Stop lying. See link.springer.com/article/10…

The data tampering bias is obvious.

There is no such thing as a “climate scientist.” Almost all of self-titled ones are failed physicists and/or mathematicians who couldn’t find work in their own field of study, so decided to apply for job as an academic or federal employee that has broad prerequisites. The study of climate dynamics involves a wide array of scientific fields: Physics, meteorology, Earth science, chemistry, mathematics, data science, geology and oceanography, just to name a few. There is no way to master them all. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “climate scientist.” It’s a stupid term that no one should use without air quotes.

Remember, that when it comes to renewables...

The climate debate is no longer just CO₂ molecules and physics, it's an ideological struggle between globalism and sovereignty. With trust eroding and no clear change ahead, surely its time to dump the dogma. Net zero increasingly looks less like planetary salvation and more like a globalists Utopia. The cost of transition from reliable to unreliable energy is staggering; net zero will cost $275 trillion, or $9.2 trillion a year, according to global management consulting firm, McKinsey & Company (Net Zero report in 2022). This annual cost estimate has already risen by $3.2 trillion a year. Now the world has reached a new flashpoint, amid US pullbacks from Paris, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and all related commitments. Critics rightly question why the UN mandated wind and solar - which doesn't deliver baseload power. This disastrous oversight just made everything worse. Now without a crisis in sight, the focus is turning to a colossal spending spree driven by evangelists. Nor is there a clear outcome from net zero. Maybe it will be nothing. Is this really a hallmark of globalism, as Donald Trump believes. However, 82% of the world's primary energy still comes from so-called 'fossil fuels'. But even this terminology is already obsolete in a world where there is nothing clearly able to replace them with. If we need to transition from coal, oil and gas, what happened to small modular reactors? Only in China, apparently.

This is more evidence that people are becoming disappointed in the promise the CO2 creates global warming. Decreasing numbers of hurricanes and tornadoes have also alarmed the public.

150 years of global warming down the drain: January 2026 in Wash DC was 7.1°F colder than January 1876. Adjust for urban heat island effect (5-10°F) and imagine how silly is the notion that emissions have warmed anything.

Global temperatures are almost 10 degrees colder than the long-term global average - ranging from 18 to 26 degrees over most of the Phanerozoic Era (the last 541 million years). Today's global average temperature has been calculated at 15 degrees, by agencies like NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This 'average' even includes the extra 1.2 degrees since the Little Ice Age ended 170 years ago. But this is not really related to the multiple regions that make up the earth. Every one has its own 'weather patterns'. And this is how regional climate zones are calculated, usually based on decades of life experiences. Modern civilisations and empires all flourished in the balmy world of today's Holocene interglacial period over 11,700 years. Temperatures over those thousands of years have been as warm or warmer than today (i.e. the Roman and Mediaeval warm periods). Today's cooler temperatures do not equate to a world engrossed in a 'global warming crisis'. Earth is in one of the coldest periods in its 4.6 billion year history.