Public debate has turned carbon dioxide into a kind of one-word explanation for every climate anxiety, a villain that neatly fits on a protest sign. Yet the science, the politics and even the latest temperature records tell a more complicated story about what is heating the planet and how societies are choosing to respond. If there is an inconvenient truth here, it is that CO₂ is only one part of a broader energy and policy puzzle that is now being contested in courts, cabinets and scientific forums.
I want to unpack that tension, not to deny warming, but to examine whether our fixation on a single molecule is obscuring other drivers, other gases and other choices. The result is a picture in which CO₂ is central but not solitary, and where arguments over its role are increasingly entangled with legal fights over regulation and the future of climate rules.
What the latest temperature data really shows
Any discussion of climate “villains” has to start with what is actually happening to temperatures. New global figures from Jan show that surface temperatures in 2025 were marginally warmer than in 2024, with 2016 and 2023 still standing out as exceptionally hot years in the modern record, a pattern that underscores a persistent warming trend rather than a one-off spike linked to a single event or gas. That trajectory is clear in the latest release of rising temperatures, which confirms that the planet is not simply oscillating around a stable baseline.
Yet even as the thermometer climbs, the way institutions talk about the causes is shifting. The same Jan release that highlighted the warmth of 2025 did so without leaning heavily on climate-change language, a choice that has fed into a broader political argument over how directly to link observed warming to human emissions. A separate reference to Jan in another version of the same dataset underscores how even technical releases are now read through a political lens, with wording choices scrutinized as closely as the numbers themselves.
The contested science: CO₂, the Sun and natural cycles
Behind the politics sits a genuine scientific debate over how much of the observed warming can be pinned on human activity, and how much reflects the natural variability of Earth’s climate system. A set of climate “Cons” compiled by reference works highlights that Con 1 is that Many scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change, while Con 2 stresses that Earth has experienced large swings in temperature long before industrial smokestacks, a reminder that natural drivers like volcanic activity and orbital cycles have always mattered. Those arguments are laid out in a broader climate-change debate that catalogues both the mainstream view and its critics.
One recurring alternative explanation is that the Sun, not greenhouse gases, is doing most of the work. Climate data assembled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate.gov platform and summarized in a report cited by the Denver Gazette found that solar activity has had little effect on recent global warming, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NOAA concluding that the Sun cannot be the sole driver of the temperature rise seen since the late twentieth century. That conclusion is reinforced by a detailed analysis of the which notes that, However, there has been no significant net change in the Sun’s energy output from the late 1970s to the present, precisely the period when greenhouse gases and temperatures have climbed together.
Greenhouse gases: why CO₂ is central but not alone
Even among scientists who agree that human activity is warming the planet, there is a growing effort to clarify that CO₂ is not acting in isolation. A widely cited explainer on greenhouse drivers points out that the industrially driven increase in CO₂ and other greenhouse gases differs profoundly from natural processes, with the accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in ways that can be quantified. That argument, which underpins the view that CO₂ is the main driver of current warming, is laid out in detail in a technical discussion of CO₂ that also stresses how well its rise tracks with fossil-fuel use.
At the same time, other gases pack a far stronger punch per molecule, which complicates any narrative that treats CO₂ as the only problem worth solving. Methane is described as a potent greenhouse gas that has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it is emitted, which is why Methane leaks from oil and gas infrastructure have become such a focus for regulators. Nitrous Oxide, another long-lived pollutant, has a GWP 273 times that of CO₂ for a 100-year timescale, and Nitrous Oxide emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than a century, a reminder that agriculture and industrial chemistry are as much a part of the climate story as coal plants.
Natural buffers and physical limits
Another reason CO₂ should not be treated as a cartoon villain is that The Earth has evolved powerful natural systems to handle it. Peer reviewed work on the carbon cycle notes that The Earth system has natural processes for capturing and sequestering CO₂, including forests, soils and oceans that absorb and store vast quantities of carbon over decades and centuries, helping to maintain the balance of gases in the atmosphere. That capacity, described in detail in an environmental review, is not limitless, but it does mean that some fraction of human emissions is continuously being drawn down rather than simply accumulating unchecked.
There is also a more technical argument that the warming effect of CO₂ itself may not scale linearly with concentration. Climate communicators such as Lana Lukan of the Heartland Institute have popularized the idea that CO₂’s main infrared absorption bands are already close to saturated, so additional molecules add less incremental warming than the first ones did, a claim she outlines in a video shared by the Heartland Institute. That perspective, echoed in a second upload featuring Lana Lukan on CO₂ limits, is contested by mainstream researchers, but it has gained traction among those who argue that future warming may be less sensitive to emissions than standard models suggest.
Even critics of greenhouse-gas orthodoxy, however, accept that these gases influence how the planet sheds heat. A detailed critique of conventional climate theory notes that Fourier and most climate scientists today would argue that greenhouse gases slow the cooling of Earth, which Sun, therefore, makes Earth warmer by reducing the rate at which infrared energy escapes to space. That description of how radiation and convection interact in the atmosphere is laid out in a technical essay on greenhouse physics, which ultimately concedes that while the mechanism is subtle, it is physically plausible that added gases can cause Earth to warm.
From lab to law: how CO₂ became a legal “pollutant”
The scientific nuances around CO₂ are now colliding with a fierce legal and political battle over how, or even whether, governments should regulate it. A dedicated “Cons” section on climate policy notes again that Con 1 is that Many scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change and that Con 2 is that Earth’s climate has always changed, arguments that some lawmakers now cite when resisting new rules. Those points are spelled out in a focused list of Cons that has become a touchstone for skeptics.
Those arguments are now being tested in courtrooms and regulatory dockets. In Jan, reporting on a draft proposal explained that Procedurally, it argues that greenhouse gases should not be treated as pollutants in the traditional sense because their effects operate globally and over long timescales, a position that directly challenges the legal basis for earlier Environmental Protection Agency rules. That procedural critique, which has been amplified through a regulatory analysis, is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of climate authority.
More from Morning Overview