
But the record shows otherwise. That catastrophic feedback loop we’re so often warned about is, to say the least, highly exaggerated.
Of course, this result isn’t being shouted from the rooftops. The framing in Nature is noticeably cautious. Calmly stating that this ‘greenhouse gas’ data extends back to the late Pliocene epoch is far more guarded and grant-friendly than asserting: “we just detonated the core assumption of industrial‑scale climate politics.”
The richer irony is these ice cores were taken from the blue ice areas of Antarctica — the same continent supposedly melting at unprecedented rates.
The one thing that is melting is the credibility of the CO₂ panic.
A Quick Trip Through Geological Time
Imagine three million years as a movie. You fast‑forward: glaciers form, melt, continents drift, sun cycles vary, orbital tilt wobbles, sea levels rise and fall by hundreds of feet — yet CO₂ just… chills.
By analogy: that’s like watching a house turn from winter to summer to blizzard while the thermostat reads the same 68°F the whole time.
Either the thermostat’s broken, or it was never the thing controlling the temperature in the first place.
So What Actually Drives Climate?
The evidence points to a combination of factors:
- Orbital mechanics: the tilt, wobble and eccentricity of the earth, known as Milankovitch cycles,* modulate insolation (i.e. the amount of solar radiation received) by latitude.
- Ocean circulation: this is the true heater of the planet, redistributing enormous thermal energy.
- Water Vapour: the only proven atmospheric gas that affects temperature
- Air Pressure: think of the difference between Venus and Mars. Both have very high CO2 concentrations in their atmospheres, yet Venus is very hot while Mars is very cold. Venus has a very high pressure, dense atmosphere, and Mars has a thin, low-pressure atmosphere.
Gatekeeping the Narrative
i) Milankovitch Cycles and NASA’s Public Messaging
It is interesting that many sources give a solid explanation of the Milankovitch cycles — but hastily follow it with “…this doesn’t explain current warming”. It’s almost as if this statement has become a required add-on, to ensure the science is protected from being appropriated by all those pesky “climate change deniers”.
It also means we are expected to believe the Milankovitch cycles stopped operating at the very same moment CO2 concentration started to increase. This is clearly an absurdity taken to the point of insanity, yet we are told to accept it without question.
The link marked * above, which leads to an explanation by NASA, is a case in point.
In fact, as part of its public outreach, NASA devotes a whole extra page to this caveat. It’s worth taking a moment to study how the messaging operates here. For example:
- It downplays any meaningful role for orbital or solar processes in shorter-term climate dynamics.
- It sidesteps Malinkovitch’s all-important distribution of sunlight by instead focusing on total solar output in recent years (i.e. it quietly shifts the variable used).
- While the figures it gives for CO₂ fluctuations are compatible with the Marks-Peterson paper (as levels can oscillate within glacial cycles, but are smoothed out by long-term averages), the new findings do imply that the role of CO₂ feedback as a driver in ‘climate change’, over millions of years, was far more limited than was previously assumed. Hence NASA’s confident statement that “these fluctuations provided an important feedback to the total change in Earth’s climate that took place during those cycles” now appears premature and overstated.
- NASA’s assertion that troposphere warms + stratosphere cools, therefore ‘greenhouse gases’ appears both elegant and persuasive. However, stratospheric temperature is influenced by other factors (ozone changes, volcanic aerosols, atmospheric dynamics) rather than one single root cause.
Using absolutist “scientists know” language, NASA’s page builds a superficially plausible case that burning ‘fossil fuels’ is indeed cooking the planet. But it ignores the features of complex systems: internal variability, nonlinear thresholds (whereby small triggers can produce disproportionately large changes), and palaeoclimate mechanisms which are still under debate.
The flaws are thus revealed: its didactic tone, its oversimplifications, and a framing which is policy-adjacent rather than scientifically neutral. This is a classic case of “the science is settled” nudging, which omits a wider part of the story.
ii) Scorning the Svensmark Hypothesis
Regarding the Svensmark hypothesis (marked ** above), a similar orthodoxy drives much of the surrounding commentary. In 1996, Henrik Svensmark was labelled “extremely naive and irresponsible” by the chairman of the IPCC — for suggesting that rises in Earth’s temperature could be largely explained by solar activity.
Svensmark later reflected in a 2007 interview:
“I was just stunned. I remember being shocked by how many thought what I was doing was terrible. I couldn’t understand it because when you are a physicist, you are trained that when you find something that cannot be explained, something that doesn’t fit, that is what you are excited about. […] It was as though people were saying to me, ‘This is something that you should not have done.’ That was very strange for me, and it has been more or less like that ever since.
“Some are accusing me of doing it for political reasons; some are saying I’m doing it for the oil companies. This is just ridiculous. I think there’s a huge interest in discrediting what I’m doing, but I’ve sort of gotten used to this. I’ve convinced myself the only thing I can do is just to continue doing good science.”
The Real Lesson: Perspective Is Everything
All of this doesn’t mean humans have zero effect on climate, but with all the environmental regulations passed since the 1970s, the planet is healthier now than it was a century ago.
For three million years, it has accommodated changes in the sun, the tilt of Earth’s axis, even the formation of the Isthmus of Panama. But we are told, as a matter of urgency, that it’s now being irrevocably destabilized by backyard barbecues and SUVs.
That’s emotive marketing, not hard-headed science.
When you step back, you realize the true scandal isn’t in the data, but in how selectively we’ve been shown it. Science in the service of politics stops being science and becomes religion.
Institutions are loath to admit that the climate is not a fragile glass ornament. But nature —unbothered by budgets, bureaucrats or ‘net zero’ fantasies, tells us otherwise.
It’s the politics, not the climate, that needs cooling; and priorities that need recalibrating.
So it’s time we turned down the hysteria and turned up the curiosity.
See more here substack.com
Some bold emphasis added
Header image: Science
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
Trackback from your site.