Really?

It reaches no useful conclusion after torturing 53+ mice (and likely killing them).

You seem to have missed the data I provided. Yes, single data points from my own environment, but it stands to reason that these numbers are likely not uncommon in modern urban environments, homes and offices included.

In fact, I went over to a couple of my neighbors homes and took similar measurements, indoor and out. Same range of numbers. Upstairs, downstairs, in the back, in the front, in their cars.

What does this tell me?

This "research" was pointless. People have been living in 600 to 1000+ ppm CO2 concentrations, likely for decades.

What's the point of torturing mice with an experiment that doesn't even provide a reasonable analog?

What's the point of killing mice in an experiment where the control loop is only driven by CO2 concentration and does not provide adequate free air to dissipate everything and anything else?

53 mice in a box 1/3 the volume of a refrigerator?

My problem with this kind of "science" is that bits and pieces of the conclusion will be make their way into both popular brainwashing marketing as well as documents used to justify governmental policy. Ten generations into the copy-paste train the fact that this was a less-than-ideal experiment devoid of useful conclusions will not matter. Politicians will say things like "Global warming causes a 125% inflammation of the lungs". A statement that has absolutely no support in the findings at all. And yet, it will be taken as a true statement and used to drive outrage, votes, policies, etc.

Won't happen? This wouldn't be the first time.

One of my favorites --which did not lead to policies but rather silly technology and spending-- is a paper from the 1970's that reached a conclusion related to photosynthesis using purple light (no green spectral content). This led to indoor farms and growers buying purple lights to grow plants. In the last couple of years everyone started to realize this was a bad idea and everyone is rapidly moving towards white light now.

Much as is the case with the mouse CO2 experiment, the purple light experiment has serious issues. However, everyone copy-pasted conclusions and charts to justify their decision to go purple. In reality, the experiment looked at something like ground-up plant leaf cells under conditions that have nothing whatsoever to do with real live plants being grown for food (or recreational products).

That's how "junk science" can lead to undesirable unintended consequences. And that's why it should be identified as early as possible. These conclusions are not useful. And, when it comes to climate change, we are wasting valuable time focusing on absolute nonsense.

The reason is simple: In the research community it is professional suicide to speak-up against what politicians and other interests want to drive. You get research dollars and are elevated to hero status if you provide fuel for their madness. And so, if you'd rather have a job and funding, you ignore reality and pander to the political forces pushing this nonsense. That's how we get to 53 mice in a small box and call this "research".

I must highlight (because my statements can be misconstrued) that this is NOT about denying climate change at all. It's very real and, yes, we accelerated CO2 concentration through our industrial expansion. No question about that at all. What isn't real is that (a) we can fix it ("save the planet", a convenient emotional pull for votes and support) and (b) that we are all going to drop like flies (we've been living in 1000+ ppm CO2, likely for 50 to 100+ years).

Anyone who disagrees with me should go out and buy a CO2 meter --as I did years ago. Then go around and measure the environments you've been living and working in for the last several years. From there, assess your own general health and, if compelled, have a doctor give you a full (and relevant) check-up. I'll bet you are going to be VERY surprised to discover you've been living in 600 to 1000+ ppm CO2 environments for a very long time and you and your family are OK.

After that, go around to friends and family and repeat your measurements. Once again, I think you'll be very surprised by what you discover.

If you don't do this, please keep your thoughts to yourself. You are not even operating with the most basic of data sets --data about your own environment-- to understand that some of these claims are just ridiculous.