Sensational New Findings: Higher Warming Trend at Start of 20th Century Casts Serious Doubt on Role of Human-Caused CO2
Recently published remarkable research analysing over 42 million global temperature recordings from nearly 1,000 stations has cast serious doubt on the claimed link between carbon dioxide emissions and rising temperatures. The huge statistical work collected data from before 1900 to 2024 and found an overall annual warming trend of 0.0054°C after adjusting for growing unnatural urban heat effects. What is truly revealing about this important analysis is that it shows an obvious disconnect between the rise in anthropogenic CO2 and the sharpest warming occurring in the early 20th century, when industrialisation was confined to relatively few countries.
The annual 0.0054°C translates to warming of little more than 0.8°C during the industrial era and is below claims of well over 1°C from other, often politicised, sources. The disconnect with CO2 is evidenced by slower warming and even cooling trends over the last 125 years at a time when emissions of the trace gas have been rising in the atmosphere. The results of the work are tabulated below:

The largest warming over a 42-year period occurred between 1899 and 1940 when cumulative CO2 emissions were only 139.6 billion tonnes. The next period, from 1941 to 1982, saw annual average cooling of -0.013°C, leading to widespread fears at the time of a new global ice age despite a 3.3 times jump in cumulative CO2. From 1983 to 2024, the average annual temperature warming of 0.017°C was less than the period up to 1940, when CO2 levels were 8.7 times lower. When considering these figures, it is worth noting that the notion humans cause most climate change is a hypothesis – in other words, an opinion, a guess given unwarranted credibility by computer models based on the current or selective state of knowledge. Political interference based on promoting the Net Zero fantasy does little to advance the current state of factual knowledge.
Of course, these patterns do not align well with the ‘settled’ political view that increasing CO2 from the use of hydrocarbons is the primary driver of recent global warming. In fact, they do not align at all with the UK Met Office’s recent risible pseudoscientific claim that its “rapid attribution study” showed that human-induced climate change made the UK’s record-breaking annual temperature of 2025 approximately 260 times more likely. A record, it might be noted, of six hundredths of a degree centigrade culled from a largely ‘junk’ measuring network made essentially useless by massive unnatural and uncorrected heat corruptions.
Not only are there few, if any, adjustments made for urban heat corruptions, but global temperature datasets promoting warming over the industrial age of up to 1.3°C are frequently adjusted higher retrospectively. GISS, which is part of NASA, increased past warming from January 1915 to January 2000 from 0.45°C to 0.67°C, a massive 49% boost. HADCrut is run by the UK Met Office, which once wrote a paper on the inconvenient temperature ‘pause’ from 1998 to 2013. Alas, the pause did not survive substantial retrospective warming adjustments, although it is still visible in the accurate satellite record.
The cynical have been known to observe there are more fiddles in global temperature datasets than the music cupboard at the Royal Philharmonic.
Back in the real scientific world, the author of this new analysis of temperature data stretching back to the 19th century is Dr Bibek Bhatta. Operating out of Queen’s University in Belfast, his research spans energy policy, finance and climate, with a focus on leveraging ‘Big Data’ to uncover hidden patterns and systemic misalignments. In his latest work, Dr. Bhatta argues that academic researchers should approach the concept of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with a degree of caution. “Rather than treating AGW as a foregone conclusion, scholars in all fields should be encouraged to acknowledge the existing uncertainties,” he said. When building models or theories that assume CO2 is the primary driver of changing weather, they should note that “empirical evidence for this direct link is still a subject of debate”.
In an earlier section of his paper, Bhatta addresses the widely debunked suggestion of a 97% consensus among scientists about AGW. The claim arose from a supposed examination of nearly 4,000 papers published over a 21-year period, implying an average of one new paper produced every other day on the topic. This would suggest a “herd mentality” rather than a proliferation of independent evidence, commented Bhatta. “If one strong piece of empirical evidence for AGW exists, such repetitive endorsement would be unnecessary,” he argues. Perhaps Dr. Bhatta is too polite to add that the 97% figure, along with a subsequent 99% claim, was largely fabricated anyway.
Dr. Bhatta’s work on big meteorological data is fascinating. He presents his findings over several time periods; full details and methodology can be found in the enclosed link at the top of this story. His aim is simple – to investigate whether global warming trends recorded by actual weather stations can be “primarily attributed” to human emissions of CO2. His work follows a long line of research seeking to provide a truer picture of constantly changing past climate at a time when CO2 levels have been much higher and no obvious link exists with movements in local or global temperatures. Such work, effectively banned from consideration in most anti-science mainstream media, examines the role of natural weather variation and the possible ‘saturation’ of gases with atmospheric warming properties.
In total, 105 million global temperature recordings were downloaded from the Global Historical Climatology Network. After extensive cleaning, the final sample numbered around 42 million measurements with continuous records from at least 1900. All records supplied maximum and minimum daily temperatures and came from 992 stations across 29 countries. Data for annual human CO2 emissions was taken from Our World in Data. To adjust for urban heat influences, satellite information showing the build-up of urbanisation within a 10km radius was used. Similar work using this information has been done by other researchers trying to estimate urban heat effect on ambient air temperature measurements. As the table above noted, the annual warming for 1983–2024 was 0.0167°C compared to an urban heat corrupted 0.0209°C. Aficionados of the Met Office’s ‘hottest year evah’ claims might take note of these figures.
In conclusion, Dr. Bhatta observes that his evidence raises serious questions about the established assumptions regarding the impact of CO2 emissions on global warming. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims “unequivocally” that humans have caused global warming, he continues, “the empirical evidence presented herein does not provide support to such straightforward relationship”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The devil is in the detail. Never, in the field of human history, has so much fuss been made about so little.
Especially considering that we’re living in a f***ing ice age¹ and it’s well-known that this isn’t a permanent state of affairs.
¹ Defined as a period of time during which permaforst regions exist on earth.
0.017°C per year.
Uff, get me a fan…
As this suggests itself here: Climate activists have meanwhile made the step from theatrical publicity stunts to actual terror attacks causing massive harm and discomfort for people, including deaths. Tenthousands of households in Berlin have been without electricity over the weekend because a group demanding the end of fossil fuel use set a crucial cable bridge on fire with the explicit intent to harm as many people as possible.
German article about this:
https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/beitrag/2026/01/berlin-suedwesten-stromausfall-vulkangruppe-bekennerschreiben-brandanschlag.html
Core quote: The arson attack was an act of self-defence in an emergency and of showing international solidarity with those seeking to protect the earth and all life on it.
[Der Brandanschlag sei als “Akt der Notwehr und der internationalen Solidarität mit allen, die die Erde und das Leben schützen”, zu verstehen.]
Most life on earth is thriving just fine, completely unaware of the existence of these idiots. But, you know, they’re such good people, they’re offering their help anyway. We should all bask in the warm glow of their dazzling virtue.
Another claim in there is “this was an attack on the fossil fuel industry and not on the people” but strangely, it wasn’t the fossil fuel industry which had to spend a weekend without light, warm water and heating in freezing conditions. Subjecting a few hundredthousand people to that (45,000 – 50,000 households, exact number not known) is a strange way of “protecting life on earth.” That’s more growing numb in the icy breath of their cold-blooded cruelty instead of basking the warm glow of their dazzling virtue.
NB: I realize you were being sarcastic. But there’s not a shred of virtue anywhere to be found in these people and they perfectly well know this themselves. I wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually came to light that the XR funders have chosen to up their ante and hire some really professional criminals ready to kill (people have certainly died because of this) without mercy.
Once you believe the end of the world is coming you may be capable of anything. After all the world coming to an end and billions of people dying is a pretty serious thing. The only problem is that what people “believe” is mostly faith and emotion and normally not based on facts evidence and reason. ——The easily manipulated climate change worriers though should maybe listen to the IPCC itself who say “Worst case scenario’s from our climate models are very unlikely to occur”——-There is no climate crisis.
I’m not convinced that these people believe in anything except that they’re the political shock troops of the woke establishment¹ and that climate change is part of their current public mission statement.
¹ It’s highly suspect when people commit terror attacks against largish segments of the population in support of already existing policies the population is – rightly – suspected of not being fanatically enough in favour of. Terrorists used to demand fundamental policy changes and not more of the same faster.
I agree that global warming is nothing to be worried about, for example it has only changed the climate of Southern England to that of Northern France, but why can’t we grow decent onions?
But there are some red flags in this study when it comes to quantification.
The first one is “Among these 992 stations (used), a vast majority are situation(sic) in the USA (840) …” Hardly a global dataset.
Secondly, only very long-lived stations are used. with data from before 1900 all the way up to 2024. This is a huge bias towards stations in cities and large towns, with very unrepresentative amounts of urban heating.
Thirdly, there is no mention of homogenisation, which is necessary for example for thermometers that started on the roofs of buildings, which we know are places reserved for men with Winchesters.
The historical data of weather stations is highly suspect… unless it disproves the climate hoax, in which case, they’re fine…
All these global temperature discussions are just ridiculous. Talk of hundredths or thousands of a degree celsius based on temperature readings from thermometers that almost certainly don’t have that level of sensitivity and have presumably been changed several times over the years In the context of a system as complicated as the weather. I mean, they often can’t predict reliably whether it’s going to rain in a few hours. But somehow they can tell you that the temperature has been going up or down by two hundredths of a degree per year going back 100 years.
Sorry, but seeing anyone engaging with any of this seriously just makes me laugh.
The problem is that you know that and I know that but lots of people are making a comfortable living out of this scam and the majority of the population seem to be terminally complacent.
So we have no choice but to at least pretend to engage seriously as this is an existential struggle.
They will ruin us.
When talking about averages it is perfectly OK to quote the result to a hundredth of a degree C. Thermometers typically give an accuracy of +/- 0.1C, an average over 100 such thermometers has an accuracy of +/-0.01C (the square root of 100 is 10).
Until very recently, thermometers came nowhere near +/- 0.1⁰C and while this can perhaps be measured, it’s not meaningful for life on this planet where such extremely small temperature variations don’t matter at all.
As an average calculated from values measured by 100 different thermometers at different times in different locations is an entirely artificial piece of mathematical fiction, it doesn’t have any accuracy. There’s nothing in the real world it could be compared with to determine its difference from it.
Global Warming is a term used to mean warming allegedly caused by humans. But there is no real evidence that this alleged warming of southern England to have the temperature of Northern France is as a result of human activity. The alleged warming may be entirely natural and even the IPCC admit they cannot tell the difference between warming that is natural and warming that may be caused by human emissions of CO2. They say they see no human signal in the data.
Great data. P value is 0 for the past 40 years. Stat sign is 5%. A p value of 0 or close to 0 means you reject ‘the null Hypothesis’ ie AGW causes ‘warming’. Based on the actual temps recorded in that table, there is nothing going on. Nothing.
I hope Dr Bhatta has a good contract and a robust character as the usual nasties will go after him. That or savings.
Well done. Natural weather variation is what we have, and we shouldn’t be obsessed with the idea that we contribute to it to the extent that the “Net Zero” cult want to spend money on. What we should invest in is measures that assist out ability to make the best of it, such as in agriculture, rather than trying to influence it.
Have the BBC been told? Looking forward to a twelve part documentary series and analysis with a breathless narration by Sir David Attenborough and no falling walruses.
Well done to Chris Morrison & the DS for that nostalgic photo, showing that, far back in the mists of time, women actually wore skirts and dresses every day.
But the science is always right and settled, so we shouldn’t be questioning AGW, it’s real and is going to kill us all. But it won’t be as bad as feared because the science told us the human population was going to be culled by COVID, so we’re all dead anyway and there’s less remaining to pollute the atmosphere with the evil gas. Oh, wait a minute, we’re all still here! Oh dear, there must be a difference between science and computer modelling, who knew.
Hmm – I sniff a nip in the air. Can’t you feel a retraction coming on for that paper?
This has been know (and suppressed) for years.
“If one strong piece of empirical evidence for AGW exists, such repetitive endorsement would be unnecessary,”
Exactly. As somebody once said, if a paper existed that proved human CO2 caused warming beyond contestation then we would all know its name. No such paper exists after decades of global warming claims.
There is an easier way to figure this out
If the CoE is demanding compliance with something, it’s BS
The Table 9 temperature swings map neatly onto the cyclical Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). I find it very suspicious that the Met Office and NOAA have both stopped updating their data on the AMO, just as it is due to enter its cooling phase:
.
This has been known for sometime but it it is good to see confirmation. The climate change alarmists always claim that warming of 1.2 C from 1860 was all caused by human activities, but ofcourse that cannot be true because before the war Industrialization was limited to only a few countries, there were few cars, no central heating or air conditioning, hardly any fridges freezers and washing machines and people were not flying all over the world in planes. ——-So at best humans can only be responsible for half of that 1.2C.
I’ve just had a survey from Hertfordshire County Council Pension Fund about “responsible” investing. In other words woke investing. They are planning to only invest in companies who are net zero. I told them in no uncertain terms that it was their duty to invest to get the best returns, not for mad Miliband and Loony Labour policies.
I have long argued that climate changes are due to natural phenomena perhaps augmented by some manmade effects such as river diversion (Eg Aral Sea issue) and deforestation. It is interesting to learn so much detail on the fact that actually there is almost no change at all.