Monthly Climate Fact Check

And yet the data are accurate and make the point, your evasions notwithstanding.

 

Oh! Bless! Another astroturf site! You do find them don’t you!

https://polarbearsinternational.org/news-media/articles/polar-bears-climate-change-denial-machine
Okay because if you use the same criteria for making business decisions you are using for climate science you are setting yourself up to be ripped off.

1. Don’t confuse bad journalism with good science. The first link which is supposed to support the claim that “they” are “vigorously promoting” fake numbers is not to an actual research paper but to an article in “the guardian” which did NOT claim what they say it does
2. Citing yourself. This relies on the fact few will actually click links to check on citations so claims can be made and links put into an article which actually just leads to a circular chase
3. Cherry picking note that the author, if they were truly looking at an entire population, would be including ALL areas and reports - they don’t

So your so called “proof of scientific fraud” is actually a rant about media write ups about one issue

try again

 

Again I ask if this was a business case and you were presented with information designed only to “prove” one outcome, an outcome that looks favourable to you but one that does not agree with any other financial institutions assessment of the data . A business case sourced from a dodgy site - would you invest?

 

Sorry, but my investment decisions are none of your business. Please stay on topic.

 

I am not inquiring about your business transaction I am offering a hypothetical. The fact you will not answer that hypothetical speaks volumes

 

Well, no. You're merely evading. The site claims to have been created by professional meteorologists and climatologists with over 25 years experience in surface weather observations. I suggest you focus on the data rather than wasting my time.

 

They're called "thermometers", which measure this thing called "temperature", which shows that September 2023 was the hottest month in the historical record, which goes back to 1880. Proxy temps show it's the hottest month in thousands of years.

Thermometers are not a model. Satelliate observations are a model. Thermometers are hard data, the best data. Deniers deliberately throw away the best data, which marks them as practicians of pseudoscience.

Actual scientists will never toss away the best data because it's politically inconvenient, but deniers depend on that tactic.

 

Actually, thermometers show nothing of the sort.
The Temperature.global compilation of actual temperature measurements from surface stations has September only slightly warmer than the average monthly temperature of the past 8 years and 9 months, and far from the warmest month since January 2015.

 

“Claims to have been made”. So who are these people and more importantly who do they answer to? And I have critiqued the data. It is a classic cherry picked misrepresented obfuscation of the facts. The very presentation is misleading to the extreme.

 

Again trying to pass off a graph that I no way resembles any graph published by any of the dozens of validated sources on the internet.

 

Do you dispute the data's accuracy? Since the claim only goes from 2015 to the present, and the data presented cover precisely that period, the allegation of cherry picking is ludicrous.

 

That graph that they are all crowing about is very interesting as it is cherry picked to only the last eight years and is only of the “deviations” in temperature. Since there is more than one way of measuring a deviation it is just another shell game with a missing pea

 

Data Sources
NOAA Global METARs
NOAA One-Minute Observations (OMOs)
NBDC Global Buoy Reports
MADIS Mesonet Data



Our Process

 

So your answer "No I got nothing so I'll wise-ass my way out of this".

By the was that record high in September wasn't real on any thermometers; it was developed from an algorithm and is about as useless as calculating the average zip code of the United States.

 

Nope! As I have said over and over and over (and this is why it feels like the “dead parrot sketch). The data has been cherry picked and manipulated. We know that 2016 was a very hot year due to a massive El Niño so it is taking that as it’s “norm” and doing a weird calculated “deviation” from that point

 

Yep! This is exactly what raised my suspicions - what methodology are they using to calculate the “deviations”?

 

Please read the post. The explicit (and only) point is to compare 2016 and 2023.

 

Ask them.
Temperature.Global API

Our API is free to use, no registration is necessary.

Global Temperature - Sample Request
http://temperature.global/api.php

Sample Response

Array
(
[temp] => 57.35
[dev] => 0.15
[city] => Goeree
[country] => Netherlands
[count] => 59565
)


Response Format
temp - The current global temperature in degrees F
dev - The current global temperature deviation from 30 year global average in degrees F

 

And I bet you have no problem with the cherry-picked and manipulated "world temperature".

 

Was it? What is your proof for this contention? Keeping in mind that was a GLOBAL temperature and for the data to have been manipulated multiple sources and sites would have to have also falsely manipulated the data. See my previous posts on this thread showing the comparison between the graph in the OP and other world recognised authorities

 

Proof? Even conspiracy theories need proof

 

Again it is NOT the data itself

 

So what?

 

Ah, so you are a conspiracy theorist.

 

You need to dig a little deeper how that "global" temp was CALCULATED (not measured). And the net of sensors gathering the data had massive gaps in it - which the "experts" twiidling the digit for the massive number of missing data points. On top of that with 70% of the globe's surface being water where data points were rare.