All the claims about Net Zero from the temperature record through catastrophic warming to cheap renewables and becoming a green energy superpower are fake
Nice work. You have got close enough for practical purposes although I will offer a slight refinement of the story.
I think the models used by the IPCC to produce scenarios are quite literally meaningless because the method is not fit for purpose. The most solid evidence that we have in recorded history shows that the warm times have been good and the cold times have been bad, especially the Little Ice Age. Over that period the warming has been unequivocally beneficial.
If we are lucky we may get two or three degrees of beneficial warming before we turn the corner and head towards the next ice age.
As for CO2, it is a minor greenhouse gas dwarfed by water vapour. It probably exerted a mild warming effect but that that has washed out due to diminishing returns. The warming effect was probably gone by the time of the Industrial Revolution while the beneficial effect on plant growth continues, as the planet is visibly greening in recent times, the plants would be pleased to have probably three or four times as much or more.
Cherry picking, and presenting out of context, one table from the totality of the AR6 scientific basis - well, that's hardly very scientific now is it?
You entire "argument" is nothing more than a vague appeal to authority. The problem is that the "authority" is largely corrupt and lacking in perspective. Informed people have know that for many years, but people like you haven't figured it out yet.
Funny. I’ve read quite a few of the average temperature creation papers and not once did I see any signal to noise. I saw a lot of uncertainty models and assumptions. Which means it’s all perfectly good academic hypothetical science but would fail a basic audit if used in the real world.
I mean it’s a good thing climate science is not used to drive real world policy or economics are anything like that, isn’t it?
Are there any reputable science journals left, these days? Most of the science published has ties to industry, certainly true in the medical industrial complex. Have you listened to any of the scientists who've spoken out against the global warming situation? Just as with the medical world, covid, for example, anyone questioning "the science", or the first do no harm principle, many doctors lost not only their jobs, some lost their licence, some incarcerated in mental hospitals, and some even jailed. Why is this science different to medical science?
The temperature record creation papers themselves Colin. Did you not understand my point? You cannot pass an engineering audit with source data with errors 10 to 20 times the error required by your hypothesis and the solution is just to statistically average them.
You need to demonstrate you have the correct tools for the job.
It’s more the sleight of hand of using hypothetical data sets as if they are real which is what the Met Office does. I asked them this and they said yes their data sets are policy ready
You mean those reports from politically subjugated and over funded sources that have great difficulty in telling the truth?... they have been discredited... I suggest you read the DoE report for starters.
Do you have the expertise to trash the Met Office data? Meteorologists in many countries have wide experience over 40 years of using datasets with gaps in data. How certain are you that the synthesis of a dataset for a closed weather station is producing incorrect results? Whilst a single temperature reading may have an error of a degree or so the errors will have a normal distribution curve so it is possible to determine average changes over time
Your (IMHO crude) attempt to discredit Met Office data lacks credibility. As such it then puts all your other assertions in doubt.
I know you are correct about renewables but I now question some of your other assertions.
The Met Office data has been questioned by various people.
Because a whole series of anomalies pop up when you start digging. Then there is the issue of comparing present with past and all the climate alarm stuff. Highly dubious.
In any experiment you keep the same elements, change 1 and measure the difference. Then you evaluate.
In this case the amount of measuring stations, the way and the frequency of measuring and the location has changed. One would call that a failed experiment. Simply because ALL the elements have changed.
In the perfect world of experiment you try to keep the variable unchanged. In the imperfect worlds of hydrology and meteorology this is not possible so interpolations are used.
If it is impossible to make adequate measurements it is impossible to make adequate projections. There is a lot of mathematics behind that, including numerical analysis, chaos theory and complexity theory.
Even the basics of climate modelling are inadequate, never mind the data issues. Lots of black boxes in place of real physics.
If you think that synthesising data for a closed weather station with synthesised data from other closed weather stations is sound science, I have a bridge to sell you.
How much "expertise" does it take to see that a thermometer with an error range of several degrees cannot be trusted to measure temperature to within a tenth, let alone a hundredth of a degree?
Measurement does matter (speaking as a sometime Control Engineer) and unfortunately I’d have to say that the Met. Office by not concentrating on the basics is open to serious criticism.
You made a couple of points that need clarification …
Synthetic measurements can’t possibly be as accurate as the data used in their derivation, so the more you do it the more inaccurate your overall dataset and any modelling derived from or history-matched to it.
As for the distributions being ‘normal’ and the errors easily accounted for? Not necessarily, it depends entirely on whether the errors are stochastic (random) or systemic (fixed features) and their relative mix. Many of the errors for these weather stations appear to be siting related like the one mentioned in the post (next to a source of heat) and are systemic unfortunately, which inevitably skews the data.
I for one would fully support the Met. Office spending more money on upgrading and adding to our weather station network, as well as more monitoring of things like ocean currents which we know have an impact on weather but sparse information about, rather than on alarmist publicity stunts and yet more modelling using questionable data.
That is an assumption about errors that only is valid in academia. Try that with any engineering system and scientific phenomenon applied to the real world and suddenly you have to show the tools are appropriate for the job. We have ISO standards for example exactly for this.
The first major project assessing the quality of weather stations used for climate data was undertaken by meterologist Anthony Watts in the USA. He established a rigorous programme of independent evaluation of sites across the US in comparison with the WMO classification standards. The data he assembled were made publicly available (including extensive photographic and cartographic elements), and with backing from concerned climate scientists, he succeeded in establishing the US Climate Reference Network of higher quality weather stations winnowed from the totality whose data are used by more honest climate scientists.
Ray Sanders has been inspired by that work,and has sought to replicate it for the UK. The evaluations of weather stations are all public, complete with photographic and cartographic detail. You and the Met Office are free to comment on the data to refute it if you believe it is wrong. Likewise, the effects of modern instruments on registering very brief temperature spikes such as wafted jet exhaust from the adjacent taxiway at Coningsby or the air-conditioning for the Sainsbury building alongside the Cambridge Botanical Gardens.
The Met Office refuse to disclose their kriging methodology and data inputs for reconstructed data for historical records and non-existent weather stations. That would normally be a red flag for scientific claims, where the data and methods should be fully disclosed to allow replication of results and the detection of errors through corroboration, available to anyone. Nullis in verba.
Instead they take the famous attitude of Phil Jones from the UEA
"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it." ~ Phil Jones
I suggest you actually read some of Ray Sanders' work, and then decide whether it is correct. You could start here
As I read this fine article, I glanced at the weather forecasts from the Weather Channel, the Met Office, and the BBC. For Monday and Tuesday the BBC has, of course, an "Amber Warning of Extreme Heat". The Weather Channel has a "Severe High Temperature Warning" from... Monday 0100 to Tuesday 2359 BST! So the dangerously hot weather will begin right at midnight and continue through all 24 hours, will it? The Met Office has probably come closest to perfecting its panic-mongering, with an "Amber Warning: Extreme Heat" and also a clever trick of displaying the hourly temperatures against a background of darker and darker sullen red, strongly suggesting the fires of Hell.
Yet what are we looking at? Monday and Tuesday, maximums of 33 and 36; and on Wednesday a terrifying 39!
What we used to call "nice summer weather". Or, maybe, "Phew! What a Scorcher!"
"The Stefan-Boltzmann Law indicates climate sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration, without unproven feedbacks, is about 1 K (or 1oC)".
You are posing a statement of fact. Maybe rephrase that.
Because the SB equation is based on a blackbody in equilibrium, both not occuring on Earth or in the atmosphere. It is a handy tool to use for radiation purposes. The trouble is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not a simple series of equations IF you accept there even IS such a thing as THE temperature.
Temperature is local and the Global Mean Temperature is an invention And hence the trouble starts.
But ok, let's say one can somewhat use the SB equation using blackbody minus all the stuff on Earth's surface (already a guesstimate). Then there are clouds. Another factor of uncertainty. But ok, most 'climate' scientists use clear sky models. Then you might as well leave out the oceans. That leaves water vapour. Let's take that as a gas, a 'greenhouse' gas. Then we get to the feedback issue. That has to be taken in context w various standard physics, in other words is interactive ( and not settled). Then there's quantum physics, vibrational and rotational modes of molecules.
Scientists who know their stuff guess that, taken all this into consideration CO2's influence on the temperature of the atmosphere can not be substantial. Some say it is zero or close to. Others say 0.xx Celsius.
Earth's climate sensitivity is not determined by the Stefan-Boltzman law because feedback cycles are clearly in effect, to deny that is just moronic.
Sensitivity has to be _measured_ to determine the extent of those feedbacks.
James Hansen's latest research attempts to do just that and the evidence shows a figure of 4.5 degrees centigrade, which is significantly worse than the UN's figure of 3 degrees C. Hansen has made many predictions over the years and he keeps being proven right.
Your link explains that was just an estimate, not peer-reviewed science.
So you admit the figure of 1°C given in your piece is nonsense then? Feedback loops clearly exist and the paper to which I linked has plenty of evidence. Would you like to offer some specific critiques of the paper?
And even if warming isn't such a big problem we are still experiencing the start of a mass extinction event with all resources now running out. We're running short of fresh water and arable soil thanks to the depredations of industrial modernity.
1. No clear acceleration in the observed warming rate (core empirical claim challenged)
Critics argue that global surface temperature records show a roughly linear warming trend of ~0.18–0.20°C per decade since the 1970s, with no statistically significant acceleration to the ~0.27°C/decade rate Hansen et al. project for coming decades. Recent warm years (including 2023) are largely consistent with natural variability (e.g., El Niño) superimposed on the long-term trend, not a new regime.
Zeke Hausfather noted he calculates a current rate closer to 0.24°C/decade, and some short-term increases are statistically insignificant.
2. “Warming in the pipeline” / Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) is overstated or near zero
This is one of Mann’s strongest points. Modern assessments (including those incorporating ocean carbon cycle dynamics) indicate that once CO₂ emissions reach net zero, additional warming from past emissions is very small or effectively zero on policy-relevant timescales. Warming largely stops (or stabilizes quickly) when emissions stop — there is not a large amount of unavoidable future warming “locked in.” Hansen et al.’s scenario of holding CO₂ concentrations constant for centuries (rather than letting them decline after net zero) produces much higher committed warming, but critics say this is not the relevant policy scenario.
3. High equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) estimate is not convincingly supported
Hansen et al. derive a higher ECS (~4.8 ± 1.2°C) largely from paleoclimate data. Critics note this is one possible interpretation, but it sits at the upper end (or beyond) the IPCC range. Hundreds of studies converge on a best estimate around 3°C (likely range ~2–5°C). The paper’s paleoclimate analysis is seen by some as selective or insufficiently robust compared to the broader literature.
4. Aerosol forcing reduction and imminent acceleration claims lack strong observational support
While aerosol reductions are real and will eventually increase warming, critics argue the paper overstates their near-term impact and the resulting acceleration. Observations (including energy imbalance data) do not yet show the clear step-change in warming rate that would be expected if aerosols were the dominant new driver.
5. Broader methodological and framing concerns
Robin Lamboll (Imperial College) described the paper as “broad-ranging but [having] little by way of analytical depth or consistency checks when making claims quite far outside the norm,” and suggested it was “primarily aimed at convincing policymakers rather than scientists.”
Some view it as more advocacy-oriented than a standard rigorous scientific analysis.
He uses a temperature record with a realistic error of over 1000%. An absolute joke of a reference that will propagate that error through any derived properties. Do people even understand basic errors these days or is it just fashionable to use models instead?
Thank you for engaging honestly with the linked paper.
So the reality of significant warming of _at least_ 3°C is now hopefully clear to everybody reading this comment thread.
A warming of just 3°C will halve global food production, and that's without taking into account the exhaustion of the fossil fuel supply from which industrial fertilisers are derived.
Modernity as we know needs a certain level of exergy to be sustained but this has been falling over time as fossil fuel supplies are exhausted and each barrel of oil takes more and more energy to extract.
"Renewable" energy sources cannot supply enough exergy to sustain our society as we know it so the future is one of inevitable degrowth.
No Matthew. The warming is a concoction limited purely to academic conjecture and speculation much like “do tulips grow on Mars?” or “should we change zoning laws because String Theory posits extra dimensions in space?” The problem is many people like yourself think the world runs on science from academia. It runs when such science is put through the engineering and audit process meat grinder. And we should all be thankful of that.
You weren't joking when you replied to my comment last week by saying 'it gets worse'!
For the last three years, I have been going to an increasing number of so-called public 'consultations' about different renewables projects being brought forward for planning in Wales, with project descriptions ranging from hundreds of miles of brand new 132kv distribution lines marching across some of the most beautiful and ecologically rich landscapes to multiples of up to 230m tall wind turbines being placed throughout the often remote, irreplaceable peat-laden uplands of rural Wales.
Without fail, the developers at these CONsultations claim to be helping to 'reach Net Zero targets' and 'tackle climate change' with their 'clean', 'green' proposals, whilst at the same time proposing to destroy vast tracts of our environmentally precious countryside with thousands of tons of concrete, endless miles of new access tracks and road widening etc. and the 'lawful' slaughter of countless birds, bats and insects through 'exceptional circumstances'.
And these proposals are just the tip of the iceberg, because none of them include the raft of additional 'balancing' and 'storage' infrastructure that will be required in order for the grid to function properly with such a huge reliance on the intermittent technologies of wind and solar.
Also without fail, the rural communities being afflicted by this onslaught of proposals, have been fed a diet of 'we must do this to save the planet', to the extent that anyone attempting to discuss the truth of what lies beneath it all (Net Zero) gets the label of 'climate denier' or NIMBY because they've dared to challenge the state driven narrative now so firmly embedded within the public realm.
Just explaining to people that their electricity bills are already high because a large proportion of their money is funding the 'green transition' has been hard enough, but trying to explain the reasons why we shouldn't be doing the 'transition' at all has been almost impossible.
It's been deeply divisive and has been an incredibly painful experience for many people, and it's not going to end any time soon by the looks of it.
I can only thank you again for everything you're doing.
It gives people like me the strength, and the evidence, to carry on with the difficult task of showing people that we are being lied to, BIG TIME.
Commiserations on the soul-destroying task of trying to get Welsh climate lunatics to see sense!
If the devolved Welsh government is like the devolved Scottish government, it probably thinks it is an independent nation as far as “achieving” Net Zero is concerned when for all practical purposes it is no more than an integral county, as for Scotland.
The SNP nincompoops running Scotland seem to think they can achieve Net Zero by 2045 (it’s in their plan despite energy not even being a devolved issue!) and that all they need to do is to “decarbonise” the Scottish electricity grid, ignoring the fact that the country is still over 70% dependent on fossil fuels for its primary energy supplies. Scotland has now been reduced to only two remaining aged synchronous generators (Torness and Peterhead) to provide essential grid stability.
I very much doubt if they count the emissions from the essential backup and balancing electricity imported from England which makes a farce of their grid decarbonisation claims, just as the UK doesn’t count the emissions used to produce electricity imported via international interconnectors, or indeed the foreign emissions used to manufacture and transport all goods imported from abroad.
Their current Net Zero plans are on course to lead to catastrophe. Thankfully Kathryn Porter keeps hammering home the unique dangers facing the Scottish electricity grid which will hopefully get through to enough people to force a change of course before it's too late. Her latest is here: https://watt-logic.com/2026/06/16/maintaining-grid-stability-in-a-wind-and-solar-world/.
Hi Margret. I live in Mid Wales Bute Energy have permission to put up more 230m high turbines in the Cambrian hills. This next faze will destroy a nature reserve and poison Glaslyn a lovely fresh water lake. It is criminal. They have also paid for projects in the town of Llanidloes. But nobody sees the danger and distraction
Hi Julie, I live just over the border in Shropshire not far from Welshpool. We were involved a few years ago in a campaign against a 400kV pylon line which was planned to take electricity from the windfarms in Wales to join the National Grid near Oswestry. Several routes were proposed including along the valley where I live. In the end they took a route further north. Good for us but a tragedy for the people along the route. They are industrializing some beautiful parts of England, Wales and Scotland and it's happening all around the country.
It has always seemed to be an odd thing to reduce all those models and calculations to a single number anyway. I think it's misleading to do that. Some parts of the globe may have reduced temperatures and some may have increased temperatures. I believe what they do is look at the temperature anomaly at many different locations around the world and take the average of those anomalies. I have see graphs where the temperature anomaly graphs for the various locations are overlaid and there is an enormous spread of temperatures in a wide band. I'm not a statistician but quoting that one figure doesn't say anything about error or confidence or uncertainty.
I totally agree that everything about Net Zero is a lie. The only question is why they lie about it in the really stupidly obvious way they do which ought to convince no-one, just as they as they so obviously lied throughout their Covid malarky and much more besides.
The sad thing about it is that so many people are brainwashed by the complicit mainstream media and establishment deep state into believing the lies. I recently had my eyes opened even further when I reviewed the Scottish SNP’s government’s totally-infeasible and pointless (disregarding its ulterior motive) updated plan for Net Zero.
One of the astonishing replies I received which illustrates the depth of brainwashing and/or ideological obsession which prevails was from a STEM university graduate friend:
“I feel fortunate—like much of the world—that your views are shared only by a small minority of questionable experts, while the vast majority of respected scientists and organisations recognise the reality of climate change. We’re also fortunate that figures like Kemi Badenoch, Douglas Lumsden [I had mentioned him in my review] and Nigel Farage are unlikely to be in positions of power any time soon.”
With impeccable timing for this comment, Douglas Lumsden (Con) won the by-election last Thursday for the Aberdeen South Westminster parliamentary seat vacated by the SNP’s Stephen Flynn!
I always fall back on my 2-year-old post “Debunking the climate change hoax” which touches on just about every aspect of the establishment’s false climate change/Net Zero narrative. It opens with:
“This paper exposes the blatant falsehoods of the establishment’s climate change narrative and you don’t have to be a science egghead to see through their “really very stupid” deceptions. You only need to open your mind to the sad reality that almost everything the duplicitous establishment and paid-for mainstream media have told us about “climate change” is a lie. The simple explanations and facts in this paper will then allow you to see through all of their outrageously false “climate change” propaganda and brainwashing.”
Stop Press News: Writing on his Truth Social platform, President Trump had just said: “Keir Starmer will resign as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He failed badly on two very important subjects – IMMIGRATION AND ENERGY (OPEN NORTH SEA OIL!). I wish him well! President DJT.”
This is a very useful comment aimed at Starmer’s successor and all UK Uniparty leaders. Unfortunately, they have brainwashed themselves and most of the non-thinking general public into believing that Donald Trump is the Devil Incarnate and that everything he says or does is evil personified rather than being our best hope of salvation.
The reason for all the brainwashing is because the British deep state considers Trump an existential threat to their nefarious ulterior goals (ultimately totalitarian one-world governance), which is why they tried to impeach him, imprison him and set up the conditions for someone to kill him (three attempts so far). Fortunately, they are self-immolating themselves into geopolitical irrelevance due to the idiocy/malevolence of their policies and Trump is getting the better of them.
This is accurate. China remains heavily reliant on coal for its manufacturing baseload, yet it produces a dominant share of the world's commercial wind turbines and solar components. Similarly, the UK relies on Norway as its single largest foreign supplier of natural gas to stabilise the grid when domestic North Sea production is cut.
Proposed UK data centres are demanding over 70GW of power, dwarfing the current 45GW peak grid capacity and threatening to outpace renewable infrastructure expansion. Despite a strict ban on new oil and gas licensing, operators are turning to private gas plants for reliable energy, highlighting a major roadblock for Net Zero goals.
My son works for a company that makes steam turbines. They are manufacturing parts for Siemens (IIRC) for their gas turbines whose order book now stretches out for a significant length of time precisely because Data Centres are installing their own gas turbines to generate electricity......
Great work David (again) this NZ nonsense really does need to stop, and who does the green expert above (lol), think he is just to claim climate denier? This is one of the biggest problems with the virtue signalling hypocrites, won’t have an open debate- as it’s all sorted. I keep repeating you can’t have Net Zero and Growth one has to go.
That 27% reduction in consumption emissions is not the whole story. If you take steel as an example. We used to export a lot of steel which is now much reduced. That reduction in our steel production has probably been compensated for by an increase in manufacture in other countries. But those emissions are not included in either the territorial or consumption emissions. That must apply to a lot of manufactured goods and materials we used to export. I don't think it's easy to calculate but that reduction in emissions of 27% representing about 170 million tonnes of CO2 is probably an over estimate. I don't know how much by.
For many years the UK government and climate conspirators have used the stock boast that “since 1990 we have cut emissions by 42% while our economy has grown by two thirds”. What they never admit is that these cuts are mainly due to exporting our emissions through offshoring, deindustrialisation and self-rationing because of sky-high Net Zero electricity prices.
I don’t usually quote Matt Ridley on climate change issues as he tends to be too much of a “lukewarmer” for my liking, but he makes a good point in a recent post on the net benefit of CO2 emissions. He says that Net Zero can never be worth it because future man-made global warming predictions have been exaggerated and higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are having an increasingly beneficial effect globally on plant and crop growth: https://dailysceptic.org/2026/06/17/net-zero-can-never-be-worth-it/.
And worryingly the state that 7 out of 10 people still support renewable in the uk , what they fail to tell you is the only had 3000 house holds respond to the DESNE attitude tracker and 30 invited to the ccc presentation, no mention of costs , no mention of environmental damage , and no mention of the land taken for this . It’s time that this bubble is burst well and truely
"We now know these scenarios and their associated scare stories are fake because the IPCC has eliminated them from its analysis framework. This means that many thousands of scientific papers peddling climate catastrophe (maybe 97% of the total) were based on the false RCP8.5 scenario".
Have those many thousands of papers been retracted, then? If not, why not? Surely any paper based on false data must be retracted - perhaps with an apology.
"First, as shown in Figure 4, the UK represents just 0.8% of global carbon dioxide emissions so whatever we do will not make a measurable impact on global climate".
Ah, they saw you coming there! They would reply that, since everyone looks up with awe and reverence to the UK establishment and its government, we don't need to make a significant actual contribution - all we need do is set a good example which others, naturally, will feel honour bound to follow.
Just as the Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Russians, Brazilians, etc. are doing... er...
Nice work. You have got close enough for practical purposes although I will offer a slight refinement of the story.
I think the models used by the IPCC to produce scenarios are quite literally meaningless because the method is not fit for purpose. The most solid evidence that we have in recorded history shows that the warm times have been good and the cold times have been bad, especially the Little Ice Age. Over that period the warming has been unequivocally beneficial.
If we are lucky we may get two or three degrees of beneficial warming before we turn the corner and head towards the next ice age.
As for CO2, it is a minor greenhouse gas dwarfed by water vapour. It probably exerted a mild warming effect but that that has washed out due to diminishing returns. The warming effect was probably gone by the time of the Industrial Revolution while the beneficial effect on plant growth continues, as the planet is visibly greening in recent times, the plants would be pleased to have probably three or four times as much or more.
Science denier.
Looking forward to your argument which i take it won't be forthcoming..
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
He probably gets his information from the fairies at the bottom of his garden.
Is that the best response you can manage?
The Greens are well known for their denial of reality. Which specific part is wrong and why?
You are funny!
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/seventh-assessment-report-working-group-i/
There's nothing in there.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
I already showed Table 12-12 from AR6 in the article
Cherry picking, and presenting out of context, one table from the totality of the AR6 scientific basis - well, that's hardly very scientific now is it?
You entire "argument" is nothing more than a vague appeal to authority. The problem is that the "authority" is largely corrupt and lacking in perspective. Informed people have know that for many years, but people like you haven't figured it out yet.
Funny. I’ve read quite a few of the average temperature creation papers and not once did I see any signal to noise. I saw a lot of uncertainty models and assumptions. Which means it’s all perfectly good academic hypothetical science but would fail a basic audit if used in the real world.
I mean it’s a good thing climate science is not used to drive real world policy or economics are anything like that, isn’t it?
Got any peer-reviewed papers published in reputable scientific journals backing up that assertion?
Are there any reputable science journals left, these days? Most of the science published has ties to industry, certainly true in the medical industrial complex. Have you listened to any of the scientists who've spoken out against the global warming situation? Just as with the medical world, covid, for example, anyone questioning "the science", or the first do no harm principle, many doctors lost not only their jobs, some lost their licence, some incarcerated in mental hospitals, and some even jailed. Why is this science different to medical science?
Conspiracy fantasist.
Apparently your fantasy is to push the climate conspiracy.
How many papers have you seen whose only content was to point out the utter lack of any reliable data?
Right - not a lot.
"Were I wrong,’ Einstein said, ’one professor would have been enough.”
Exactly so!
The temperature record creation papers themselves Colin. Did you not understand my point? You cannot pass an engineering audit with source data with errors 10 to 20 times the error required by your hypothesis and the solution is just to statistically average them.
You need to demonstrate you have the correct tools for the job.
One might hope that even peer reviewers would spot such a glaring mistake.
It’s more the sleight of hand of using hypothetical data sets as if they are real which is what the Met Office does. I asked them this and they said yes their data sets are policy ready
All one can do is to publish logical, articulate, factual articles like Mr Turver's and hope they reach a wide audience by convection. Like samizdat.
Actually, they ARE samizdat.
You mean those reports from politically subjugated and over funded sources that have great difficulty in telling the truth?... they have been discredited... I suggest you read the DoE report for starters.
Strewth... I wish that it was NOT used to drive policy.
Very funny! 8-) 8-) 8-)
You *were* joking, I hope?
Science denier is such a mouth full.
How about 'heretic' ?
That rolls of the tounge so nicely
Innacurate.
Outstanding rebuttal.
You are a gentleman and a scholar, Sir.
Do you have the expertise to trash the Met Office data? Meteorologists in many countries have wide experience over 40 years of using datasets with gaps in data. How certain are you that the synthesis of a dataset for a closed weather station is producing incorrect results? Whilst a single temperature reading may have an error of a degree or so the errors will have a normal distribution curve so it is possible to determine average changes over time
Your (IMHO crude) attempt to discredit Met Office data lacks credibility. As such it then puts all your other assertions in doubt.
I know you are correct about renewables but I now question some of your other assertions.
The Met Office data has been questioned by various people.
Because a whole series of anomalies pop up when you start digging. Then there is the issue of comparing present with past and all the climate alarm stuff. Highly dubious.
In any experiment you keep the same elements, change 1 and measure the difference. Then you evaluate.
In this case the amount of measuring stations, the way and the frequency of measuring and the location has changed. One would call that a failed experiment. Simply because ALL the elements have changed.
But make of that what you will..
In the perfect world of experiment you try to keep the variable unchanged. In the imperfect worlds of hydrology and meteorology this is not possible so interpolations are used.
Which means the tools are not appropriate for the job. I don’t use a ruler to measure microns
If it is impossible to make adequate measurements it is impossible to make adequate projections. There is a lot of mathematics behind that, including numerical analysis, chaos theory and complexity theory.
Even the basics of climate modelling are inadequate, never mind the data issues. Lots of black boxes in place of real physics.
If you think that synthesising data for a closed weather station with synthesised data from other closed weather stations is sound science, I have a bridge to sell you.
Ooh, would that be the one in London? How much? I'm interested!
How much "expertise" does it take to see that a thermometer with an error range of several degrees cannot be trusted to measure temperature to within a tenth, let alone a hundredth of a degree?
Measurement does matter (speaking as a sometime Control Engineer) and unfortunately I’d have to say that the Met. Office by not concentrating on the basics is open to serious criticism.
You made a couple of points that need clarification …
Synthetic measurements can’t possibly be as accurate as the data used in their derivation, so the more you do it the more inaccurate your overall dataset and any modelling derived from or history-matched to it.
As for the distributions being ‘normal’ and the errors easily accounted for? Not necessarily, it depends entirely on whether the errors are stochastic (random) or systemic (fixed features) and their relative mix. Many of the errors for these weather stations appear to be siting related like the one mentioned in the post (next to a source of heat) and are systemic unfortunately, which inevitably skews the data.
I for one would fully support the Met. Office spending more money on upgrading and adding to our weather station network, as well as more monitoring of things like ocean currents which we know have an impact on weather but sparse information about, rather than on alarmist publicity stunts and yet more modelling using questionable data.
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I’m sure some people learnt something new today
That is an assumption about errors that only is valid in academia. Try that with any engineering system and scientific phenomenon applied to the real world and suddenly you have to show the tools are appropriate for the job. We have ISO standards for example exactly for this.
Maybe head over to Ray Sanders for all those MET data shenanigans
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2024/10/31/letter-to-peter-kyle-mp-secretary-of-state-for-science-innovation-and-technology/
The first major project assessing the quality of weather stations used for climate data was undertaken by meterologist Anthony Watts in the USA. He established a rigorous programme of independent evaluation of sites across the US in comparison with the WMO classification standards. The data he assembled were made publicly available (including extensive photographic and cartographic elements), and with backing from concerned climate scientists, he succeeded in establishing the US Climate Reference Network of higher quality weather stations winnowed from the totality whose data are used by more honest climate scientists.
Ray Sanders has been inspired by that work,and has sought to replicate it for the UK. The evaluations of weather stations are all public, complete with photographic and cartographic detail. You and the Met Office are free to comment on the data to refute it if you believe it is wrong. Likewise, the effects of modern instruments on registering very brief temperature spikes such as wafted jet exhaust from the adjacent taxiway at Coningsby or the air-conditioning for the Sainsbury building alongside the Cambridge Botanical Gardens.
The Met Office refuse to disclose their kriging methodology and data inputs for reconstructed data for historical records and non-existent weather stations. That would normally be a red flag for scientific claims, where the data and methods should be fully disclosed to allow replication of results and the detection of errors through corroboration, available to anyone. Nullis in verba.
Instead they take the famous attitude of Phil Jones from the UEA
"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it." ~ Phil Jones
I suggest you actually read some of Ray Sanders' work, and then decide whether it is correct. You could start here
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/06/18/kew-gardens-yet-again-now-beyond-a-joke-the-met-office-has-to-be-held-account-for-this-and-lots-of-others/
As I read this fine article, I glanced at the weather forecasts from the Weather Channel, the Met Office, and the BBC. For Monday and Tuesday the BBC has, of course, an "Amber Warning of Extreme Heat". The Weather Channel has a "Severe High Temperature Warning" from... Monday 0100 to Tuesday 2359 BST! So the dangerously hot weather will begin right at midnight and continue through all 24 hours, will it? The Met Office has probably come closest to perfecting its panic-mongering, with an "Amber Warning: Extreme Heat" and also a clever trick of displaying the hourly temperatures against a background of darker and darker sullen red, strongly suggesting the fires of Hell.
Yet what are we looking at? Monday and Tuesday, maximums of 33 and 36; and on Wednesday a terrifying 39!
What we used to call "nice summer weather". Or, maybe, "Phew! What a Scorcher!"
"The Stefan-Boltzmann Law indicates climate sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration, without unproven feedbacks, is about 1 K (or 1oC)".
You are posing a statement of fact. Maybe rephrase that.
Because the SB equation is based on a blackbody in equilibrium, both not occuring on Earth or in the atmosphere. It is a handy tool to use for radiation purposes. The trouble is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not a simple series of equations IF you accept there even IS such a thing as THE temperature.
Temperature is local and the Global Mean Temperature is an invention And hence the trouble starts.
But ok, let's say one can somewhat use the SB equation using blackbody minus all the stuff on Earth's surface (already a guesstimate). Then there are clouds. Another factor of uncertainty. But ok, most 'climate' scientists use clear sky models. Then you might as well leave out the oceans. That leaves water vapour. Let's take that as a gas, a 'greenhouse' gas. Then we get to the feedback issue. That has to be taken in context w various standard physics, in other words is interactive ( and not settled). Then there's quantum physics, vibrational and rotational modes of molecules.
Scientists who know their stuff guess that, taken all this into consideration CO2's influence on the temperature of the atmosphere can not be substantial. Some say it is zero or close to. Others say 0.xx Celsius.
But you cannot STATE that using SB CO2=X.
Even guys like Will Happer will have to agree.
Earth's climate sensitivity is not determined by the Stefan-Boltzman law because feedback cycles are clearly in effect, to deny that is just moronic.
Sensitivity has to be _measured_ to determine the extent of those feedbacks.
James Hansen's latest research attempts to do just that and the evidence shows a figure of 4.5 degrees centigrade, which is significantly worse than the UN's figure of 3 degrees C. Hansen has made many predictions over the years and he keeps being proven right.
Reference:
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889
Is that the same James Hansen who predicted Manhattan's West Side Highway would be underwater by now?
https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm
Your link explains that was just an estimate, not peer-reviewed science.
So you admit the figure of 1°C given in your piece is nonsense then? Feedback loops clearly exist and the paper to which I linked has plenty of evidence. Would you like to offer some specific critiques of the paper?
And even if warming isn't such a big problem we are still experiencing the start of a mass extinction event with all resources now running out. We're running short of fresh water and arable soil thanks to the depredations of industrial modernity.
1. No clear acceleration in the observed warming rate (core empirical claim challenged)
Critics argue that global surface temperature records show a roughly linear warming trend of ~0.18–0.20°C per decade since the 1970s, with no statistically significant acceleration to the ~0.27°C/decade rate Hansen et al. project for coming decades. Recent warm years (including 2023) are largely consistent with natural variability (e.g., El Niño) superimposed on the long-term trend, not a new regime.
Zeke Hausfather noted he calculates a current rate closer to 0.24°C/decade, and some short-term increases are statistically insignificant.
2. “Warming in the pipeline” / Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) is overstated or near zero
This is one of Mann’s strongest points. Modern assessments (including those incorporating ocean carbon cycle dynamics) indicate that once CO₂ emissions reach net zero, additional warming from past emissions is very small or effectively zero on policy-relevant timescales. Warming largely stops (or stabilizes quickly) when emissions stop — there is not a large amount of unavoidable future warming “locked in.” Hansen et al.’s scenario of holding CO₂ concentrations constant for centuries (rather than letting them decline after net zero) produces much higher committed warming, but critics say this is not the relevant policy scenario.
3. High equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) estimate is not convincingly supported
Hansen et al. derive a higher ECS (~4.8 ± 1.2°C) largely from paleoclimate data. Critics note this is one possible interpretation, but it sits at the upper end (or beyond) the IPCC range. Hundreds of studies converge on a best estimate around 3°C (likely range ~2–5°C). The paper’s paleoclimate analysis is seen by some as selective or insufficiently robust compared to the broader literature.
4. Aerosol forcing reduction and imminent acceleration claims lack strong observational support
While aerosol reductions are real and will eventually increase warming, critics argue the paper overstates their near-term impact and the resulting acceleration. Observations (including energy imbalance data) do not yet show the clear step-change in warming rate that would be expected if aerosols were the dominant new driver.
5. Broader methodological and framing concerns
Robin Lamboll (Imperial College) described the paper as “broad-ranging but [having] little by way of analytical depth or consistency checks when making claims quite far outside the norm,” and suggested it was “primarily aimed at convincing policymakers rather than scientists.”
Some view it as more advocacy-oriented than a standard rigorous scientific analysis.
Thank you for asking a language model to analyse the paper :-)
So you now admit that the "likely range" of sensitivity is "~2-5°C"? You should correct your article.
He uses a temperature record with a realistic error of over 1000%. An absolute joke of a reference that will propagate that error through any derived properties. Do people even understand basic errors these days or is it just fashionable to use models instead?
Thank you for engaging honestly with the linked paper.
So the reality of significant warming of _at least_ 3°C is now hopefully clear to everybody reading this comment thread.
A warming of just 3°C will halve global food production, and that's without taking into account the exhaustion of the fossil fuel supply from which industrial fertilisers are derived.
Modernity as we know needs a certain level of exergy to be sustained but this has been falling over time as fossil fuel supplies are exhausted and each barrel of oil takes more and more energy to extract.
"Renewable" energy sources cannot supply enough exergy to sustain our society as we know it so the future is one of inevitable degrowth.
Reference:
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/professional-area/
No Matthew. The warming is a concoction limited purely to academic conjecture and speculation much like “do tulips grow on Mars?” or “should we change zoning laws because String Theory posits extra dimensions in space?” The problem is many people like yourself think the world runs on science from academia. It runs when such science is put through the engineering and audit process meat grinder. And we should all be thankful of that.
We have already passed +1.5°C, that is not conjecture or speculation.
Nuclear power can provide more exergy than we will ever need
Nuclear power can only provide electricity and electricity only accounts for ~21% of all energy usage.
And anyway the ERoI of nuclear is not enough for modernity to be sustained, as shown in this independent report commissioned by the UK government:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08a0340f0b652dd000508/60999-EROI_of_Global_Energy_Resources.pdf
I like the way half the abstract is a political call to action.
It is not possible to deal with the polycrisis without invoking politics.
I admire your adherence to the scientific principles
Fantastic work David.
You weren't joking when you replied to my comment last week by saying 'it gets worse'!
For the last three years, I have been going to an increasing number of so-called public 'consultations' about different renewables projects being brought forward for planning in Wales, with project descriptions ranging from hundreds of miles of brand new 132kv distribution lines marching across some of the most beautiful and ecologically rich landscapes to multiples of up to 230m tall wind turbines being placed throughout the often remote, irreplaceable peat-laden uplands of rural Wales.
Without fail, the developers at these CONsultations claim to be helping to 'reach Net Zero targets' and 'tackle climate change' with their 'clean', 'green' proposals, whilst at the same time proposing to destroy vast tracts of our environmentally precious countryside with thousands of tons of concrete, endless miles of new access tracks and road widening etc. and the 'lawful' slaughter of countless birds, bats and insects through 'exceptional circumstances'.
And these proposals are just the tip of the iceberg, because none of them include the raft of additional 'balancing' and 'storage' infrastructure that will be required in order for the grid to function properly with such a huge reliance on the intermittent technologies of wind and solar.
Also without fail, the rural communities being afflicted by this onslaught of proposals, have been fed a diet of 'we must do this to save the planet', to the extent that anyone attempting to discuss the truth of what lies beneath it all (Net Zero) gets the label of 'climate denier' or NIMBY because they've dared to challenge the state driven narrative now so firmly embedded within the public realm.
Just explaining to people that their electricity bills are already high because a large proportion of their money is funding the 'green transition' has been hard enough, but trying to explain the reasons why we shouldn't be doing the 'transition' at all has been almost impossible.
It's been deeply divisive and has been an incredibly painful experience for many people, and it's not going to end any time soon by the looks of it.
I can only thank you again for everything you're doing.
It gives people like me the strength, and the evidence, to carry on with the difficult task of showing people that we are being lied to, BIG TIME.
Commiserations on the soul-destroying task of trying to get Welsh climate lunatics to see sense!
If the devolved Welsh government is like the devolved Scottish government, it probably thinks it is an independent nation as far as “achieving” Net Zero is concerned when for all practical purposes it is no more than an integral county, as for Scotland.
The SNP nincompoops running Scotland seem to think they can achieve Net Zero by 2045 (it’s in their plan despite energy not even being a devolved issue!) and that all they need to do is to “decarbonise” the Scottish electricity grid, ignoring the fact that the country is still over 70% dependent on fossil fuels for its primary energy supplies. Scotland has now been reduced to only two remaining aged synchronous generators (Torness and Peterhead) to provide essential grid stability.
I very much doubt if they count the emissions from the essential backup and balancing electricity imported from England which makes a farce of their grid decarbonisation claims, just as the UK doesn’t count the emissions used to produce electricity imported via international interconnectors, or indeed the foreign emissions used to manufacture and transport all goods imported from abroad.
Their current Net Zero plans are on course to lead to catastrophe. Thankfully Kathryn Porter keeps hammering home the unique dangers facing the Scottish electricity grid which will hopefully get through to enough people to force a change of course before it's too late. Her latest is here: https://watt-logic.com/2026/06/16/maintaining-grid-stability-in-a-wind-and-solar-world/.
Hi Margret. I live in Mid Wales Bute Energy have permission to put up more 230m high turbines in the Cambrian hills. This next faze will destroy a nature reserve and poison Glaslyn a lovely fresh water lake. It is criminal. They have also paid for projects in the town of Llanidloes. But nobody sees the danger and distraction
Thank you for your efforts
Hi Julie, I live just over the border in Shropshire not far from Welshpool. We were involved a few years ago in a campaign against a 400kV pylon line which was planned to take electricity from the windfarms in Wales to join the National Grid near Oswestry. Several routes were proposed including along the valley where I live. In the end they took a route further north. Good for us but a tragedy for the people along the route. They are industrializing some beautiful parts of England, Wales and Scotland and it's happening all around the country.
Keep fighting the good fight, Ms Dover.
Well, what I always thought to be very sketchy was the claim that we are dealing with 2 degrees compared to *pre-industrial* times.
Think its 1850 or so, cant remember the exact date used.
There is just no way those pre-industrial data sets exists. Not good enough anyway to show half a degree differences.
Maybe there were a few good enough weather stations in London or Paris. But worldwide? Including ocean tempratures?
No way. Its guesswork
It has always seemed to be an odd thing to reduce all those models and calculations to a single number anyway. I think it's misleading to do that. Some parts of the globe may have reduced temperatures and some may have increased temperatures. I believe what they do is look at the temperature anomaly at many different locations around the world and take the average of those anomalies. I have see graphs where the temperature anomaly graphs for the various locations are overlaid and there is an enormous spread of temperatures in a wide band. I'm not a statistician but quoting that one figure doesn't say anything about error or confidence or uncertainty.
Yes.
In the same way.we somehow reduced all human impact to CO2 emissions.
You can wipe out entire forests but if you got an Excel sheet somewhere that shows a CO2 reduction in 30 years, its all good
I totally agree that everything about Net Zero is a lie. The only question is why they lie about it in the really stupidly obvious way they do which ought to convince no-one, just as they as they so obviously lied throughout their Covid malarky and much more besides.
The sad thing about it is that so many people are brainwashed by the complicit mainstream media and establishment deep state into believing the lies. I recently had my eyes opened even further when I reviewed the Scottish SNP’s government’s totally-infeasible and pointless (disregarding its ulterior motive) updated plan for Net Zero.
I sent my review out by email a couple of months ago with a Bcc list of about a hundred addressees. It was subsequently posted online on various websites: https://metatron.substack.com/p/scotlands-delusional-climate-change.
One of the astonishing replies I received which illustrates the depth of brainwashing and/or ideological obsession which prevails was from a STEM university graduate friend:
“I feel fortunate—like much of the world—that your views are shared only by a small minority of questionable experts, while the vast majority of respected scientists and organisations recognise the reality of climate change. We’re also fortunate that figures like Kemi Badenoch, Douglas Lumsden [I had mentioned him in my review] and Nigel Farage are unlikely to be in positions of power any time soon.”
With impeccable timing for this comment, Douglas Lumsden (Con) won the by-election last Thursday for the Aberdeen South Westminster parliamentary seat vacated by the SNP’s Stephen Flynn!
Well, obviously the lies dont need to clever or anything.
They just need to be repeated often enough.
I always fall back on my 2-year-old post “Debunking the climate change hoax” which touches on just about every aspect of the establishment’s false climate change/Net Zero narrative. It opens with:
“This paper exposes the blatant falsehoods of the establishment’s climate change narrative and you don’t have to be a science egghead to see through their “really very stupid” deceptions. You only need to open your mind to the sad reality that almost everything the duplicitous establishment and paid-for mainstream media have told us about “climate change” is a lie. The simple explanations and facts in this paper will then allow you to see through all of their outrageously false “climate change” propaganda and brainwashing.”
https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax
Stop Press News: Writing on his Truth Social platform, President Trump had just said: “Keir Starmer will resign as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He failed badly on two very important subjects – IMMIGRATION AND ENERGY (OPEN NORTH SEA OIL!). I wish him well! President DJT.”
This is a very useful comment aimed at Starmer’s successor and all UK Uniparty leaders. Unfortunately, they have brainwashed themselves and most of the non-thinking general public into believing that Donald Trump is the Devil Incarnate and that everything he says or does is evil personified rather than being our best hope of salvation.
The reason for all the brainwashing is because the British deep state considers Trump an existential threat to their nefarious ulterior goals (ultimately totalitarian one-world governance), which is why they tried to impeach him, imprison him and set up the conditions for someone to kill him (three attempts so far). Fortunately, they are self-immolating themselves into geopolitical irrelevance due to the idiocy/malevolence of their policies and Trump is getting the better of them.
I should have mentioned the climate and energy book that I wrote with Jeff Grimshaw.
Read and relax about warming!
https://www.amazon.com.au/s?k=Rafe+Champion&i=stripbooks&crid=GZ66NWUYZ193&sprefix=rafe+champion%2Cstripbooks%2C262&ref=nb_sb_noss
This is accurate. China remains heavily reliant on coal for its manufacturing baseload, yet it produces a dominant share of the world's commercial wind turbines and solar components. Similarly, the UK relies on Norway as its single largest foreign supplier of natural gas to stabilise the grid when domestic North Sea production is cut.
Proposed UK data centres are demanding over 70GW of power, dwarfing the current 45GW peak grid capacity and threatening to outpace renewable infrastructure expansion. Despite a strict ban on new oil and gas licensing, operators are turning to private gas plants for reliable energy, highlighting a major roadblock for Net Zero goals.
My son works for a company that makes steam turbines. They are manufacturing parts for Siemens (IIRC) for their gas turbines whose order book now stretches out for a significant length of time precisely because Data Centres are installing their own gas turbines to generate electricity......
Great work David (again) this NZ nonsense really does need to stop, and who does the green expert above (lol), think he is just to claim climate denier? This is one of the biggest problems with the virtue signalling hypocrites, won’t have an open debate- as it’s all sorted. I keep repeating you can’t have Net Zero and Growth one has to go.
That 27% reduction in consumption emissions is not the whole story. If you take steel as an example. We used to export a lot of steel which is now much reduced. That reduction in our steel production has probably been compensated for by an increase in manufacture in other countries. But those emissions are not included in either the territorial or consumption emissions. That must apply to a lot of manufactured goods and materials we used to export. I don't think it's easy to calculate but that reduction in emissions of 27% representing about 170 million tonnes of CO2 is probably an over estimate. I don't know how much by.
David has done a post on the sleight-of-hand accounting used on CO2 emissions reductions: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/fake-accounting-exaggerates-emissions-reduction.
For many years the UK government and climate conspirators have used the stock boast that “since 1990 we have cut emissions by 42% while our economy has grown by two thirds”. What they never admit is that these cuts are mainly due to exporting our emissions through offshoring, deindustrialisation and self-rationing because of sky-high Net Zero electricity prices.
I don’t usually quote Matt Ridley on climate change issues as he tends to be too much of a “lukewarmer” for my liking, but he makes a good point in a recent post on the net benefit of CO2 emissions. He says that Net Zero can never be worth it because future man-made global warming predictions have been exaggerated and higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are having an increasingly beneficial effect globally on plant and crop growth: https://dailysceptic.org/2026/06/17/net-zero-can-never-be-worth-it/.
And worryingly the state that 7 out of 10 people still support renewable in the uk , what they fail to tell you is the only had 3000 house holds respond to the DESNE attitude tracker and 30 invited to the ccc presentation, no mention of costs , no mention of environmental damage , and no mention of the land taken for this . It’s time that this bubble is burst well and truely
"We now know these scenarios and their associated scare stories are fake because the IPCC has eliminated them from its analysis framework. This means that many thousands of scientific papers peddling climate catastrophe (maybe 97% of the total) were based on the false RCP8.5 scenario".
Have those many thousands of papers been retracted, then? If not, why not? Surely any paper based on false data must be retracted - perhaps with an apology.
I think we should be told.
They're still being produced at a rate of about 25 per day according to the link I gave.
Each one reinforcing Dr Ioannidis' conclusions in a paper that still stands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False
"First, as shown in Figure 4, the UK represents just 0.8% of global carbon dioxide emissions so whatever we do will not make a measurable impact on global climate".
Ah, they saw you coming there! They would reply that, since everyone looks up with awe and reverence to the UK establishment and its government, we don't need to make a significant actual contribution - all we need do is set a good example which others, naturally, will feel honour bound to follow.
Just as the Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Russians, Brazilians, etc. are doing... er...