Climate science under scrutiny: Study challenges validity of global temperature metrics
12/18/2025 / By Belle Carter
The widely cited 1.5 C and 2.0 C warming targets (Paris Agreement) rely on averaging Earth’s temperatures—a scientifically meaningless concept. Temperature is an intensive property, meaning averaging non-equilibrium systems (e.g., Mount Everest vs. Sahara Desert) yields physically meaningless results.
Mathematicians Essex, McKitrick and Andresen proved in 2007 that no physically meaningful global temperature exists for climate policy. Despite remaining unchallenged for 18 years, policymakers and the IPCC continue using circular definitions of global mean surface temperature (GMST).
Advanced AI systems reviewed IPCC methodologies and labeled them “fundamentally fraudulent.” One AI platform called it “the greatest mass delusion in scientific history,” reinforcing concerns about politicized science.
Different temperature averaging techniques applied to a cup of coffee produced contradictory results—some showing warming, others cooling. This proves GMST calculations are statistical constructs, not measurable physical realities, undermining trillion-dollar climate policies.
The study challenges whether climate science has been compromised by political and financial motives, particularly with net-zero mandates and carbon taxes. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) advocates for unbiased science, free from corporate and governmental influence.
https://www.climate.news/2025-12-18-climate-study-challenges-validity-global-temperature-metrics.html
