Carbon Dioxide Lag: A Thorny Problem for the Mainstream Zero Net Climate Narrative, By Brian Simpson

In the grand theater of climate science, where the script has long been " Carbon dioxide, CO₂ is the villain pulling the temperature strings," a new study drops like a plot twist from a bad sci-fi sequel. Enter Grabyan (2025): "CO₂ Does Not Precede Temperature, Nor Does It Control Temperature." (See link below.) That's right, the gas we've been demonised for emitting doesn't lead the dance; it follows, lagging behind temperature shifts by about 150 years over the last two millennia. This isn't some fringe conspiracy; it's a comprehensive correlation analysis drawing on ice cores, stomata, boreholes, and more, echoing paleo records from 20,000 years ago to 420 million years back. For the mainstream narrative, peddled by the IPCC and echoed in every UN summit and schoolroom, this is a pretty big problem. Or, as sceptics might say, a nail in the coffin of anthropogenic doom.

Let's unpack the drama. The Common Era (1-1850 CE) data shows temperature changes kicking off the party, with CO₂ trailing like a tipsy guest arriving fashionably late. Centuries, even millennia, behind. This isn't a one-off; it's consistent across eons, over 400,000 years. Stretch it to 66 million, or 420 million, and the pattern holds: warming first, CO₂ release second. Why? Basic physics and biology; warmer oceans and soils release dissolved CO₂, just as cold snaps lock it away. So, CO₂ responds to temperature, not the other way around. The mainstream's core claim, that rising CO₂ from human activity drives catastrophic warming, starts looking like a house of cards in a stiff breeze.

But wait, there's more! The study ties temperature swings to total solar irradiance (TSI), using datasets the IPCC conveniently downplays. The sun's mood swings correlate far better with climate shifts than CO₂ ever did. Remember the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age? No industrial CO₂ spike there, but solar activity was calling the shots. The IPCC's preferred TSI reconstructions? They're sanitised to fit the narrative, minimising solar influence, while amplifying CO₂'s role. Grabyan's work flips that script, suggesting the real driver is up there in the sky, not in our tailpipes.

Of course, the comment section (metaphorically speaking) is already buzzing with pushback.Michael Corcoran, nitpicks the tense and wonders if CO₂'s role flipped post-1850, now at 420 ppm versus the pre-industrial 290 ppm max. Fair point, industrial emissions have jacked up CO₂ levels unprecedentedly. But does that mean it suddenly became the boss? The lag logic suggests no: even today, CO₂ might amplify warming but doesn't initiate it. Solar variability, ocean cycles, and natural forcings could still be the spark. And at 420 ppm, we're not exactly in uncharted territory; paleo records show higher CO₂ during ice ages, when temperatures were low. Correlation isn't causation, but the mainstream's causation claim is looking shaky.

This "pretty problem" for the climate alarmists is more than academic. It undercuts the trillion-dollar green agenda: net-zero mandates, carbon taxes, and energy transitions that chooses windmills over nukes or fossil fuels, so the question is socially important. If CO₂ is a follower, not the leader, why the panic? Why ignore solar data or adaptive strategies in favour of fearmongering? The narrative has been so entrenched, via media, academia, and policy, that challenging it risks heresy charges. But science isn't a consensus cult; it's about evidence. Grabyan's study, building on decades of paleo data, unleashes more evidence that the CO₂-climate causal chain is backwards.

The mainstream will likely dismiss this as cherry-picked or outdated, but the accumulating studies paint a different picture: climate is complex, driven by multiple factors, with CO₂ as a bit player. For policymakers and the public, it's a wake-up call. Instead of chasing CO₂ ghosts, focus on real resilience, better energy, innovation, adaptation. The earth's been through worse without us, and it'll keep spinning. The real catastrophe? A narrative so rigid it blinds us to the sun.