Oh well…..

Interesting weather event, but there is no long-term trend in May maximum temperatures at Oxford, nor in any other long-term station. The May 1947 heatwave stands out.

After I give my climate change talks, the audiences fully understand the conclusion.

IPCC scientists have just ditched one of the climate establishment's favorite tools. "RCP 8.5" (the red-hot pathway used in tens of thousands of climate studies) has now been judged "implausible." For years, this unrealistic scenario, based on extreme fossil fuel use and unrealistic population increases, fed headlines about drowned cities, crop collapse, mass death and economic ruin. These fantasy disaster outputs then fed into policy, such as insurance warnings, school material, carbon taxes, and Net Zero infrastructure. But now that panic pathway has been downgraded to what it always was: an extreme "what-if" exercise. The upcoming clean-up should be brutal. The tens of thousands of studies that sold RCP 8.5 as even possible, let alone probable, should have warning labels attached. Or better yet, have "JUNK" stamped across them. Media stories based on them should be corrected. Financial stress tests using them should be torn up. Policy built around them should be dragged back into the real world. And the academics, editors, activists and broadcasters who spent years selling worst-case fiction as sober science should explain, publicly, why people were misled for so long. There is a clear shift underway inside the climate establishment, and many of the true believers are starting to look around and wonder why the script is changing.

UN define two futures: Sustainable and Fossil fuels Climate damages clearly greater with fossil fuels But even discounting climate damages, average person in poor world will be much better off in a Fossil fuel world Read my 2020 peer-reviewed article: sciencedirect.com/science/ar…

We should have spent more on green energy, say the media. No, we shouldn't have. The $2 trillion we spent did nothing to prevent the energy crisis and may even have caused it.

The vision of China as a renewable superpower is mostly green propaganda. China remains the world’s top coal consumer, having planned an unprecedented number of new coal power plants in 2025. Fossil fuels still supply about 87% of its primary energy. financialpost.com/opinion/ne…

The Antarctic sea ice extent (anomaly) is the highest it has been since 2021, and it is essentially normal after recovering 2.5 million km² over the past 3 years. The extent of Antarctic sea ice is essentially unaffected by 50 years of warming.

The @UN

The rate of warming from 1908 to 1945 statistically identical to the rate of warming 1988-2026. Recently, temperatures has been dropping like a rock. Unfortunately Yale Climate is simply a propaganda unit now.

𝗥𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 Renewables aren't just pricey—they're a financial disaster, costing taxpayers billions more than fossil fuels ever did. And the so-called "green" benefits? Often exaggerated or nonexistent. This breakdown will shock you. Why are we pouring money into a broken system? Dive in for the truth. Read the full article: wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/…

A new study reconstructs the abrupt warming events of the last ice age. Between 57,000 and 29,000 years ago, Greenland experienced 11 sharp temperature bursts, warming 10C to 16C in a matter of just 50 to 200 years. CO2 levels remained low and stable during this time. The historical record is clear. Earth's climate has shifted far more violently and rapidly in the past, even when CO2 stayed steady.

Because the oceans are so vast even a tiny shift in its temperature or circulation can move more CO₂ than all human activity combined. The world's oceans are the ghosts that govern the system. The CO₂ we track in the atmosphere is not a permanent shadow, it's part of a massive, ongoing exchange with the deep sea - a process that ignores political deadlines and follows the irresistible laws of thermodynamics. If the ocean holds 90% of the energy, then 90% of the climate story is happening where we have the least amount of historical data and the least amount of control. To claim we can control the climate by micro-managing the human fraction of atmospheric CO₂ is like trying to steer an ocean liner by blowing on its sails. We are obsessing over the 2% while ignoring the 98% that dictates long-term equilibrium. The current climate narrative focuses on the thin film of the atmosphere, treating it as a closed system that humans have broken. The doomsday crisis rests on this 'thin film fallacy': Oceans hold roughly 50 to 60 times more surface carbon than the atmosphere. According to Henry’s Law, the amount of gas dissolved in a liquid is proportional to its partial pressure above that liquid. The atmosphere and oceans are in a constant state of gas exchange to reach equilibrium. When oceans warm, even slightly, they release more CO₂ via outgassing. When they cool, they absorb it.

What crisis exactly are the alarmists referring to?

COP 30 claimed the world was racing toward 4C of warming, and that the Paris Agreement somehow pulled us off that path. But that 4C path never existed. It came from what's known as RCP 8.5, an extreme scenario scientists abandoned years ago because it was unrealistic. COP 30 is reviving RCP 8.5 so as to pretend the 2015 Paris Agreement saved the world, but CO2 emissions never slowed after Paris. All that changed was the politics: More taxes, more control, weaker energy. COP 30 desperately needed a win, so it rewrote the past.

Climate-related disaster deaths have declined 97.5% over the century (1920-2025) Richer, smarter, and more resilient societies reduce disaster deaths This swamps any potential climate signal Why not reported? Instead, media only delivers climate doom facebook.com/bjornlomborg/po… You can see all the references in my Twitter thread: x.com/BjornLomborg/status/20…

Do you believe in Santa and Climate models...Here is why you shouldn't: Courtesy of John Christy, "a comparison between 73 CMIP5 models (archived at the KNMI Climate Explorer website)".. Models exaggerate the warming significantly.

Look at this map. –55 °C in Siberia. 45 °C in Australia. At the same time. On the same planet. And I’m supposed to believe that averaging this into a single number called “global temperature” tells me something physically meaningful? That’s not climate science... that’s statistical abstraction dressed up as reality. There is no such thing as a global temperature in the way people intuitively understand temperature. Temperature is local. It depends on latitude, season, altitude, oceans, clouds, circulation, land cover, and time of day. Averaging wildly different thermodynamic regimes into one number erases the very physics that control climate in the first place. You can calculate a global mean. You can plot it. You can build policy around it. But don’t confuse a mathematical construct with a physical state of the planet. No ecosystem experiences the global average. No human lives in the global average. No storm, drought, heatwave, or cold snap is driven by the global average. The obsession with a single number exists for one reason: it’s easy to message, easy to scare with, and easy to regulate.

Since 2012, the world spent about 6.4 trillion dollars trying to reduce fossil fuels. After all that spending however, fossil fuels still supply about 87% of global energy. That is the grift.