As Lewis explains: "Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and highly unlikely to exceed that level.

How much lower? Lewis and Curry say that their findings show temperature increases will be 30%-45% lower than the climate models say. If they are right, then there's little to worry about, even if we don't drastically reduce CO2 emissions.

The fact that the Lewis and Curry study appears in the peer-reviewed American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate lends credibility to their findings. This is the same journal, after all, that recently published widely covered studies saying the Sahara has been growing and the climate boundary in central U.S. has shifted 140 miles to the east because of global warming.

The Lewis and Curry findings come after another study, published in the prestigious journal Nature, that found the long-held view that a doubling of CO2 would boost global temperatures as much as 4.5 degrees Celsius was wrong. The most temperatures would likely climb is 3.4 degrees.

It also follows a study published in Science, which found that rocks contain vast amounts of nitrogen that plants could use to grow and absorb more CO2, potentially offsetting at least some of the effects of CO2 emissions and reducing future temperature increases.

Given that environmentalists want the U.S., along with the rest of the world, to spend trillions of dollars trying to cut down on CO2 emissions — based entirely on doom-and-gloom climate model forecasts — these findings are profoundly important.

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...co2-emissions/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/29865...-james-barrett

As The Daily Wire highlighted in January, scientists have acknowledged that attempting to forecast future global temperatures is a near impossibility, as it requires factoring in the "known unknown" of "equilibrium climate sensitivity," which "requires accounting for a wide range of notoriously difficult-to-predict factors, including, as Cox notes, the climate 'tipping points,' rapid changes in the climate that have occurred historically caused by the planet itself rather than more predictable external factors." The process is so complex, MIT atmospheric physician Richard Lindzen says in a video for PragerU, that "long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."