Is global warming real?
Records not produced by NASA or NOAA show the warming, and the extra heat-trapping from carbon dioxide has been measured directly. Every skeptic claim checked here is contradicted. What stays open is how much more warming each doubling of CO2 brings and whether tipping points are crossed.
- ✓ Confirmed14 Jan 2026Eight temperature records put 2025 at about 1.44 °C above pre-industrial
- ✕ DisprovenTheoryThe planet is not warming, or the warming is made by adjusting the data
- ✕ DisprovenTheoryThe recent warming is mainly caused by the Sun or natural cycles
- ✕ DisprovenTheoryAdding carbon dioxide cannot warm the planet
- ✕ DisprovenTheoryThe emails show the global temperature record was faked
- ✕ DisprovenTheoryThere is no scientific agreement that humans are causing the warming
- ✕ DisprovenTheoryClimate models have always got the warming wrong
Scientists measured carbon dioxide trapping heat in 1861. Eight separate temperature records now say the last eleven years were the warmest measured. This case rates the skeptic arguments one by one, and marks what is still open.
The question Is the planet really warming, are people causing it, and how do the skeptics’ strongest arguments hold up?
What the records say
The documented story holds up: 12 of 14 timeline steps are Confirmed by the records (score 96).
6 theories checked: 6 disproven. A theory is rated by its key claim.
Eight temperature records put 2025 at about 1.44 °C above pre-industrial
confirmedCredible: it rests on a primary (tier-1) record. See the step
Down the rabbit hole
The ground line is the documented timeline. Each tunnel is a theory that branches off it; every chamber is a step, coloured by how well the records support it. The deepest chamber is the theory’s key claim. Tap one to open it.
Main timeline
Oldest first- 1861confirmed
John Tyndall measures carbon dioxide absorbing heat, and links it to climate
In his 1861 Royal Society lecture Tyndall reports that, at atmospheric pressure, “carbonic acid probably absorbs nearly 100 times as much as oxygen”. He writes that a change in water vapour “must produce a change of climate” and that “similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air”.
T1Tyndall, Bakerian Lecture, 1861carbonic acid section; closing remarks on the atmosphere - Apr 1896confirmed
Svante Arrhenius calculates how carbon dioxide changes the Earth’s temperature
His paper finds that if carbon dioxide “increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression”: each doubling adds about the same warming. He estimates the Arctic would warm about 8–9 °C if the gas rose to 2.5 or 3 times its level then.
- c. 1900likely
A laboratory test seems to show carbon dioxide’s effect is already “saturated”
Knut Ångström had an assistant pass infrared light through a tube of the gas; cutting the gas by a third barely changed what got through, and many scientists took Arrhenius to be wrong. The historian Spencer Weart writes that the experiment’s logic “was altogether false”, because the heat balance is set high in the atmosphere, where adding gas still matters.
T2Weart, AIP history of CO2 sciencesection on Ångström and Koch - Mar 1958 to 2025confirmed
Direct measurement shows carbon dioxide rising every year
Charles David Keeling began measuring at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, in March 1958. The annual average was 315.98 parts per million in 1959 and 427.35 in 2025, in the record now kept by NOAA with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
T1NOAA/Scripps Mauna Loa CO2 annual meansheader; rows 1959 and 2025 - 15 Mar 2001confirmed
Satellite spectra show the Earth’s greenhouse effect getting stronger
Comparing the infrared light leaving the Earth as measured from orbit in 1970 and in 1997, the authors found changes pointing to more carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and CFCs, which it calls “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”.
T1Harries et al., Nature, 2001abstract - 8 Mar 2007likely
A Channel 4 film argues the Sun, not people, is driving climate change
“The Great Global Warming Swindle”, written and directed by Martin Durkin, was broadcast in Britain on 8 March 2007. On 21 July 2008 the regulator Ofcom ruled that it treated the IPCC and two scientists unfairly and breached impartiality rules in its final part, but did not materially mislead the audience.
- 20 Nov 2009confirmed
Emails hacked from a leading climate research unit are published online
In mid-November 2009 a server used by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was accessed, and more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents were published. The story broke worldwide on 20 November, weeks before the Copenhagen climate conference.
- 31 Mar 2010confirmed
A House of Commons committee finds no systematic attempt to mislead, but a culture of withholding data
The committee was “content” that “trick” and “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms and “not part of a systematic attempt to mislead”. It also found that a “culture of withholding information” pervaded the unit’s handling of Freedom of Information requests, which it called “unacceptable”.
T1House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 31 Mar 2010Summary; para 103 - 15 May 2013confirmed
A survey of 11,944 paper abstracts reports 97% agreement that humans cause warming
Cook and colleagues found that 66.4% of the abstracts expressed no position. Of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the view that humans are causing global warming, and 97.2% of papers whose authors rated them took the same view.
- 25 Feb 2015confirmed
Instruments on the ground measure the extra heat-trapping from rising CO2
Spectrometers at two sites, the Southern Great Plains and Alaska’s North Slope, recorded carbon dioxide’s clear-sky radiative forcing at the surface rising 0.2 watts per square metre per decade, from a 22 parts-per-million rise between 2000 and 2010. The authors write the results “confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect”.
T1Feldman et al., Nature, 2015abstract - Jun 2015 to Jan 2017confirmed
A disputed adjustment to ocean temperatures is checked against independent instruments, and holds
NOAA’s 2015 update raised its estimate of recent warming and, in its authors’ words, does “not support the notion of a ‘slowdown’”. A 2017 study by a separate team found the update agreed with buoys, Argo floats and satellite radiometers, and that the older NOAA version had a large cooling bias.
T1Karl et al. (NOAA), Science, 2015abstractinvolved party: NOAA, one of the agencies accused by skeptics of tampering with the temperature recordT1Hausfather et al., Science Advances, 2017abstract - Dec 2019confirmed
A check of old climate models against what happened finds most got warming right
The study compared 17 projections of global temperature published between 1970 and 2007 with observations. Ten were consistent with what happened; fourteen were once the gap between the emissions they assumed and the real ones was accounted for.
- 2021confirmed
The IPCC says it is “unequivocal” that human influence has warmed the planet
Its sixth assessment gives a best estimate of 1.07 °C of human-caused warming from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019, with natural drivers changing temperature by −0.1 °C to +0.1 °C. It puts the warming from a doubling of CO2 at very likely 2 °C to 5 °C, best estimate 3 °C — a range, not a settled number.
T1IPCC AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers, 2021pp. 4, 5 and 11 (A.1, A.1.3, A.4.4)involved party: the IPCC, whose assessments are what the skeptic claims dispute - 14 Jan 2026confirmed
Eight temperature records put 2025 at about 1.44 °C above pre-industrial
The World Meteorological Organization’s combined analysis gives 1.44 °C (±0.13) above the 1850–1900 average, and 2015–2025 as the eleven warmest years in all eight datasets, from Europe, Japan, China, Britain and the US. Berkeley Earth puts 2025 at 1.44 ± 0.09 °C; NASA puts it 1.19 °C above its 1951–1980 baseline.
T1WMO, 14 Jan 2026T1Berkeley Earth, Global Temperature Report for 2025T1NASA, Global Temperature indicator pageLatest Annual Average Anomaly: 2025involved party: NASA, one of the agencies accused by skeptics of tampering with the temperature record
Branches
Go down oneA branch is only as strong as its weakest step so far. The count is how many sources back each step.
“The planet isn’t warming”
Is the warming real, or an artefact of how the temperature records are adjusted?
The idea that warming had stopped grew from an apparent slowdown after 1998, which the 2015 NOAA paper says “has been dubbed the global warming ‘hiatus’”. The tampering version spreads on YouTube, where one 2019 video says NASA and NOAA have completed “another massive round of temperature data tampering”.
- 13% US adults who think global warming is not happening (Yale/George Mason survey) as of 6–14 Nov 2025 T2Yale/George Mason survey, Nov 2025section 1
- 59,185 YouTube views, “Data Tampering Past The Climate Tipping Point” (Tony Heller) as of 30 Oct 2026 T3YouTube: Tony Heller, “Data Tampering Past The Climate Tipping Point”
NASA and NOAA keep adjusting the raw data, cooling the past
The video says the agencies are “cooling the past once again, and warming recent temperatures once again”.
The premise: confirmedThe adjustments are real: NOAA’s 2015 ocean update raised the recent trend from 0.07 to 0.12 °C per decade. An independent 2017 check against buoys, floats and satellites found the new version right and the old one too cold, and Berkeley Earth, set up to test such worries, finds the same warming.
Warming stopped after 1998
The apparent slowdown was widely studied and nicknamed the “hiatus”.
T1Karl et al. (NOAA), Science, 2015abstractinvolved party: NOAA, one of the agencies accused by skeptics of tampering with the temperature recordThe premise: disprovenAll eight datasets in the 2026 WMO analysis rank 2015–2025 as the eleven warmest years on record, and the satellite trend through 2026 is +0.16 °C per decade.
The satellites showed the atmosphere cooling
Early satellite analyses showed the tropical lower atmosphere cooling relative to the surface.
T1Mears and Wentz, Science, 2005abstractThe premise: confirmedThey did. A 2005 study found the correction for satellites’ drifting orbits had the wrong sign in the tropics, and with it fixed the warming matched the surface. The UAH series today shows +0.16 °C per decade.
T1Mears and Wentz, Science, 2005abstractT1UAH satellite lower-troposphere data, v6.1trend row
- confirmed
Eight separate records, not only NASA’s and NOAA’s, rank 2015–2025 as the warmest eleven years
The 2026 WMO analysis combines records from Europe’s Copernicus service, Japan’s Meteorological Agency, China, the UK Met Office with the University of East Anglia, Berkeley Earth and two others alongside NASA and NOAA. Two are reanalyses that also use satellite data. All eight agree on the ranking.
StartStrength so far:confirmed· 1 source on this step - confirmed
Berkeley Earth, set up to answer skeptics’ concerns about data adjustments, finds the same warming
Berkeley Earth says it was founded in 2010 “to address some of the concerns raised by climate skeptics”, including data adjustments, station quality and urban heat. Its 2025 report puts the year 1.44 ± 0.09 °C above 1850–1900, the third warmest since 1850.
= HoldsStrength so far:confirmed· 2 sources on this step - confirmed
The satellite record shows the lower atmosphere warming too
The University of Alabama in Huntsville’s satellite series gives a trend of +0.16 °C per decade from December 1978 to September 2026. Early satellite analyses that showed tropical cooling relative to the surface used an orbital-drift correction which a 2005 study found had the wrong sign.
T1UAH satellite lower-troposphere data, v6.1trend rowT1Mears and Wentz, Science, 2005abstract= HoldsStrength so far:confirmed· 2 sources on this step - confirmed
The adjustments are real, and independent instruments back them
NOAA’s 2015 sea-surface update raised the recent trend from 0.07 to 0.12 °C per decade. A 2017 study found that buoys, Argo floats and satellite radiometers agree with the new version and that the old one ran cold.
T1Hausfather et al., Science Advances, 2017abstractT1Karl et al. (NOAA), Science, 2015abstractinvolved party: NOAA, one of the agencies accused by skeptics of tampering with the temperature record= HoldsStrength so far:confirmed· 2 sources on this step - disproven
Key claim: the planet is not warming, or the warming is made by adjusting the data
Contradicted by records NASA and NOAA do not produce: Berkeley Earth, the UAH satellite series, the European, Japanese and Chinese datasets in the WMO analysis, and the independent ocean instruments that check the adjustments.
T1WMO, 14 Jan 2026T1Berkeley Earth, Global Temperature Report for 2025T1UAH satellite lower-troposphere data, v6.1trend rowT1Hausfather et al., Science Advances, 2017abstract▼ WeakerStrength so far:disproven· 4 sources on this step
Bullshit meter
- Key claim: the planet is not warming, or the warming is made by adjusting the data. Disproven.
- Key claim contradicted by tier 1? Yes. Records not produced by NASA or NOAA — Berkeley Earth, the UAH satellite series, and European, Japanese and Chinese datasets — all show the warming, and independent buoys and floats support the adjustments.
Fluff meter: possibly planted
- Can’t be traced to an original record. Absent: it traces to a real debate about an apparent slowdown after 1998, recorded in the 2015 NOAA paper.
- First appeared from new or anonymous accounts. Not measured.
- Coordinated identical wording. Not measured.
- Cited source doesn’t exist. Not measured.
- Later contradicted. Present: by Berkeley Earth, the UAH satellite record, the eight-dataset WMO analysis and the 2017 buoy and float comparison.
● present · ○ absent · – not measured. Lists signals only. It never accuses anyone.
Personal interest meter
- NASA and NOAA, produce two of the surface records that skeptics say are tampered with, so this branch is rated on records they do not produce. T1WMO, 14 Jan 2026
“Has a documented interest” only, each one sourced. Never an implication of guilt.
Correlation meter
- The UAH satellite record, is cited by the 2010 Commons committee as independent verification of the unit at the centre of Climategate, and is the satellite record in the “not warming” branch. T1House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 31 Mar 2010para 49
- Berkeley Earth, was founded to test skeptics’ concerns about adjustments and appears in both the “not warming” and Climategate branches. T1Berkeley Earth, Global Temperature Report for 2025
- The IPCC, is the record the Sun branch disputes, a complainant in the 2008 Ofcom ruling, and the source of the open questions on sensitivity and tipping points. T2The Irish Times, 21 Jul 2008
- Arrhenius’s 1896 rule, that each doubling of CO2 adds about the same warming is the true kernel of the saturation argument, and the same per-doubling measure the IPCC’s sensitivity range uses. T1Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine, Apr 1896p. 266
Links to other cases appear once those cases exist.
Who worked on this
This case was assembled by the site from public records. Contributions are not open yet. Nothing here is invented, so the counts are zero.
This is the first published version of the case.
Sources
- T1John Tyndall, “The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London vol. 151 (1861), received 10 Jan 1861, read 7 Feb 1861. Read as the OCR text of the Philosophical Transactions archive.. doi.org · copy read: jimclifford.ca
- T1Svante Arrhenius, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”, The London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Fifth Series, vol. 41, pp. 237–276, April 1896 (OCR copy hosted by the University of Minnesota). doi.org · copy read: www-users.cse.umn.edu
- T2Spencer Weart, “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect”, The Discovery of Global Warming, American Institute of Physics Center for History of Physics (online, read 30 Oct 2026). history.aip.org
- T1“Mauna Loa CO2 annual mean data” (co2_annmean_mlo.txt), NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory, file created 9 Oct 2026; data from March 1958 to April 1974 from C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Since the 2022 Mauna Loa eruption, measurements are taken at Maunakea, about 21 miles north.. gml.noaa.gov
- T1“Education - Stable Isotopes”, page on what carbon-13 tells us, NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory (read 30 Oct 2026). gml.noaa.gov
- T1J. E. Harries, H. E. Brindley, P. J. Sagoo and R. J. Bantges, “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997”, Nature vol. 410, pp. 355–357, 15 Mar 2001 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T1D. R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer and T. R. Shippert, “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”, Nature vol. 519, pp. 339–343, published online 25 Feb 2015 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T1⚠ QuestionedIt is cited for the claim that an atmospheric greenhouse effect breaks the second law of thermodynamics. A peer-reviewed comment in the same journal sets out the errors, and the greenhouse forcing it calls fictitious has since been measured from orbit and from the ground. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, “Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics”, International Journal of Modern Physics B vol. 23, pp. 275–364, 30 Jan 2009 (abstract read via Crossref). A record of what the authors claim.. doi.org
- T1Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith and Jörg Zimmermann, “Comment on ‘Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics’”, International Journal of Modern Physics B vol. 24, pp. 1309–1332, 20 Apr 2010 (abstract read via Crossref; the authors’ reply, pp. 1333–1359, was read in abstract too). doi.org
- T1Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich, “Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature”, Proceedings of the Royal Society A vol. 463, pp. 2447–2460, 10 Jul 2007 (abstract read via Crossref). doi.org
- T1involved party: the IPCC, whose assessments are what the skeptic claims dispute IPCC, 2021: “Summary for Policymakers”, in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–32 (literature accepted by 31 Jan 2021); page numbers are the PDF’s printed footers. www.ipcc.ch
- T1S. C. Sherwood et al., “An Assessment of Earth’s Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence”, Reviews of Geophysics vol. 58, e2019RG000678, 2020 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T1“WMO confirms 2025 was one of warmest years on record”, World Meteorological Organization press release, 14 Jan 2026 (consolidated analysis of eight datasets). wmo.int
- T1“Global Temperature Report for 2025”, Berkeley Earth, published 14 Jan 2026. berkeleyearth.org
- T3“About Berkeley Earth”, Berkeley Earth website (read 30 Oct 2026). The organisation’s own account of why it was founded.. berkeleyearth.org
- T1involved party: NASA, one of the agencies accused by skeptics of tampering with the temperature record “Global Temperature”, NASA Earth indicators page, science.nasa.gov (read 30 Oct 2026; the 2025 analysis was released 14 Jan 2026). science.nasa.gov
- T1“uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt”, global lower-troposphere temperature anomalies from satellite microwave sounders, version 6.1, University of Alabama in Huntsville, data December 1978 to September 2026 (read 30 Oct 2026). www.nsstc.uah.edu
- T1Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz, “The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature”, Science vol. 309, pp. 1548–1551, 2005 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T1involved party: NOAA, one of the agencies accused by skeptics of tampering with the temperature record Thomas R. Karl et al. (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information), “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”, Science vol. 348, pp. 1469–1472, published online 4 Jun 2015 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T1Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan, David C. Clarke, Peter Jacobs, Mark Richardson and Robert Rohde, “Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records”, Science Advances vol. 3, e1601207, 4 Jan 2017 (abstract read via Europe PMC). doi.org
- T2“C4 climate documentary ‘unfair’ to scientist”, The Irish Times, 21 Jul 2008 (report of Ofcom’s ruling on The Great Global Warming Swindle). www.irishtimes.com
- T3“The Great Global Warming Swindle - Full Documentary HD”, Wisdom Land channel, YouTube, published 19 Aug 2018. An upload of Martin Durkin’s 2007 Channel 4 film; its description summarises the film’s case. A record of the claim.. www.youtube.com
- T3“Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version”, Clintel channel, YouTube, published 22 Mar 2024. A record of the claim.. www.youtube.com
- T3“‘CO2, The Gas of Life’ - Dr. William Happer”, Old Guard Summit channel, YouTube, published 4 Oct 2023 (a talk to the Old Guard of Summit, NJ, 3 Oct 2023). A record of the claim.. www.youtube.com
- T3“Data Tampering Past The Climate Tipping Point”, Tony Heller channel, YouTube, published 24 Jun 2019. A record of the claim.. www.youtube.com
- T3“Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails”, corbettreport channel, YouTube, published 21 Nov 2009. A record of the claim.. www.youtube.com
- T3“Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? | 5 Minute Video”, PragerU, YouTube, published 18 Apr 2016, presented by MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen. A record of the claim.. www.youtube.com
- T3“Climate Change Predictions vs Reality”, John Stossel channel, YouTube, published 16 Jul 2026, with climate scientist Judith Curry. A record of the claim.. www.youtube.com
- T1“The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia”, Eighth Report of Session 2009–10, HC 387-I, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 31 Mar 2010 (read from the embargoed advance copy hosted by RealClimate). publications.parliament.uk · copy read: www.realclimate.org
- T1involved party: the University of East Anglia, which commissioned the review and employs the scientists “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review”, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, July 2010 (read from a copy in the Dutch government’s document archive). www.uea.ac.uk · copy read: zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl
- T1involved party: the US Environmental Protection Agency, defending its own 2009 endangerment finding “Preface: EPA’s Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act”, US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010 (denial dated 29 Jul 2010). archive.epa.gov
- T2involved party: the National Science Foundation’s inspector general, reviewing research its own agency had funded “Federal Investigators Clear Climate Scientist, Again”, Scientific American, 23 Aug 2011 (on the National Science Foundation inspector general’s closed investigation). www.scientificamerican.com
- T2Jeremy Lovell and ClimateWire, “U.K. Police Close Climategate Inquiry”, Scientific American, 20 Jul 2012. www.scientificamerican.com
- T2involved party: the Commerce Department’s inspector general, reviewing scientists of its own department’s agency, NOAA Quirin Schiermeier, “NOAA scientists cleared of ‘Climategate’ accusations”, Nature news blog, 25 Feb 2011 (on the US Commerce Department inspector general’s review). blogs.nature.com
- T1John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A. Green, Mark Richardson et al. (9 authors), “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”, Environmental Research Letters vol. 8, 024024, 15 May 2013 (abstract read). doi.org
- T1Richard S. J. Tol, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis”, Energy Policy vol. 73, pp. 701–705, October 2014 (abstract read). doi.org
- T1Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z. Houlton and Simon Perry, “Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature”, Environmental Research Letters vol. 16, 114005, 19 Oct 2021 (abstract read). doi.org
- T2“Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes, Fall 2025”, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication; 1,146 US adults interviewed 6–14 Nov 2025, average margin of error ±3 points. climatecommunication.yale.edu
- T1Zeke Hausfather, Henri F. Drake, Tristan Abbott and Gavin A. Schmidt, “Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections”, Geophysical Research Letters vol. 47, e2019GL085378, issue of 16 Jan 2020 (abstract read; the publisher’s full text blocked scripted access). doi.org
- T2Jeff Berardelli, “Climate models have been impressively accurate for decades, study finds”, CBS News, 5 Dec 2019. www.cbsnews.com
- T2Zeke Hausfather, Kate Marvel, Gavin A. Schmidt, John W. Nielsen-Gammon and Mark Zelinka, “Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem”, Nature vol. 605, pp. 26–29, 4 May 2022 (comment piece; only the title and standfirst could be read, the body is paywalled). www.nature.com