Thanks for all your work Matt, if I ever get into a links and sourses discussion this article will be a good resourse. I have been around long enough to remember the global freezing BS and I have built up an immuity to this DS Rat Bastard jibberish.
Regarding evolution: Which “evolved” first? The eye-ball or the eye-socket?
Coevolution is the scientific answer. Yes, it’s a “thing” as they say these days. I even recall a journal called, CoEvolution Quarterly back in the last part of the last millennium.
How dare you contradict Greta Thunberg, who now saves the people in Gaza from the khazarian mafia, the same KM that pushes global warming. She’s screaming from all sides in the war between good and evil. A maximal chaos super agent. “Don’t interrupt your enemies while they destroy themselves.” Keep up the good works.
I recommend Mitchell's book, Global Warming, Global Deception. The basic absurdity that they can assign a temperature to the entire planet with 100,000+ feet of atmosphere, is just the start. He tries to go to basic physics principles to show that anthropogenic climate change is an unprincipled lie.
Anyone remember Climategate which revealed that they were cooking the data for their fallacious climate models and suppressing the opposing views? Nothing has changed.
Garbage In to phony models, Garbage out in the form of climate "predictions" that cant be back tested on historical data.
Here is **Genesis 1:26-28** in the **New King James Version (NKJV)**, followed by an expanded explanation of the word "subdue" used in verse 28:
**Genesis 1:26-28 (NKJV)**:
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
### Expanded Meaning of "Subdue" in Genesis 1:28:
The word **"subdue"** (Hebrew: **כָּבַשׁ** *kabas*) in this context means to **bring under control, to conquer, or to subjugate**. It implies a sense of managing or exercising dominion over the earth in an organized, responsible, and thoughtful manner. God is instructing humans to **exercise authority over nature**, not by exploitation or reckless dominance, but through stewardship and careful management.
To "subdue" the earth is often understood as a command to humankind to **cultivate, manage, and preserve** the world around them. This involves the use of resources in a way that benefits both humanity and the environment, ensuring sustainability and balance. It is not about domination in a harmful sense, but about responsible leadership and taking care of the earth as God's stewards.
In summary, **subdue** in Genesis 1:28 calls for mankind to **exercise control** over the earth in a way that aligns with God’s original design, reflecting a purposeful and ethical relationship with creation, focused on caring for it while utilizing its resources wisely.
The leaf greens are a good thing...helps with natural population. Just like during dinosaur times, huge greens for huge body masses. But we are here now, and we still need the green masses
Matthew, if you're interested in the scientific reason why CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows temperature, it is this: Most of the earth's CO2 is actually dissolved in seawater, rather than in the atmosphere. And CO2 like all gases, exhibits inverse solubility in water; i.e., as the temperature increases, (in equilibrium) more CO2 moves from the aqueous phase to the gas phase. These relationships can be quantified. That is, at a given temperature, the ratio of the CO2 dissolved in the water to the CO2 in the air is fixed and determined by the temperature.
The 800-year delay you observed in the data is due to the time it takes a system as massive as the oceans and atmosphere to equilibrate, i.e. for the change predicted by theory to be realized. Basically it takes a long time for the ocean to warm up, and an even longer time for the dissolved gas to slowly be released into the atmosphere.
Of course, since this system is linear, the reverse will also be true: dropping temperatures will also result, over a period of time, in a greater proportion of CO2 moving from the atmosphere to the oceans. The time constant does not necessarily have to be the same (800 years) in both directions, though I expect a scientist experienced in this sort of thing could calculate the dynamics based on some assumptions about mixing between layers of the atmosphere and oceans. Way beyond my pay grade (I'm an electrical engineer by training), but there are people who know about these things that could likely figure this stuff out. Matter of fact, I'd not be surprised to find that somebody has actually done this. Of course this would be 'an inconvenient truth' and likely buried by the woke types editing scientific journals, but it could perhaps be found by an intrepid researcher.
Bottom line though, is there is every reason (shown by the science, as in the TRUE science) for your observation to be solidly based.
As we have discussed before, this was never about the science. This was about the money. Global cooling was tried and debunked so they have flipped to global warming and then to climate change. The game is in selling fear to unsophisticated Americans to justify billions of dollars in research to quantify a problem that doesn’t even exist. So, the more they research and find more unknowns, the more money they demand. Surely the proof is out here somewhere. I am reminded of snipe hunts.
When our government is allowed to fund all of this with borrowed money that they can merely vote to add to our national debt, it will continue and go to the best story. There is no money in proving the premise is false. That would take the politicians out of the argument and save taxpayers wasted dollars. Where is the “gain” in that idea?
Excellent article but please correct all the typos such as "tappers" (tapers) and "the later" (the latter). Also "...feel like any honest jury..." (feel that any honest jury). "The amount of actual factors ... are so complex..." (The actual factors ... are so complex...) and "...despite the fact that it’s atmosphere..." (its atmosphere) and on and on. Such lack of attention to detail kills credibility imho.
Mathew, thank you for the excellent synopsis. Two other points: William Happer’s presentation on the non linear dynamics and limitations of CO2’s greenhouse effect due to saturation at discreet wavelengths of absorption are elegantly proven by Planck’s Curve and the subsequent work of Schwarzchild. Secondly, Javier Vinós has written a compelling book, Solving the Climate Puzzle, that examines the immense complexity of climate science and offers innovative solutions.
I am so tired of this nonsense that plants made our oxygen atmosphere. I figure this idea must come from the fact that we can live without food for months, but strangle within a few minutes without air. Idiots "scientists" tell us the Earth originally had a carbon dioxide atmosphere and photosynthesis turned it into an oxygen atmosphere, not counting nitrogen, argon and other more-or-less inert gases. I am the only one I know of who has done the math. The earth had an oxygen atmosphere to begin with. Look up the total weight of organic matter on earth and total weight of CO2 and O2 and figure out what would happen to life-giving gases (O2 and CO2 if all organic matter were burned up, or if all CO2wereturned into life plus oxygen (One O2 produced per carbon atom).
It would be good to clarify that percentages of gases can be misleading since different gasses have different greenhouse amplification factors. How much greater, for example, is methane than carbon dioxide?
I am just discovering how fertile and brilliant you are Mr. Ehret, but I have one quibble. There is No Greenhouse Effect. The equation of state PV = nRT is sufficient to describe the Earth's atmosphere's surface temperature and also many planets' and moons'. Check out: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jdPQ9aGbY>
I am a relatively new reader but have noticed you provide substantial amounts of detail in your articles and in this one many cites as well. I recommend adding a few more cites to this article that I think would reinforce you argument and be "even closer to home" in more ways than one: take a look at the "Maunder Minimum" which deals with an overlay of some of the coldest parts of the Little Ice Age you mention with an unusual absence of sunspots during those parts...most readers are aware of sunspots and few can argue that solar activity is much more powerful and closer than cosmic rays, and also dovetails with the relative lack of industrial activity and emissions at least compared to now....I would also suggest that all oxygen using life on earth is dependent on land based and marine based oxygen suppliers, the latter being plankton and similar life forms, where the point being that True environmentalists understand .an made pollution that can poison these oxygen providers is a much more legitimate threat than any of this C02 greenhouse gas garbage (pun intended). Keep up your articles, sometimes I need a scorecard to track the players but I find the articles quite interesting!
A common tactic in climate misinformation is to selectively quote real scientific studies while stripping them of their context. This post misrepresents a 2019 NASA study on global greening to suggest that CO₂ is beneficial and cannot be driving climate change. Let’s examine that claim point by point.
Misused Claim: “NASA says more CO₂ is making the Earth greener—therefore it’s good”
Reality: The 2019 NASA study did indeed find that the Earth has become greener between 2000 and 2017 due to increased leaf area, primarily in China and India (NASA Earth Observatory). But the study explicitly warns that this does not offset climate change and is largely due to reforestation and intensive agriculture—not CO₂ alone.
“The greening over the last 20 years represents an increase in leaf area on plants and trees equivalent to the area covered by all the Amazon rainforests.” – NASA
But they also caution that this is not a climate mitigation solution and will not continue indefinitely (NASA, 2019).
And importantly: Greening does not cancel out the warming effects of greenhouse gases. The same NASA team later noted that CO₂-induced greening might slow warming by only 0.09°C, a fraction of what is expected (NASA, 2020).
Misleading Claim: “Human CO₂ is insignificant compared to natural CO₂”
Reality: This is a classic misdirection. While it’s true that natural sources emit more CO₂ than humans, they’re also matched by natural sinks that absorb it. Human emissions are not offset, which is why atmospheric CO₂ keeps rising.
“Human activities have increased atmospheric CO₂ by 50% since the pre-industrial era”
– NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory (source)
That extra CO₂—traced chemically and isotopically to fossil fuel burning—is disrupting the balance.
Confused Claim: “In the past, warming came before CO₂ increases”
Reality: This refers to natural deglaciation cycles, where orbital changes caused initial warming, which then released CO₂ from the oceans, which in turn amplified the warming.
“CO₂ was not the initial trigger, but it did act as a powerful feedback that intensified the warming.”
– NASA Climate Change (source)
So yes—CO₂ sometimes follows warming, but it also causes additional warming. That’s not a contradiction, it’s how feedback loops work.
Claim: “It’s just the sun or cosmic rays causing warming”
Reality: The sun’s output has not increased over the past 70 years—yet temperatures have soared.
“If the Sun were driving the recent warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, we see warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere—exactly the fingerprint of greenhouse gases.”
– IPCC AR6 and NASA (source)
Cosmic rays don’t show any consistent correlation with modern warming either.
Claim: “CO₂ is good, it feeds plants”
Reality: Yes, CO₂ is essential for photosynthesis—but more is not always better.
Nutrient limitations, drought, and heatwaves increasingly offset the benefits of elevated CO₂.
Food crops grown in high-CO₂ conditions can have reduced nutritional quality (Myers et al., 2014).
Ecosystem stress, biodiversity loss, and ocean acidification caused by excess CO₂ are well-documented (IPCC AR6 WGII).
Final Word
There is no serious scientific debate about the core fact that human emissions of CO₂ are driving rapid, dangerous changes to our climate. The NASA greening study is a fascinating piece of Earth science—but it is not a license to ignore the climate crisis. Misrepresenting it only muddies public understanding and delays meaningful solutions.
Sources:
1. NASA: Human Activity in China and India Dominates the Greening of Earth
Thanks for all your work Matt, if I ever get into a links and sourses discussion this article will be a good resourse. I have been around long enough to remember the global freezing BS and I have built up an immuity to this DS Rat Bastard jibberish.
Regarding evolution: Which “evolved” first? The eye-ball or the eye-socket?
God Wins!
God Bless!!!
Coevolution is the scientific answer. Yes, it’s a “thing” as they say these days. I even recall a journal called, CoEvolution Quarterly back in the last part of the last millennium.
Coevolution is the belief of evolutionary theorists tying themselves up in knots trying to avoid the truth that the universe is designed.
Sorry, not believable.
Science isn’t about belief; it’s about evidence. Thus, you are neither asked nor expected to believe.
WOW, Coevolution is the most riduculous jibberish I have read in years, and I read a lot. Sorry, still unbelievable.
Goes to show you. We live not in reality but in our understanding of reality.
😉
How dare you contradict Greta Thunberg, who now saves the people in Gaza from the khazarian mafia, the same KM that pushes global warming. She’s screaming from all sides in the war between good and evil. A maximal chaos super agent. “Don’t interrupt your enemies while they destroy themselves.” Keep up the good works.
It's all for the Greta Good though. :) She is one the buggers in my post.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/assorted-buggers-and-annoyances-a?utm_source=publication-search
🤣🤣
I recommend Mitchell's book, Global Warming, Global Deception. The basic absurdity that they can assign a temperature to the entire planet with 100,000+ feet of atmosphere, is just the start. He tries to go to basic physics principles to show that anthropogenic climate change is an unprincipled lie.
Anyone remember Climategate which revealed that they were cooking the data for their fallacious climate models and suppressing the opposing views? Nothing has changed.
Garbage In to phony models, Garbage out in the form of climate "predictions" that cant be back tested on historical data.
Here is **Genesis 1:26-28** in the **New King James Version (NKJV)**, followed by an expanded explanation of the word "subdue" used in verse 28:
**Genesis 1:26-28 (NKJV)**:
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
### Expanded Meaning of "Subdue" in Genesis 1:28:
The word **"subdue"** (Hebrew: **כָּבַשׁ** *kabas*) in this context means to **bring under control, to conquer, or to subjugate**. It implies a sense of managing or exercising dominion over the earth in an organized, responsible, and thoughtful manner. God is instructing humans to **exercise authority over nature**, not by exploitation or reckless dominance, but through stewardship and careful management.
To "subdue" the earth is often understood as a command to humankind to **cultivate, manage, and preserve** the world around them. This involves the use of resources in a way that benefits both humanity and the environment, ensuring sustainability and balance. It is not about domination in a harmful sense, but about responsible leadership and taking care of the earth as God's stewards.
In summary, **subdue** in Genesis 1:28 calls for mankind to **exercise control** over the earth in a way that aligns with God’s original design, reflecting a purposeful and ethical relationship with creation, focused on caring for it while utilizing its resources wisely.
The leaf greens are a good thing...helps with natural population. Just like during dinosaur times, huge greens for huge body masses. But we are here now, and we still need the green masses
Matthew, if you're interested in the scientific reason why CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows temperature, it is this: Most of the earth's CO2 is actually dissolved in seawater, rather than in the atmosphere. And CO2 like all gases, exhibits inverse solubility in water; i.e., as the temperature increases, (in equilibrium) more CO2 moves from the aqueous phase to the gas phase. These relationships can be quantified. That is, at a given temperature, the ratio of the CO2 dissolved in the water to the CO2 in the air is fixed and determined by the temperature.
The 800-year delay you observed in the data is due to the time it takes a system as massive as the oceans and atmosphere to equilibrate, i.e. for the change predicted by theory to be realized. Basically it takes a long time for the ocean to warm up, and an even longer time for the dissolved gas to slowly be released into the atmosphere.
Of course, since this system is linear, the reverse will also be true: dropping temperatures will also result, over a period of time, in a greater proportion of CO2 moving from the atmosphere to the oceans. The time constant does not necessarily have to be the same (800 years) in both directions, though I expect a scientist experienced in this sort of thing could calculate the dynamics based on some assumptions about mixing between layers of the atmosphere and oceans. Way beyond my pay grade (I'm an electrical engineer by training), but there are people who know about these things that could likely figure this stuff out. Matter of fact, I'd not be surprised to find that somebody has actually done this. Of course this would be 'an inconvenient truth' and likely buried by the woke types editing scientific journals, but it could perhaps be found by an intrepid researcher.
Bottom line though, is there is every reason (shown by the science, as in the TRUE science) for your observation to be solidly based.
As we have discussed before, this was never about the science. This was about the money. Global cooling was tried and debunked so they have flipped to global warming and then to climate change. The game is in selling fear to unsophisticated Americans to justify billions of dollars in research to quantify a problem that doesn’t even exist. So, the more they research and find more unknowns, the more money they demand. Surely the proof is out here somewhere. I am reminded of snipe hunts.
When our government is allowed to fund all of this with borrowed money that they can merely vote to add to our national debt, it will continue and go to the best story. There is no money in proving the premise is false. That would take the politicians out of the argument and save taxpayers wasted dollars. Where is the “gain” in that idea?
"this was never about the science. This was about the money."
Absolutely, Jim. But when you understand the science, you can debunk the myths, and show [them] for who they are. For those who care to understand.
Snipe hunts indeed. We'll see who is left holding the bag, when all is said and done. 😎
Excellent article but please correct all the typos such as "tappers" (tapers) and "the later" (the latter). Also "...feel like any honest jury..." (feel that any honest jury). "The amount of actual factors ... are so complex..." (The actual factors ... are so complex...) and "...despite the fact that it’s atmosphere..." (its atmosphere) and on and on. Such lack of attention to detail kills credibility imho.
Yes, copy editing is important.
Mathew, thank you for the excellent synopsis. Two other points: William Happer’s presentation on the non linear dynamics and limitations of CO2’s greenhouse effect due to saturation at discreet wavelengths of absorption are elegantly proven by Planck’s Curve and the subsequent work of Schwarzchild. Secondly, Javier Vinós has written a compelling book, Solving the Climate Puzzle, that examines the immense complexity of climate science and offers innovative solutions.
I am so tired of this nonsense that plants made our oxygen atmosphere. I figure this idea must come from the fact that we can live without food for months, but strangle within a few minutes without air. Idiots "scientists" tell us the Earth originally had a carbon dioxide atmosphere and photosynthesis turned it into an oxygen atmosphere, not counting nitrogen, argon and other more-or-less inert gases. I am the only one I know of who has done the math. The earth had an oxygen atmosphere to begin with. Look up the total weight of organic matter on earth and total weight of CO2 and O2 and figure out what would happen to life-giving gases (O2 and CO2 if all organic matter were burned up, or if all CO2wereturned into life plus oxygen (One O2 produced per carbon atom).
Sorry, still not believable. Common sense and critical thinking need to be brought back into our Television world.
It would be good to clarify that percentages of gases can be misleading since different gasses have different greenhouse amplification factors. How much greater, for example, is methane than carbon dioxide?
all the mambo jumbo from the people who (real issue) want total control of the people (globalists)
will fail
I am just discovering how fertile and brilliant you are Mr. Ehret, but I have one quibble. There is No Greenhouse Effect. The equation of state PV = nRT is sufficient to describe the Earth's atmosphere's surface temperature and also many planets' and moons'. Check out: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jdPQ9aGbY>
Dan Kurt
I am a relatively new reader but have noticed you provide substantial amounts of detail in your articles and in this one many cites as well. I recommend adding a few more cites to this article that I think would reinforce you argument and be "even closer to home" in more ways than one: take a look at the "Maunder Minimum" which deals with an overlay of some of the coldest parts of the Little Ice Age you mention with an unusual absence of sunspots during those parts...most readers are aware of sunspots and few can argue that solar activity is much more powerful and closer than cosmic rays, and also dovetails with the relative lack of industrial activity and emissions at least compared to now....I would also suggest that all oxygen using life on earth is dependent on land based and marine based oxygen suppliers, the latter being plankton and similar life forms, where the point being that True environmentalists understand .an made pollution that can poison these oxygen providers is a much more legitimate threat than any of this C02 greenhouse gas garbage (pun intended). Keep up your articles, sometimes I need a scorecard to track the players but I find the articles quite interesting!
A common tactic in climate misinformation is to selectively quote real scientific studies while stripping them of their context. This post misrepresents a 2019 NASA study on global greening to suggest that CO₂ is beneficial and cannot be driving climate change. Let’s examine that claim point by point.
Misused Claim: “NASA says more CO₂ is making the Earth greener—therefore it’s good”
Reality: The 2019 NASA study did indeed find that the Earth has become greener between 2000 and 2017 due to increased leaf area, primarily in China and India (NASA Earth Observatory). But the study explicitly warns that this does not offset climate change and is largely due to reforestation and intensive agriculture—not CO₂ alone.
“The greening over the last 20 years represents an increase in leaf area on plants and trees equivalent to the area covered by all the Amazon rainforests.” – NASA
But they also caution that this is not a climate mitigation solution and will not continue indefinitely (NASA, 2019).
And importantly: Greening does not cancel out the warming effects of greenhouse gases. The same NASA team later noted that CO₂-induced greening might slow warming by only 0.09°C, a fraction of what is expected (NASA, 2020).
Misleading Claim: “Human CO₂ is insignificant compared to natural CO₂”
Reality: This is a classic misdirection. While it’s true that natural sources emit more CO₂ than humans, they’re also matched by natural sinks that absorb it. Human emissions are not offset, which is why atmospheric CO₂ keeps rising.
“Human activities have increased atmospheric CO₂ by 50% since the pre-industrial era”
– NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory (source)
That extra CO₂—traced chemically and isotopically to fossil fuel burning—is disrupting the balance.
Confused Claim: “In the past, warming came before CO₂ increases”
Reality: This refers to natural deglaciation cycles, where orbital changes caused initial warming, which then released CO₂ from the oceans, which in turn amplified the warming.
“CO₂ was not the initial trigger, but it did act as a powerful feedback that intensified the warming.”
– NASA Climate Change (source)
So yes—CO₂ sometimes follows warming, but it also causes additional warming. That’s not a contradiction, it’s how feedback loops work.
Claim: “It’s just the sun or cosmic rays causing warming”
Reality: The sun’s output has not increased over the past 70 years—yet temperatures have soared.
“If the Sun were driving the recent warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, we see warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere—exactly the fingerprint of greenhouse gases.”
– IPCC AR6 and NASA (source)
Cosmic rays don’t show any consistent correlation with modern warming either.
Claim: “CO₂ is good, it feeds plants”
Reality: Yes, CO₂ is essential for photosynthesis—but more is not always better.
Nutrient limitations, drought, and heatwaves increasingly offset the benefits of elevated CO₂.
Food crops grown in high-CO₂ conditions can have reduced nutritional quality (Myers et al., 2014).
Ecosystem stress, biodiversity loss, and ocean acidification caused by excess CO₂ are well-documented (IPCC AR6 WGII).
Final Word
There is no serious scientific debate about the core fact that human emissions of CO₂ are driving rapid, dangerous changes to our climate. The NASA greening study is a fascinating piece of Earth science—but it is not a license to ignore the climate crisis. Misrepresenting it only muddies public understanding and delays meaningful solutions.
Sources:
1. NASA: Human Activity in China and India Dominates the Greening of Earth
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth
2. NASA Earth Observatory: A Green Up Because of People
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/144540/a-green-up-because-of-people
3. NASA: Global Green Up Slows Warming
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2878/global-green-up-slows-warming/
4. NOAA: Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (Mauna Loa CO₂ data)
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
5. NASA Climate: Climate Change – How Do We Know?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
6. IPCC AR6 (2021): Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
7. Myers et al. (2014): Increasing CO₂ threatens human nutrition
Nature, Vol. 510, pp. 139–142
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13179