The world uses more and more fossil fuels
— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) September 13, 2026
In percent, the world is leaving fossil fuels very, very slowly
In real terms, it is just more, more, and morehttps://t.co/E2k1wOduOp
You can see all the references in my Twitter thread:https://t.co/8vZ8XwE31V pic.twitter.com/dKgshPS2ww
The world still runs on fossil fuels
— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) August 10, 2026
Globally, fossil fuels supply 80.8% today (2024)
only marginally down from 81.4% in 2000
Rather than ending in 2050, fossil fuels are on track end in 4-10 centurieshttps://t.co/E2k1wOe2DX pic.twitter.com/HdkQyHn6iq
4.9
14
votes
Article Rating
Al Gore’s Global Warming Movement Has Officially FAILED
This is equally true of all the climate catastrophe predictions and scenarios made to date. And yet…. they do not give up on ramping up alarmist headlines wherever they can…
One of the biggest upheavals in a millennium is on its way, strengthened by the climate crisis. If you think you have heard enough about the growing “super” El Niño, trust me, you are going to hear a lot more. – The Guardian
El Nino gets large…
“I have not seen an event like this developing in our forecasts before”, said Professor Adam Scaife, head of long-range forecasts at the Met Office.
He says the scale of the growing El Niño is unprecedented in modern climate records.
…
“Long-term global warming remains the more significant driver of the UK’s rising temperatures and increasing risk of extreme heat” said Dr Akshay Deoras, a climate scientist at the University of Reading. – BBC
The vast majority of the lunatic [alarmist] fringe haven’t got the memo.
It seems to me, though, that BBC et al are, more and more, just blaming “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” rather than claiming that “burning fossil fuels” is the culprit. We don’t seem to hear as much about the dreaded CO2 these days.
If you watch the BBC – I don’t and haven’t for some time – you will notice at the closing credits of their programmes a logo at the bottom left of the screen which reads…
Albert Carbon Neutral Production
So, what is that?
the BAFTA Albert Next Generation (Next Gen) Toolkit should be used to certify all new productions. This is a web-based carbon emissions tracking platform that provides comprehensive forecasting, measurement and reporting, actionable decarbonisation insights, and certification for sustainable productions. – BBC
The message is constantly beamed at us – in any way they can think of.
I never noticed the Albert thingy before, so I forced myself to watch the BBC one o’clock Propagan … er … News and lo and behold, it wasn’t there.
Then watched Channel 4 Countdown and at the end, there it was.
Must look at all the channels for it now.
I offer the memo to many climatistas here in Wokeachusetts. They stare like deer in the headlights then continue with their fear the world will burn up and the oceans will boil and most species will go extinct.
Yet all the climate alarmists say El Nino (The Nino – h/t El Nino Chris Farley) is NOT caused by climate change, although I think they desperately want to.
They want people to believe El Nino will be “positive feedback” resulting in a “tipping point.” Neither of those terms are use in anyway close to the engineering definitions.
The semiconductor and AI boom are hastening the development and eventual deployment of small modular nuclear reactors, a fundamental element or even dominant player in the future energy mix.
The current flatlined state of the nuclear industry in the West today is entirely the fault of the chicken little environmentalists. In the 1970s, the nuclear industry was on a trajectory to provide half or more of today’s energy. Had the industry been left alone to prosper and innovate, today’s CO2 emissions would be at 1970s levels and relatively static, and we would not be wasting away our futures with pointless “Net Zero” fantasies.
China can’t get its nuclear share barely above 4% and they don’t have “chicken little environmentalists”. Meanwhile wind and solar overtook nuclear within a few years they started building it.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-mix?stackMode=relative&country=%7ECHN&source=total&metric=by_source&frequency=annual
That’s because coal is so cheap. 😉
The massive share gain of solar and wind…because coal is so cheap?
No, because the subsidies are there for the taking.
There would be no nuclear energy without massive state support, try again.
Nuclear works – for decades. Renewables are a wet dream.
Dream again.
So you think wind and solar can provide ALL the energy needed by 1.4 billion people?
…Geothermal, Hydro – because as you can see nuclear won’t do it.
So, wind, solar, geothermal and hydro will provide 1.4 billion Chinese a middle class or better life style? And of course China wants to be a super power- you need a lot of energy for that.
Where do you think they will get their electricity in 15-20 years from? As I said – nuclear won’t do it. Sinopec is expecting peak oil in china soon and it doesn’t matter for electricity anyways. Coal generation declined last year.
They are going the way of the cheapest source – solar.
Lucky for them they don’t have a billionaire class invested in oil and coal that lives off the general population and buys politians.
The amount of energy provided by coal in China actually increased slightly from 25621.37 terawatt hours in 2024 to 25621.83 in 2025.
https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china
Last year was 2025.
Down 1.9%
https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/chinas-coal-fired-power-generation-declines-for-the-first-time-since-2015/
My figures come directly from the source I provided and refer to total energy use, not electricity generation. Your reading comprehension is terrible.
So is MUN’s crystal ball.
Here are the current Top 5 emitters globally.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLdugyLrj9R7SCzEm6SFq28X67OjC9-Fs-D4OuR_qs_A&s
What I notice is that 4 of the 5 are Founder BRICS nations
B – Brazil
R – Russia
I – India
C – China
Look at the long-term gains by fossil fuels, not just once-in-25 years of renewables. This is like telling everyone that global EV sales were 25% of the total last year. That might be the case but it also means that they’re still being outsold 3-to-1 by gas and diesel types despite all the subsidies and incentives. The demand for fossil fuels is still high because industries and consumers would rather depend on reliability rather than on some environmental pipe-dream.
or “China’s use of coal for electricity grew in the first half of 2026 as a record amount of wind and solar power was wasted through curtailment, new research has found.”
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2026/08/06/china-wastes-clean-power-stopping-coal-use-from-falling/
You do realise capacity figures are not the same as capacity factor figures?
Geothermal…
That depends on, er…. the geology?
Why are there no huge generating stations in places like Yellowstone etc? The potential is not insignificant.
Geothermal power generation is prohibited in Yellowstone National Park due to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, which aims to protect its unique hydrothermal features
You guys tie yourselves up in knots.
Many regions of China have long cold and snowy winters. Fossil fuels and fire wood keep all these people from freezing to death in winter.
How do you heat your house in winter? You got a car with an ice engine? What fuel do you use for space and water heating and for cooking food?
In 2025, solar power provided 1173 terawatt hours of energy and wind power provided 1127 terawatt hours out of total energy use of 45053 terawatt hours. This means that solar and wind power provided just 5% of total energy use in China.
“China’s coal, gas and oil production all increased in 2025”.
“Despite record levels of production China was dependent on imports for 37% of its gas needs whilst also being the world’s fourth largest gas producer.”
“Chinese refining capacity is the largest in the world whilst being dependent on imports for 73% of its oil”
Energy Institute ‘2026 Statistical Review of World Energy’ (June 2026)
So the “massive ” gain of solar and wind which now make up about 16% of generation? 😉
And coal is still increasing.
Conversion of TWh to EJ
A graph shows wind, solar and biofuels (burning trees, etc.) are a minuscule part of world total primary energy consumption since 1990.
The graph shows the world primary energy, for all purposes, by source. was about 168,000 TWh in 2025. 1 TWh = 10^12 x 1 J/s x 3600 s = 3.6 x 10^15 J
1 TWh = (3.6 x 10^15 J) / 10^18 J/EJ = 0.0036 EJ
168,000 TWh/y x 0.0036 EJ/TWh = 604.8 EJ/y in 2025
It was 525 EJ in 2024, per Bjorn Lomborg
In each year, fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) were about 81% of the world primary energy consumption for all purposes.
In 2025 “Fossil fuels continued to expand in absolute terms and retained their dominant position accounting for 86% of total energy supply” (TES)
Energy Institute ‘2026 Statistical Review of World Energy’ 9June 2026)
And right on queue…MyLosernameRetarded makes an irrelevant, off-topic distraction on China and nuclear on a post about worldwide fossil fuel usage.
I replied to a comment from pflashgordon about nuclear.
No. You used pflashgordon’s post about nuclear in the West to deflected the conversation to China.
You did not address the contents of the post at all.
His post was soley about the nuclear industry. So he would be the first one to deflect.
You certainly take first prize in dissembling.
He’s been studying under Nick.
Read it again. It was not “solely” about the nuclear industry.
Let’s just suggest you go stand on a bridge.
When one person jumps then you jump too.
Get back to us to tell us how it all worked out.
Please quote the part about his post that had no relation to nuclear energy.
Not worth the powder.
You only want to argue, pointlessly.
China:
Operating Reactors: China has 63 active nuclear reactors providing over 62 gigawatts of electrical capacity.
Under Construction: More than 38 new reactors are currently being built, leading the world for the 18th straight year.Future Targets:
The 15th Five-Year Plan aims to reach 110 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by the year 2030
Nuclear Power in China
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power
Worth a read. Funny how coal is 1/2 $/kwh than wind and 11/3 $/kwh than solar. Nuclear is becoming more competitive with coal (< 1.3 x) and is estimated to become cheapest.
So MUR, you like China so much, why not move there and live there for a couple of years. We will still be here and you can report via an article your personal observations.
Typo: 1/3 $/kwh solar, not 11/3.
China built 50 cities in which no one lives. China builds lots of wind and solar every year but you have no idea how much of it is just keeping those empty cities company.
Correct.
And let us all take a vow to accept anything China says as the absolute truth.
A Nuclear power plant only produces electricity at about 30% thermal efficiency. About 80% of the energy used in modern economy is thermal energy generated by the use of fossil fuels. The heavy industries, the heavy transportation systems, agriculture, etc. will always use large amounts of fossil fuels. I live in Canada and fossil fuels keeps 41 million people and their pets from freezing to death in winter.
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 is in dry air is currently 429 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 grams and contains a mere 0.84 grams of CO2. This small amount of CO2 in the air can have no effect on the earth’s weather and climate. The reason there is such a small amount of CO2 in the air is that most of it is absorbed by the oceans. Moreover, this small amount of CO2 in the air can not cause any “global warming” as claimed by the corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists. We don’t have to worry about the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels,
Please go to: https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide/average-weather-by-year. The Thi and Tlo data from 1887 to 2025 are displayed in a table. There has been little warming in this port city.
The above URL is incorrect. The correct URL is:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide/average-temperature-by-year.
Propaganda story tip
Bob the Builder spreads ‘net zero propaganda’ in solar advert
Reform UK chairman Lee Anderson accuses E.On of turning the cartoon character into a ‘woke commissar of climate’
The cartoon character is seen trading in his construction yard for fitting solar panels and low-carbon heating in an eco-friendly reboot for E.On, the energy company.
In his first screen appearance in 15 years, the original stop-motion animated Bob, voiced by Neil Morrissey, encourages viewers to sign up for a “net zero training academy” to meet the Government’s target of a decarbonised electricity system by 2030.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/09/16/bob-the-builder-spreads-net-zero-propaganda-in-solar-advert/
Who needs Gore now???
Who ever needed Gore? And who needs preachy claymation characters?
Time for the propaganda to end!
We are less than 3.5 years from 2030. What are the chances of meeting the target of a decarbonized UK electricity system by then?
It could happen with systemwide periodic blackouts when the sun don’t shine and wind don’t blow. What fun!
“We are less than 3.5 years from 2030.”
I was about to comment on this timeframe. When we take 2030 to mean midnight of December 31 of the year, there are just 1,202 days to complete the task. {Interestingly, that is also about the time when my life expectancy guru claims I should reach ambient temperature.)
Fabricators of panels and towers, planning authorities, wind and solar installers, and electrical workers had better ramp up their work hours.
This is a case of “if it can’t happen — it won’t”.
A more pertinent question is how much has been spent on “emissions reduction” reduction to absolutely no effect?
To paraphrase a former Brit PM,
“Never in the field of human development was so much spent by so many to achieve so little.”
Off Topic. The Piddington Referendum
285 residents voted to leave the UK, with 26 opting to stay
An Oxfordshire village has “voted” to become independent from the UK in protest at the government’s plans to house asylum seekers at a nearby former military base.
The proposal, which would mean 1,256 people would move into the base near Piddington, has sparked anger among many village residents.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/piddington-referendum-leave-uk-migrants-oxfordshire-b3050643.html
It’s a ratio of 4:1 – some might call it ethnic cleansing.
For every immigrant into the UK, The US should allow one Brit into the US.
By 2035 the US would be a stronger more prosperous Nation and the UK
would be competing for status above Haiti.
The majority of us Brits would prefer it if they stopped illegal immigrants and deported the ones we’ve already got.
Or subjects of the Ayatollah.
Will Bjorn Lomborg ever realize that emissions of CO2 from using natural hydrocarbons as fuel are fundamentally not capable of exerting a perceptible influence on the “climate” state of the planet? Time will tell, I suppose.
Don’t get me wrong. He is making a useful contribution by just pointing out the unsoundness of the decarbonization and net zero policies. But he often still says – my paraphrase – “climate change is a problem” in respect to emissions.
No. There is no problem. The claims of harmful “warming” have been wrong all along, for physical reasons inherent to the atmosphere’s operation as the compressible fluid of its own circulation.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=sharing
Thank you for listening.
Agreed. Plus, the idea that there will EVER be an “end to fossil fuels” is ludicrous on its face.
You can’t build any of these SUPPOSEDLY (but not actually) “eco-friendly” crap like wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries without using COAL, OIL, and GAS. And they don’t last very long, so their manufacturing will be constant until the futility and madness finally stops.
After which we can MORE EFFICIENTLY use coal, oil, and gas to directly provide the energy we need.
Point of fact, if one actually ends oil and coal, none of these publications or pronouncements could happen except atop an orange crate at a cobblestone street corner.
Maybe Lomborg means “climate change is a problem” in the sense that it’s now a huge issue pushed along for leftist political purposes?
No, he really does buy into the “warming” claims, just not the idea of catastrophic risk.
Bjorn has chosen a difficult path
Earth’s climate varies in cycles. It will get colder after 2050. Look at the red line in the graph.
Interesting:
Are you aware of this paper ? …..
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/12/12/448
“Extending the Range of Milankovic Cycles and Resulting Global Temperature Variations to Shorter Periods (1–100 Year Range) (2022)”
Has this graph (remarkable similaity to your posted – red line) …..
Pedantic I know but I thought Spring was an Equinox not a solstice
May speak to the quality of care that went into the rest of the study.
And maybe I didn’t spend enough time (actually, none) reading the article, but I see a 1 °C rise in temperature over 120+ years. Color me unimpressed.
I cannot generate graphs of planetary orbits and the influence of those orbits on the planets’ paths.
I’m looking for changes in TSI at Earth distance.
If Earth’s orbit changes, it must be reflected in the TSI at earth distance.
There is disagreement regarding historical TSI and the various historical calculations for TSI at 1 AU.
I believe part of the problem with historical TSI calculations is that they are based on TSI at 1 AU (the value averaged over the course of a year).
There is a study presenting various historical TSI calculations:
Empirical assessment of the role of the Sun in climate change using balanced multi-proxy solar records
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987123001172
Just a personal observation. Literally. Two nights ago, I observed Neptune with my 24″ (0.6 meter) telescope. Subtending a few arc seconds, at 500X it is a tiny bluish disc. While a “gas giant”, it is very, very, far out there. I find it difficult to think it has much influence on anything going on here.
BTW, last week I observed Pluto. I do this once in a while for the fun of it. Not much to see, a tiny 14th magnitude speck in the stellar background. The Solar System is big.
It is the gravitational forces of the planets and the Sun that keep the planets in their orbits.
Do you mean that the gravitational forces are so weak that they do not affect the planets’ orbits?
The distances and positions of the planets are used to calculate the Earth’s distance from the Sun.
There is no direct measurement of the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
The NASA Horizons System mathematically calculates the distances between the planets and the Sun.
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/
Is Neptune a big component of calculating Earth’s orbit? I’d say not, but I’m not an astronomer. Actually, I was expressing more of an emotional reaction to seeing something that is so big, look so small and far away. Whatever effect Neptune has, it is small compared to Uranus, as shown on your plot. And what is Uranus compared to Saturn and Jupiter? I mean, your top plot shows Uranus and Neptune, where are the other larger influences? I’m not up on this stuff, so if it’s tiresome to explain basic things, and you don’t want to, I understand. It is interesting and I’ll be looking into it more.
The Sun’s orbit around the solar system’s barycenter is created by the planets.
If a planet is at the barycenter of the solar system, does the planet move around the sun or does the sun move around the planet?
Thanks.
Orbiting mass is the important thing. I had not thought of it this way.
Just poking around on google about the influence of the planets on the sun, not only was my idea of what is going on wrong, it’s doubly wrong! All other things equal, a planet creates a greater displacement of the sun the larger the orbit. Per this center of mass relation.
Sun displacement = a * m/M
a = Orbit size (semi-major axis)
m = Mass of the planet
M = Mass of the Sun
From Google AI. In descending order, the big four:
Jupiter: Displaces the Sun by 1.07 solar radii (~742,000 km).Saturn: Displaces the Sun by 0.59 solar radii (~409,000 km).Neptune: Displaces the Sun by 0.33 solar radii (~231,000 km).Uranus: Displaces the Sun by 0.18 solar radii (~125,000 km).I probably knew this back in high school.
Fascinating.
Good information.
Poor old Al Gore! (NOT….. he’s actually very wealthy!)
Probably his worst prediction of all was his doomsday prophesy of summer Arctic Sea ice being completely melted by 2013. What headlines it made at the time. And of course summer sea ice did reach the record low in 2012…. everything at that point was on track, so it seemed. But even in 2012, the melt season ended at Autumn equinox and the slow refreeze started, as it always does bang on time.
Since 2012, sea minimum has of course stabilised, and 14 years on from the dire prediction, and despite warmest oceans ever recorded, alongside Super El Ninõ and ever increasing fossil fuel use, and CO2 emissions…..guess what? Yep, Arctic Sea ice has yet again finished it’s annual melt, bang on time. Well above the record minimum of 2012, no extension to the melt season…. everything ticking along up in the Arctic as it always has done!
The median shown is the outdated 1981-2010 date range, not the more recent 30 year period 1991-2020 date range. I wonder why that is?
This is true!
But personally I don’t have a problem with that. I believe your inference to be that the date range should be within the standard 30 year climate period.
This of course isn’t my own plot – it has been lifted direct from NSIDC, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Personally, I prefer the median to be representative of the whole period from the point measurements began.
Changes in sea ice extent over the last 10 years are not visible in the graph.
Create a graph showing the Arctic September sea ice minimum for each year.
If you visit the NSIDC website, there’s an interactive tool that allows you to do exactly that. Unfortunately, I can’t copy, paste onto this space. I do use the tool quite regularly. From the last time I used it, it looked as though 2026, looks likely to bottom out very close to 2025 and at roughly (or possibly slightly above) the mean for the past 10 years. I haven’t done the calculation though, so it’s just ready reckoning.
However, in terms of annual sea ice extent, both 2025 and 2026 are near to record minimum.
Correction: Just had a closer look. Definitely well above the mean for the last 10 years. So, something of a recovery in recent times, at least in terms of melt season minimum.
I suspect also that recently melted sea ice in the Beaufort Sea will refreeze relatively quickly. The region just dipped under the 15% threshold within the last few weeks, so I would imagine still at least 5 to 10% cover in that region, and with low salinity, this region will quickly refreeze and rise above the 15% threshold. So expect a steep acceleration in initial sea ice extent – similar to September/early October 2025.
From this, 48 hrs from now, expect refreeze in the Beaufort Sea…. maybe a little too stormy for ideal refreeze conditions… but certainly cold enough!
There will, according to this forecast also likely to be a slight loss of sea ice on the Russian side (Kara and Laptev Seas) but the milder air is predominantly going to be over areas that are already ice free, so not significant ice loss in that region, as compared to area potentially refreezing quickly.
Of course, all as expected at this time of year. Nothing new, nothing catastrophic….. just the Arctic doing what it always does 😁
I haven’t seen what is causing the Arctic sea ice extent to stop declining at the September minimum in recent years.
Why is there no research into the reason why the Arctic September sea ice minimum has stopped declining?
It is caused by normal variations in the weather.
I have a theory that Arctic sea ice is controlled by internal variations in Arctic ocean temperature. This is why the sea ice stopped declining. We should be right at the point where this cycle leads to increases in sea ice over the next decade. It is all natural.
This is a very good and important question! The NSIDC and the DMI are the main organisations that do research into sea ice. I read several years back that, multi year ice is in serious decline. But for vast areas of sea ice, crucially not yet at the point where it drops below the 15% threshold, the Arctic Ocean would be virtually ice free each September. Once those areas do drop below the 15%, then very suddenly, we’ll see a huge loss…..at least that’s how the theory goes!
However, for over 2 decades, I’ve been reading similar scare stories that are related to multi year sea ice and sea ice volume. So far, those dire predictions have not yet come to pass. Maybe it’s just around the corner? Maybe not! What is certainly the case, is that Arctic sea ice during the melt season has been proving much more resilient than we have been led to believe.
The other possible explanation (in part) centres around latent heat. Rapid melting of sea ice in late spring to mid summer, removes a lot of latent heat from the surrounding atmosphere. This melt season incidentally was probably the coldest on record in the upper Arctic. By comparison, the Arctic as a whole, has been running warmer than average this melt season. Reasonably then, the colder atmosphere caused by latent heat loss, has been forced northwards, causing the colder air to consolidate in the upper Arctic.
Oil is not a fossil.
Natural gas is not a fossil.
Coal is not a fossil.
From the National Park Service:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fossils/what-is-a-fossil.htm
“…a fossil must present “evidence of life.” Anything that is not the remains of an animal, plant, or microorganism, and anything that is not a trail, footprint, or other trace of biological activity is not a fossil.”
Sometimes coal will have an imprint of a plant. In that case, the imprint is the fossil, not the coal.
Why is this clarification necessary?
Continued use of the Trans-Reality Activist’s Lexicon (based on common/social language context derived definitions, when not totally fabricated) gives them undeserved credibility.
We must use accurate and concise scientific definitions and terminology.
To do otherwise lets brainwashing and propaganda ideologies to maintain a stranglehold on the conversation.
Suggest the title be edited to remove Al Gore as having failed.
I think that misses the real objective of his ‘campaign.’ His REAL failure was his campaign to gain the presidency. After that, Al chose the CO2-will-destroy-the-world-as-we-know-it hoax (or, as preppers might say, CWDTWAWKI [absolutely no idea how they’d pronounce that]) as the route to amass the most attention and money the easiest. And he has been a major success at it. As of September 2025, his net worth was estimated to be over $300M, His Malibu beach house (6500 sq ft on 1 1/2 acres) demonstrates his fear of rising tides. But he is just one of the hoaxsters who warn against such horrors, but buy 6 & 7 figure priced homes. See:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2607011/climate-activists-invest-in-property-on-beaches-they-say-are-disappearing/
So, he definitely hasn’t failed in his pursuit of wealth. And I doubt he ever believed any of the lies that made him rich.
How can this be happening when the climate alarmists keep assuring us that fossil fuels are in steady decline and the peak oil period has already passed? That may be partially true except they needed to mention the decline has been at a glacial pace, as the numbers reveal and they don’t want to acknowledge.
Al Gore’s end does not deserve fossil fuels for cremation or fossil fuels or refined metals for caskets or tree cutting for wood caskets or concrete. Just float his hideous mass down river to the non-accelerating seas. Hopefully this can be done on private beaches of the rich and infamous.
I think ‘they’ have reached the maximum specsmanship ‘they’ could acknowledge without admitting dishonest behavior to ‘themselves’.
eg, what if all the thermometers that can be sited at airports are already sited at airports, all the data filters that can allow positive bias are already in the paper, all the thermometers on mountains have already been moved to valleys, all pre-internet data records have been corrected, all…
People remember temperatures from when they were kids. Today’s USA kids are expected to live into their 70s.