The Heat Myth: What the Data Actually Shows

A newly published paper in *Springer Nature’s journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology is raising uncomfortable questions for the dominant climate narrative.

The study—by climatologist John R. Christy—does something refreshingly simple: it looks at actual observed temperature extremes across the United States from 1899 to 2025.

No modelling.
No sweeping global averages.
Just raw, station-based data.

And the results? They contradict what we’re constantly told.

What the Study Actually Did

The paper (titled “Declines in hot and cold daily temperature extremes in the conterminous US”) analysed:

• Daily maximum temperatures in summer

• Daily minimum temperatures in winter

• Covering over a century of observations (1899–2025)

• Using real station data, not heavily adjusted or homogenised datasets (newswise.com)

In other words, this is about temperature extremes—the events people actually feel—not abstract averages.

The Key Finding: Extremes Were Worse in the Past

The headline result is striking:

• The most extreme heat events in the US occurred in the early 20th century, particularly the 1930s

• Both hot and cold extremes have generally declined over time

• The overall pattern shows a moderation, not escalation, of temperature extremes

Yes, you read that correctly.

According to this dataset, the United States experienced more intense temperature swings decades ago than it does today.

The 1930s: America’s Real Heat Crisis

If you want a period that truly tested the limits of heat in the United States, look no further than the Dust Bowl era.

That decade saw:

• Record-breaking heatwaves

• Widespread agricultural collapse

• Extreme drought conditions

And—crucially—these events still dominate many all-time temperature records today.

So Why Does the Narrative Feel So Different?

Here’s where things get interesting—and controversial.

The paper deliberately avoids heavy data “adjustments” and instead relies on observed station data. That matters because:

• Many global datasets use homogenisation techniques to adjust historical records

• Urbanisation can introduce heat biases over time (more concrete, less vegetation)

• Modern reporting focuses heavily on averages, not extremes

This study flips that focus and asks a simple question:

What do the raw extremes actually show?

And the answer is: less volatility, not more.

But Let’s Be Clear… This Isn’t the Whole Story

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, it’s important to keep perspective.

This paper:

• Focuses on the United States only, not global temperatures

• Examines extremes, not long-term average warming trends

• Uses a specific methodological approach that differs from many mainstream datasets

So while it contradicts claims about extreme temperatures and rising volatility, it doesn't overturn the entire narrative relating to climate change. Yet given these observations one must hold all extreme climate claims up to scrutiny.

Why This Matters

What this paper really exposes is something deeper:

A growing disconnect between:

• What people are told

• And what specific datasets actually show

Climate science is complex. But public messaging often isn’t.

And when a peer-reviewed paper suggests that the worst heat extremes occurred nearly a century ago, it raises a legitimate question:

Are we getting the full picture—or just the most convenient version of it?

The Bottom Line

The new study doesn’t deny climate change.

But it does challenge a commonly repeated claim:

That recent years represent an unprecedented explosion in extreme heat—at least in the United States.

According to this research, the truth is more nuanced:

• The past—especially the 1930s—was more extreme than many realise

• And today’s climate is more stable in terms of extremes than the headlines suggest

Which leaves us with a simple takeaway:

Before accepting sweeping claims about “unprecedented” conditions, it might be worth asking—unprecedented compared to what?

Oil Shock: The War That Just Exposed the Energy Fantasy

For years we have been told the same story.

The age of fossil fuels is ending.
Oil is yesterday’s energy.
Renewables will soon power the world.

Politicians repeat it. Activists chant it. Much of the media reports it as settled fact.

And then reality intrudes.

This week, as tensions in the Middle East erupted into open conflict involving Iran, global markets reacted instantly. Oil prices surged. Energy stocks jumped. Shipping insurance rates spiked. Stock markets wobbled.

Why?

Because the entire modern world still runs on oil.

Not partially. Not occasionally.

Completely.

The World Still Runs on Fossil Fuels

Despite decades of promises about a rapid transition to green energy, the global economy remains overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels.

Oil powers transportation.
Gas fuels electricity generation and industry.
Coal still produces vast amounts of power in developing nations.

Remove those fuels suddenly and modern civilisation would grind to a halt.

Planes don’t fly on solar panels.
Container ships don’t cross oceans on wind turbines.
Steel plants and cement kilns cannot run on good intentions.

The reaction of the markets to the Iran crisis tells us something the climate narrative prefers to ignore:

Oil is still the lifeblood of the global economy.

And it will remain so for decades.

The Renewable Revolution That Wasn’t

None of this is to deny that renewables are growing. Governments have poured trillions of dollars into solar panels, wind farms, subsidies, and mandates.

But after all that investment, fossil fuels still supply the vast majority of the world’s energy.

The uncomfortable truth is that renewables have not replaced fossil fuels.

In many places they have simply been added on top of them.

When the wind stops blowing or the sun sets, the grid still relies on gas, coal, or nuclear power to keep the lights on.

The result?

Higher energy costs.

Across Europe and parts of the developed world, electricity prices have surged as governments attempt to force the transition faster than technology and infrastructure allow.

And who suffers the most?

Not wealthy activists.

The poor.

The Hidden Cost to Developing Nations

The push to rapidly abandon fossil fuels has had another damaging consequence: it has made energy more expensive for the countries that can least afford it.

Developing nations desperately need reliable, affordable power to lift millions of people out of poverty.

Factories. Hospitals. Water treatment plants. Transport systems.

All require energy.

Yet international financial institutions and climate activists increasingly pressure these nations not to build fossil fuel infrastructure.

In effect, the richest countries in the world are telling the poorest:

"You cannot use the same energy sources we used to become wealthy."

It is a policy that borders on moral arrogance.

The Climate Debate Needs Some Honesty

The climate debate has become dominated by apocalyptic language and unrealistic timelines.

We are told the world must abandon fossil fuels within a decade or face catastrophe.

Yet every real-world signal tells a different story.

Energy demand continues to grow.
Oil consumption remains near record highs.
Natural gas demand is expanding.
Coal usage in Asia continues to rise.

Even the most optimistic projections show fossil fuels remaining a major part of the global energy mix for many decades.

Pretending otherwise does not change physics, economics, or engineering reality.

A More Realistic Path Forward

None of this means innovation should stop.

Cleaner technologies should continue to develop.
Renewables will play a growing role.
Energy efficiency should improve.

But decarbonising a global industrial civilisation is not a ten-year project.

It is likely a century-scale transformation.

Until then, the world must prioritise energy reliability, affordability, and economic development.

And that means acknowledging an obvious truth.

The Reality Check

Every time geopolitical tensions threaten oil supplies, markets panic.

Not because traders are foolish.

But because they understand something the climate debate often ignores.

The modern world still runs on fossil fuels.

Until someone invents a scalable, reliable, affordable alternative capable of replacing them completely, that reality is not going away.

The sooner policymakers admit it, the sooner we can begin having an honest conversation about the future of energy.

And about how to manage climate risks without crippling the very economies that keep the world running.

The Real Climate Deniers, Those Who Want To Erase the Past

Climate orthodoxy has a fatal weakness — history.

A recent video, “Big Trouble in the Little Ice Age,” lays out a simple but devastating truth: the Earth has warmed and cooled dramatically long before fossil fuels. And today’s climate establishment can’t allow that truth to be acknowledged, because it breaks the “CO₂ controls everything” narrative that underpins Net Zero politics.

Here are the key points the activists want erased.

1. The Little Ice Age Was Real — and Global

From roughly 1300 to 1850, the world endured centuries of cold, storms, crop failures and social disruption. Evidence appears in:

• Europe

• North America

• China

• The Southern Hemisphere

• Antarctica

Not a “regional anomaly”—a global cold era.

2. Before That, the Medieval Warm Period Was Also Real

Between 900 and 1300 AD:

• Vineyards thrived in England

• Norse settlers farmed in Greenland

• Harvests boomed

• Many regions were warmer than today

This was long before fossil fuels.

That is why climate activists try so hard to write it out of history: natural warming undermines the dogma.

3. The Sun, Not CO₂, Explains the Shifts

The Little Ice Age coincided with major solar minimums, especially the Maunder Minimum.
Sun dimmed → world cooled.
Solar cycles matter. Models ignoring them are broken by design.

4. Cold Brings Chaos — Warmth Brings Stability

History contradicts modern climate rhetoric:

• The Medieval Warm Period was prosperous and calm

• The Little Ice Age brought famine, storms, failed harvests, and population decline

Yet today we’re told warming is the danger.
The past says otherwise.

5. Glaciers Began Retreating Before Industrialisation

European and Alaskan glaciers started shrinking around 1800–1850, well before significant CO₂ emissions.
If modern retreat began before fossil fuels, CO₂ cannot be the sole driver.

6. Erasing the Past Is the Real “Climate Denial”

Those who deny:

• the Medieval Warm Period

• the Little Ice Age

• historical weather extremes

• solar influence

• natural climate variability

…aren’t protecting science — they’re protecting a political narrative.

The Bottom Line

Climate changes. It always has.
But the idea that every shift today must be human-caused — and catastrophic — is contradicted by centuries of recorded history.

When governments rewrite the past to justify Net Zero’s costs and controls, they cross the line from science into ideology.

Understanding the Little Ice Age doesn’t “deny climate change.”
It simply denies the simplistic story used to reshape economies and erode freedoms.

And that’s exactly why they don’t want you to look too closely.

Here is the video. Well worth the 15minutes.

The Crumbling Climate Catastrophe Dogma

For more than three decades, the world has been bombarded with dire warnings of climate apocalypse — cities sinking, species dying, forests burning, and food systems collapsing. Politicians, activists, and compliant media have built a doomsday industry on fear.

But as author and environmentalist Michael Shellenberger points out in his recent talk “7 Lies We Were Told About Climate Change,” the evidence simply doesn’t match the hysteria. What was once a scientific issue has become a moral crusade — and now, cracks are appearing in the facade.

Shellenberger’s seven points dismantle the pillars of the climate catastrophe narrative.

1. “Climate change is making disasters worse.”

The claim: floods, hurricanes, and wildfires are becoming more frequent and more deadly.
The reality: while media coverage has exploded, actual data show no upward trend in climate-related deaths. In fact, deaths from natural disasters have fallen by over 90% in the past century.
Yes, damage costs rise — but mostly because there’s more infrastructure and wealth in harm’s way, not because storms are more violent.

2. “Sea levels are rising dangerously.”

Sea levels have been rising steadily since the end of the last ice age — roughly 20 cm per century — with no measurable acceleration in recent decades.
The much-publicized satellite data are inconsistent with tide gauge records, and the frightening “multi-meter rise” scenarios depend entirely on speculative computer models.
No major city is currently sinking beneath the waves — not Miami, not Venice, not Sydney.

3. “Polar bears are dying out.”

The opposite is true. Polar bear numbers have increased fivefold since the 1960s, from about 5,000 to 25,000–30,000.
Even as Arctic ice fluctuates, the species has adapted. Ironically, the polar bear has become a symbol of environmental collapse even while thriving.

4. “The Great Barrier Reef is dying.”

This myth persists despite hard evidence to the contrary.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science reported that coral cover is now at record highs across much of the reef.
Yes, coral bleaching events occur, but reefs recover naturally — they’ve survived ice ages, warm periods, and volcanic eruptions. What truly threatens them is pollution and overfishing, not CO₂.

5. “Fires are getting worse.”

Global wildfire activity has actually declined by around 25% over the past two decades, according to NASA satellite data.
Yes, we see horrific fires in California and Australia — but these are largely due to poor forest management and fuel buildup, not climate change.
When we stopped controlled burning and let forests choke with tinder, we built the conditions for disaster.

6. “Renewables can replace fossil fuels.”

This comforting illusion has been shattered by physics.
Solar and wind are intermittent and require massive backup from fossil fuels or nuclear power. They also demand enormous land use and rare minerals — often mined in poor countries under appalling conditions.
Europe’s energy crisis exposed this fantasy: when the wind stops blowing, reality bites.

7. “The science is settled.”

It isn’t — and never was.
Science doesn’t “settle.” It questions, revises, and evolves.
But today’s climate orthodoxy treats dissent as heresy. Even credible scientists who challenge alarmist claims are smeared or deplatformed.
As Shellenberger notes, what we face is not a scientific consensus, but an ideological conformity — a quasi-religious belief system that equates carbon with sin.

A Narrative Unraveling

Shellenberger’s critique is not about denying climate change. It’s about rejecting the apocalyptic exaggeration that has hijacked environmentalism. We can acknowledge that humans influence the climate — without surrendering to fear or authoritarian “solutions.”

Meanwhile, countries like Germany and Britain are quietly returning to coal and nuclear power, and climate conferences keep producing lofty pledges with negligible results.

The “climate emergency” has been politically profitable and emotionally satisfying — but it’s becoming scientifically indefensible.
The tide is turning. More scientists, journalists, and citizens are willing to say what many have long suspected: the catastrophe narrative was never about saving the planet. It was about control.

Here is the full video of ShellenBerger's interview.

Bill Gates negates his own Climate Zealotry

With Bill Gates’ reversal of his previous climate catastrophe rhetoric, he has struck a deadly blow to climate zealotry.

It is long overdue, but at last we can stop destroying our economies. Here is a video about Gates’ backflip ...

And another calling out Gates' Climate catastrophe backflip.

Climate Alarmism Without Justification

The Albanese government has just released its First National Climate Risk Assessment Report. It is everything you might expect: page after page of dire predictions, speculative scenarios, and warnings of massive economic damage unless Australia acts swiftly and decisively against climate change.

The message is unmistakable — if the government does not take “serious action” to reduce emissions, the cost to the economy will be catastrophic. It is fear-mongering, plain and simple. The report is designed not to inform, but to soften the ground for the government’s upcoming release of its 2035 emission reduction targets.

But here’s the problem. Here’s the fallacy that cuts through the entire exercise.

Australia produces just 1.3% of the world’s emissions. That’s it. One point three. Even if Australia were to shut down tomorrow, wipe itself off the map, and send its population into the sea, the effect on the global climate would be negligible.

Which makes the government’s economic scare campaign utterly dishonest.

They imply that unless we act, we will suffer the costs of climate change. But whether Australia acts or not makes virtually no difference to the global climate. If China, India, the US, and other large emitters continue to grow their emissions, Australia’s sacrifice is meaningless.

And sacrifice is what it is. Every new emissions target means more cost, more subsidies, more restrictions, more distortion of the energy market, and more economic drag. Every dollar spent in the name of “mitigation” is a dollar that makes Australia poorer, without delivering any measurable benefit to the climate.

This is the central point the Albanese government never admits: there is no economic justification for emission mitigation in Australia because we cannot change the outcome. All we are doing is hobbling ourselves while the rest of the world carries on.

Sky News rightly described Labor’s climate policy con as the “biggest drag on the economy.” But the even greater con is that Australians are being told that our sacrifices will save us. They won’t.

This Climate Risk Assessment is just another political tool — a glossy report filled with scary scenarios to justify policies that will cost us dearly while achieving nothing.

It is fear without logic. Cost without benefit. Sacrifice without purpose.

And Australians should not be fooled.

Chris Kenny of Sky News covers these points in his own way in the following YouTube video, well worth a view.

Inconvenient Truths: 5 Climate Experts Push Back Against Alarmist Zealotry

Fear sells. From every fire to freak weather, mainstream media and green activists tell us a climate catastrophe is upon us. But what happens when a group of seasoned climate scientists issues a reality check? That’s precisely what happened—and shockingly, most major outlets barely covered it.

A recent Sky News segment, “‘Grossly exaggerated’: Media gives ‘little attention’ to new bombshell climate report,” spotlighted a U.S. Department of Energy report authored by five esteemed scientists challenging alarmist narratives. Now let’s meet them and see what they actually claimed.

Meet the Voices of Reason

From Iowa Climate Science Education’s coverage, here’s who put their reputations on the line:

1. Professor Emerita Judith Curry – A prolific climate researcher with nearly 200 peer-reviewed papers. Once part of the IPCC, she now argues that risks are often exaggerated. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

2. Dr. Roy Spencer – A NASA Senior Scientist known for leading what’s considered one of the most accurate global temperature measurement systems. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

3. Professor Ross McKitrick – An expert reviewer for multiple UN IPCC reports, offering rigorous analysis of claim versus reality. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

4. Professor John Christie – A former lead author of an IPCC report who contends, “climate models and popular surface temperature datasets overstate real atmospheric changes.” (Wikipedia)

5. Dr. Steven E. Koonin – Physicist, ex-Under Secretary for Science at the Department of Energy under Obama, and vocal critic of media simplification and model limitations. (Wikipedia)

Key Findings: What Challenges the Alarmism?

According to the report and accompanying interviews:

• Climate models are unreliable—“all over the shop”—and often overpredict warming by around 1°C or more, meaning severe impacts may be overstated. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

• Extreme weather trends lack compelling links to climate change—the data do not support the mainstream assertion that climate change causes every storm, drought, or fire. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

• Even using the flawed models, the economic damage of warming is minimal, and aggressive mitigation risks doing more harm than good. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

Media Missing in Action

You’d think a report by five high-profile scientists pushing back on climate hysteria would dominate headlines. Instead? Relative silence.

Media commentators like Andrew Bolt highlighted the omission—calling it “proof that the warming scare is grossly exaggerated”. (ysb.co.NZ, Iowa Climate Science Education)

But mainstream outlets? Either dismissed the report as fringe—like The Guardian and others—or buried it without meaningful discussion. The media continues to favour alarm over analysis. (ysb.co.nz)

Why This Matters—Especially for Australia

• Australia’s emissions are just 1.1% of global CO₂. Even eliminating them entirely changes nothing.

• Yet our energy costs are soaring, industries are shutting, and households—especially the poorest—are hurt by renewable subsidies and regulatory overreach.

• Another state of emergency will only drive more of the economy and commons into the ground, while the actual impact on the global climate remains nil.

Wrap-Up

This isn’t denialism. These are heavyweight scientists demanding honest conversation. Models have limits. Headlines should reflect nuance. And policy should be driven by evidence—not fear.

Let’s stop the narrative-driven panic and insist on reasoned, balanced, and effective climate solutions.

Here is a recent interview of Dr Koonin by Andrew Bolt covering some of these arguments.

Climate zealotry destroying Europe's economy

In a most inciteful article in the Gatestone Institute, titled Germany's Murder of Europe, Drieu Godefridi exposes the economic consequences of energy policies driven by the Climate Catastrophe dogma. Given a few observations in unassailable logic these policies will cost Europe dearly without leading to any reduction in Global Temperatures.

The arguments are as follows; -

• If Europe reduces its emissions to zero, while the rest of the world continues to increase them, the effect on the climate will be zero.
• The projected investment to save 0.03% GDP per year , amounting to €1.5 trillion per annum would do absolutely nothing for the climate of Europe with India and China, and others , increasing their emissions.
• "The Paris Agreement is obsolete and to pretend otherwise, as the European Commission is doing, is misleading, irresponsible, and not even scientific."
• The widespread acceptance of climate catastrophism is leading to Europe's impoverishment
• Climate change could be solved by innovation over the coming decades. But if Europe has expended so much of its resources on counterproductive emission reduction efforts it will not have the necessary funds to invest in such research.

Many see the logical absurdity of many climate-driven policies. Yet the juggernaut hurtles on. The Russia- Ukraine war has perhaps brought many to the realisation, but we have yet to see rationality take over.