The simple fact is this. I strongly doubt that even with the best will … and that there is not … that we will get enough data before almost everyone here is dead, for anyone to say with any confidence whether there is any change. Because following the era when lying was not just encouraged, but a requirement to have a job, we now have a massive chasm in the temperature data that no amount of post processing and filtering can ever make tolerable for scientific assessment of temperature change. So, even with the best will, we can only start from a new base, with a new global network of world class temperature measuring sites … which will likely take a decade, and likely be impossible in today’s highly charged global situation. But, even if it were possible, it would still take decades to get the first inkling of any ongoing change, if any. And that my friends, is what this generation of scoundrels have bequeathed to the world.
There was a discussion this week by Russian supporting commentators about why the Russians allowed the US to get away with all the lies they print about the Russians. In contrast, the Russians don’t fabricate lies, instead they are economical with the truth … quite literally. Because they always tell the truth (at least as far as I can verify), but they do not tell the whole truth, so they do not comment on what they do not want their listeners to hear. And, it has been interesting watching how the two strategies work out. The US … like the hare … rushes ahead dolloping its very distorted version of events. And, then some time later the Russians come out with their truthful, boring facts … omitting any they don’t want to highlight. The US, UK and I presume Australian media obviously love the lies pushed out by the US. And, they ignore the truth from the Russians. So, it appears the Russians have lost. But, slowly slowly people get bored of the lies, as they get ever more incredulous against the facts which eventually leak out. And, the final result is that the Russians end up being the news source that people trust and the western media are the ones that no-one trusts. And, what is the western media’s response … to double the lies. Whilst the Russian tortoise just plods on boringly telling the truth … but not the whole truth. CLIMATE So, perhaps telling the boring truth works. Because whilst it might appear to be a disaster as the press just love printing the climate doomsayer cult lies … the public have grown tired of them. And, they now have no way back. Because if they did tell the truth, no one would believe them, and if they do just escalate the lies, still no one believes them.
The opposite of bad science isn’t necessarily good science. The situation at present, is due to the politicisation of climate “science”, we have no idea what has been happening to the global temperature since the 1970s.** That is because we have layer upon layer upon layer of adjustments all being edged toward warming and none of them toward cooling. But with it very likely being less warming and natural variation being large enough to explain all reasonable changes, it is almost certainly within the range of natural variation. Whether that means nothing, warming or cooling is hard to say, and so it is almost certainly within the range of natural variation. We can also say confidently that the “tipping point” is a total load of codswallop (a well known scientific term). But note I did not say “we are certain” there has been less warming. Because when lies and poor science is so prolific, they will ignore everything … which could include evidence that things are worse than they imagine … if it seems at a glance to be unhelpful to their “message”. Note, I also dismiss any satellite temperature now … because having passed through Nasa and requiring adjustments from Nasa to get from reading to temperature, it is all too easy for the heart of darkness in Nasa to put their thumb on the readings. Addendum”Within the range of natural variation” is not to say there isn’t a significant man-made contribution. But the last time I had enough faith in the readings to bother to look, the temperature was easily explained by natural variation. And, when you take into account mann-made changes .. there is nothing to see. All “warming” is easily within the range of likely adjustments being made to all temperature data.
**The reason I say the 1970s, is that for a time the politicised climatists were intent on proving cooling was happening. So, we can see how they were tipping the scales to cooling … and then they tipped the scales to warming. So, up to that point, where they started trying to plug cooling, we can say that there was no deliberate attempt to push the raw data one or other way. But, we know they have been removing sites and changing their location and altering so much, that it would require a very systematic assessment of the old data to make sure that what is actually being assessed is the raw data and not a highly filtered version of it intended to create a warming trend (by destroying all data from sites that showed cooling). However, there will be a narrow window, before the overt politicisation of climate, when there was a reasonable argument about what trend was occurring. It is therefore likely that if we can reconstruct those same trends using the original data, that we have that “unbiased” raw data. That is the last time anyone should trust the climate data. I know what it would take for me to regain trust in the data … but there is no prospect of that happening any time soon. So, I doubt any future impartial scientist will be able to do anything with the temperature data from about the 1970s … until we again get a way to have impartial measurement of global temperatures … which I suspect is at least 30 years away. (1oyears because Trump has proven to be an Israeli asset who has no interest in the truth + 10years until a new type of person … with a obsession with the truth … gets control over temperature measurements, and then ten more years to actually get a global network of temperature stations that are capable of giving us any useful data on temperature change.) So 2050 at the earliest … which is a massive 80 years when future generations will have no credible global temperature data. (Unless perhaps the Russians or Chinese have been doing real science in secret).
Re: A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate Report to U.S. Energy Secretary Christopher Wright July 23, 2025 Climate Working Group: John Christy, Ph.D. Judith Curry, Ph.D. Steven Koonin, Ph.D. Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. I am currently boycotting the US for its support for genocide in Palestine, but I think this is important enough to comment. First, I would say that this report falls within the range of what is scientifically reasonable. I would personally dispute some points, such as the credibility of all temperature data and the likely warming from CO2, but I am an outlier on those. My main reason for commenting was “does this now swing too far?” The content is reasonable, but I think policy makers need to be aware that if there were changes to the climate that these could be profound, and that even if we’ve had utter nonsense dressed up as “science” for decades, there is no guarantee that the real climate might not resond insome way, or indeed, might be naturally going to change in a way which has profound impacts for humanity. Given the drum beat of constant alarmism from the “nutters”, I can understand why there is no section addressing threats, because these have been explored to an insane level. But future reports should include possible threats, both from warming, cooling and other possible changes, such as large scale oceanic current changes. The other glaring ommission is that there is no statement that the climatic data measurement needs to be vastly improved not just in the US but globally. It is totally unfit for the purpose it is attempting to be used. And the people who allowed that to happen need sacking (not just in the US).
what exactly IS the global temperature?
It would be possible to have a global array of high precision temperature monitoring stations, each in its own large area (1km2) with is sufficiently well controlled that we can average the change seen in those stations and be able to say “the average of the land-based global measuring system has changed (or not)”.
The reason I say 1km2 is because land use changes temperature. Unless the land use around the station is kept the same, the temperature is useless for long term trends.
That is not global temperature, but it would be a lot better than the utter rubbish we currently are presented as “data”. It also does not include the sea. There could be a global network of precision monitoring static buoys. And, again that would be a lot better than the rubbish we have, but that still isn’t enough, because the ocean changes with depth. But likewise, land temperature changes with depth, likewise atmospheric temperature varies with height.
And, remember, all these temperatures need to be measured to an accuracy of about 0.01C. That is extremely difficult even within a laboratory and almost impossible in the field. Creating a global network with the number of measurements would be equivalent to putting a man on the moon … and what did we get? A bunch of academic idiots who could barely use a spreadsheet and certainly had no clue about temperature monitoring. UTTERLY INCOMPETENT FOR THE JOB … and refusing to admit they were totally incompetent and thus denying the chance for the job to be done properly … and through their overt and constant bias, leaving the world with a chasm in the temperature data that can never be repaired, because there is no way to take out their bias, lies and distortions.
