MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411109537 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v18n4p25

Exaggerated Claims for Carbon Dioxide and Other ‘Greenhouse Gases’

2025· article· en· W4411109537 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Simpson, Søren B. Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon dioxideGreenhouse gasNatural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionBusinessChemistryEconomicsEcologyBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a harmless highly beneficial rare trace gas essential for all life on Earth due to photosynthesis which produces simple sugars and carbohydrates in plants and a bi-product Oxygen (O2) which is essential for all animal life. CO2 is the basis of the entire food supply chain. CO2 has been vilified as a ‘greenhouse gas’ and is thought to be responsible for ‘global warming’. Yet CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and cannot be responsible for ‘dangerous’ heating of the planet. It is claimed the greenhouse effect will be multiplied by a simultaneous increase in atmospheric water vapour content. Water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, the claimed increase has not been seen and we can expect much less warming. This research explains that the exaggerated claims about CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are misleading. These gases have a limited effect on temperature and the climate. Increases in these gases will have a decreasing effect, since absorption of radiation is logarithmic. We provide a parts per million by volume (ppmv) calculator for amounts of CO2, and parts per billion (ppbv) calculator for amounts of CH4, and N2O. About half of the yearly emitted CO2 is lost to the ocean and biosphere and does not appear in the atmosphere. There is considerable uncertainty about whether the small increases in concentration of CH4 and N2O are human-caused or natural.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207