18/9/2025 |Articles are machine translated
RNDr. Tomáš Fürst, Ph.D., mathematician and data analyst. | Photo: Hana Görlichová
Tomáš Fürst, a mathematician and data analyst at Palacký University in Olomouc, says that models that try to predict the future can only be reliable if we know the physical laws on which the system is based. “We only know a little about the climate,” he adds. In the interview, he questions the influence of carbon dioxide on global warming and warns of dramatic consequences for industry.
What are mathematical models, what are they used for – and how reliable are they when it comes to complex and long-term phenomena?
A mathematical model is actually a kind of digital twin of reality, a simulation. For some systems, we know the physical laws that govern them, so we can enter everything into a computer and run it so that it runs according to the same physical laws as in reality. We can speed up the passage of time on a computer, so we can predict.
Mathematical models are also used to understand a system. We can model what happens when we change a parameter. What happens when we increase the concentration of CO2? What would happen if the sun shone ten percent less? We can’t do this in reality, but we can in a model.
Or models can be used for what we call inference, or drawing conclusions based on available data, for example, what the sensitivity of the system is to certain parameters.
But all this is only possible if we know the physical laws that govern the system. But there are systems where we know the laws of physics only a little, for example in the case of climate. And then there are systems that we call chaotic, where we know the laws of physics exactly, but it still doesn’t allow us to predict, because any, even a small, error in the input data is unfortunately greatly amplified.
You mentioned climate as an area where “we know only a little about the laws of physics.” Let’s start from the beginning. It’s probably impossible to deny that the climate is warming. The thermometer doesn’t lie.
It’s not that simple. What we call global temperature is a calculated average of measurements from terrestrial stations, that is, from points on the planet’s surface where someone has placed thermometers. But it depends on where you put the thermometers, when you put them there, and how you measure them. Typically, people place them where they live, in and around cities. Of course, it gets quite a bit warmer there, because cities grow and create heat islands. Perhaps if we put the thermometers elsewhere, the results would be different.
But wherever the thermometers are, the truth is that it is indeed warming, although not as much as is commonly said, or rather “as feared.”
If we look back, at every moment in the history of the planet, it has either warmed or cooled, because temperature is simply the response of a complex system. And such a response cannot be constant. In the last tens of thousands of years, we have had various ice ages and interglacials, but for example in the Middle Ages it was warmer than it is today. The climate is quite wild.
Wasn’t it said relatively recently that an ice age was coming?
Yes! I still have articles from prestigious American magazines from the 1970s hidden away, where concerns were expressed that a longer ice age was coming, and what to do about it. In one article, someone suggests that it would be a good idea to burn a lot of fossil fuels, because CO2 could possibly create a greenhouse effect and slow down the cooling.
At that time, thermometers showed temperatures falling year after year?
Exactly. From World War II to the 1970s, there was a slight cooling, which is not talked about much now. And then it started to warm up again. And soon it will cool down again. And that’s how it’s always been.
You said that at that time there was also a recommendation to burn more fossil fuels, which would create a greenhouse effect and warm the planet. So there has long been no doubt that CO2 warms the planet.
Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases – that is a proven physical fact. Asymmetric molecules such as carbon dioxide, methane or water vapor can capture thermal radiation, i.e. long-wave photons, that the Earth emits. Under normal circumstances, such radiation would escape into space and the planet would cool down. We have known this since the time of Joseph Fourier (1768–1830, French mathematician and physicist, still considered to be the discoverer of the greenhouse effect – ed. note). That is why people who have not delved into it too much say: if CO₂ warms the planet, more CO₂ will cause even greater warming.
But it is not that simple. Today’s concentration of greenhouse gases is already so high that practically all thermal radiation hits a molecule – either CO₂, water vapor, or methane. The energy from this radiation is “stored” in the molecule for a while and then emitted again – often in a different direction. This is how the radiation literally penetrates the atmosphere: it is captured, sent further, captured again and emitted again. Only when it reaches the higher layers of the atmosphere, to an altitude of ten to twenty kilometers, can it be sent out for the last time and escape into space. When you imagine this, it no longer seems obvious that further increases in CO₂ concentration will lead to more significant warming. The atmosphere is already so “saturated” that every photon stops at least once and is re-emitted.
The fact is, whether it will continue to warm if we continue to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere or not, unfortunately, it is impossible to verify in practice.
That is true, no controlled experiments are possible here, unless we create more planets, the same as Earth, and add carbon dioxide to some and subtract it from others. But we can look into the distant past to see what the temperatures were and what the CO2 concentrations were. The fact is that in terms of the history of the planet, we are living almost at the minimum of carbon dioxide, it has almost never been lower than today. Currently, there is so little of it in the atmosphere that if we were to reduce its concentration by half, all green plants would become extinct.
In the history of the planet, there were times when it was much warmer and there was more CO2, when it was warmer and there was less CO2, or when it was colder and more CO2, and when it was colder and less CO2. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is much more complicated than politicians would like.
If that is the case, you are probably not the only one who knows. So why is there a broad consensus among scientists and politicians that reducing CO2 emissions will slow down global warming?
There is a quote: “If it is consensus, it is not science, if it is science, it is not consensus.” Consensus is not a word in the scientific dictionary. Science should get as close to the truth as possible, and this can be achieved through dialogue, discussion, and hypotheses that are falsified using data. So arguing by scientific consensus is completely unscientific.
However, you are right that in the public sphere it is said that it is absolutely clear that the planet is warming because of CO2. And why is that so? I see three reasons.
First, do not forget that all science and research in today’s Western society is dependent on state funding. Universities live on state money, grants are also just a redistribution of state money. I don’t want to say that scientists are falsifying data today, of course, but when they have four models and three show that it will cool and one that it will warm, they choose the one that shows warming because that’s what politicians want to hear.
Added to this is the media hysteria. Some people are afraid to express their slightly unorthodox opinion in public, because they will immediately start talking about disinformation, spreading panic and something else. There is censorship in the media and self-censorship among scientists.
And then there is a third problem, and that is censorship in scientific journals, which function a bit like “gatekeepers”. If you want to publish something that is in line with the general narrative, it is very easy. But if you want to publish something that is not in line, it is almost impossible.
And these three factors make it seem as if there is absolute consensus in the scientific world. I can assure you that this is not the case.
The relationship between CO₂ and temperature is much more complex than politicians would like, Tomáš Fürst mentioned in his contribution to the Automotive Leaders Forum 2025. | Photo: Hana Görlichová
Do you have a problem with your opinions?
I work at the Faculty of Science of Palacký University in Olomouc, which is an oasis of freedom in the Czech academic environment, I can say what I want and where I want.
But when I focused on the data during Covid and explained what it shows and does not show, I was immediately labeled a disinformer.
Do you see any similarities between what happened during the pandemic and what is happening now in relation to green politics?
I think it is dangerously similar, because behind both the Covid madness and the climate madness are lapses of judgment based on flawed mathematical models.
As soon as Covid appeared in 2020, mathematical models came from Imperial College London (one of the most prestigious universities in the world – ed. note) that showed that if we do not immediately close down the entire society, millions will die. Those models later turned out to be completely flawed. None of those models were able to capture the dynamics of the virus, when the peak of the wave would be, if and when the next wave would come. Nobody really understood those models. But those models served politicians well, who evidently longed for totalitarian practices, where they would dictate to citizens exactly what they could and could not do.
It’s similar with global warming. A narrative spreads that says it’s the consensus of scientists, which cannot be doubted. But it’s all based on some mathematical model. And then a completely misguided policy is built on top of that like a pyramid.
And do you seriously think that the desire of politicians to “control” citizens plays a significant role in this? Couldn’t the pharmaceutical lobby, purely theoretically, also be behind it?
We don’t know for sure today, I think we still have to investigate all of this. Of course, all of these aspects were involved: the desire of politicians for power, the desire of various people to get rich…
But I think we underestimate the religious aspect of the whole problem. An essential part of all of this is that people lack some sense, they lack some religion – that is certainly common to both the pandemic and climate madness. In today’s modern era, people feel too educated to believe in the good old God, but they need some faith. And so instead of God, they focused on Covidism here, on saving the climate there. Both have certain elements of religion, for example, in that you help your neighbor. “My mask protects you, your mask protects me,” remember? Both have an aspect of the end of the world if we don’t do something about it. When it comes to climate, we’re already selling indulgences here – in the form of emission allowances. It all has a lot of religious aspects.
If we just stick to the climate, where and how do you think it all started? We talked about how everything was the other way around in the 1970s. There certainly wasn’t a messiah then who started preaching the salvation of humanity from a hot planet.
Yes, even in the 1980s everything was pretty normal. Probably the fact that carbon dioxide is measured very well played a significant role in this. Its global concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere has been represented by the Keeling curve since 1958.
Moreover, carbon dioxide is the final consequence of every activity that humans do – with one exception, and that is activity based on nuclear energy. Otherwise, the amount of CO2 is directly proportional to human activity. And since the 1980s, it started to bubble up, ideologically it was convenient to point the finger at the “white man”, at Western civilization, which is guilty because it produces CO2. Al Gore added weight to this with his famous film An Inconvenient Truth, where half of it is not true, but for which he received the Nobel Prize. And then it became the religion of the modern left.
You work in mathematical models and data analysis, including in industry. When you are in contact with industrial companies, how do you see their future in the light of the green transformation?
I am very concerned about the future, because our European civilization is based on industry. Wealth is created primarily by high-value-added production, and it is also the only thing in which good old Europe is still competitive in the world. And the campaign against carbon dioxide is essentially a campaign against industry. We have long since missed the train in artificial intelligence and similar areas.
So if I were to ask you whether you think we can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions in Europe while maintaining competitiveness, I probably know what you would say.
That’s not possible – unless we convert the entire economy to nuclear power. But most importantly: there is no point in fighting CO2, it is misguided to try to do so.
So what about global warming? Accept it as a fact and instead of uncertainly fighting it, try to adapt? Start breeding crops that like warmer climates?
I would start by getting science and research in order, so that we can once again talk rationally, openly, honestly and honestly in the public sphere about how the world works and how the climate works. And my intuition tells me that we should start looking at the water cycle in nature, because water is the main greenhouse gas. We know surprisingly little about the water cycle in nature, and I think it is the key to understanding the climate. Carbon dioxide is also interesting – but as an item somewhere towards the end of the list.
RNDr. Tomáš Fürst, Ph.D., is a mathematician and data analyst. He graduated in mathematical modeling at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics of Charles University, and currently works at the Department of Mathematical Analysis and Applications of Mathematics at Palacký University in Olomouc. He is dedicated to mathematical modeling of various natural phenomena and processes and correct reasoning and decision-making based on data. In medicine, his calculations help to understand the spread of diseases or the effectiveness of treatment. In industry, he deals with data processing and its intelligent use.
