Climate fraud whack a mole

Dr. Willie Soon just published his paper showing how data homogenization was hiding the true cause of warming.  In a previous post I linked a video of Dr. Soon discussing his yet to be released paper.  Dr. Soon clearly points out in his presentation that data homogenization produces a warming trend that cannot be explained by sun activity. But, when homogenization is removed the warming is clearly caused by the sun and not greenhouse gases.  Essentially data homogenization is just a mathematical trick to justify using corrupted temperature data.

The release of the paper has caused quite a debate on twitter (or X if you prefer).  I weighed in on the debate pointing out that they know 90% of all temperature readings are corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect.  The data should not be used but it is used because without it global warming is not that scary.  I made the comment that if only uncorrupted rural stations are used it shows little to no warming.  Within minutes an alarmist replied with this plot.

So it appears that I am wrong.  Don’t the rural stations show a lot of warming?  Actually, no they don’t, and I will tell you why.  Immediately I noticed a couple really odd things about this plot.  Below are the satellite temperatures from 1979.  According to satellites since 1979 the earth has warmed by about 0.6 degrees and the spike in 1998 due to a strong El Niño is roughly equivalent to the temperatures we see now.

Now let’s revisit the first plot.

According to this plot there has been a 0.5 degree increase since the 1998 El Nino and a 1.5 degree increase since 1979.  How can that be?  How does 0 become 0.5 and 0.6 become 1.5?  Well folks that is the magic of climate science.  If you don’t like the answer you get just adjust the data until you do.

I have shown this plot before.  The raw data shows no trend but the adjusted data shows a strong warming trend.  The plot my twitter friend was using for his gotcha moment is built from adjusted data.  To prove to me that I am wrong about corrupted data he sent me a plot composed completely of adjusted, corrupted, manufactured data.

That is the problem with trying to refute the climate lies.  Fraud is so widespread in climate science that there is always another completely fraudulent plot to fact check a different completely fraudulent plot.  It really is like playing whack a mole except that the number of fraudulent moles is almost infinite.

But why should it be a game of whack a mole at all?  Why is the burden of proof on the people who do not want to change anything?  Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the people who want to destroy entire economies and make you poor?  And, when their proof turns out to be fraudulent, shouldn’t we stop listening to them?

Fraud is the underpinning of climate science.  We do not have an emergency.  We just have a few dishonest people making money and an army of useful idiots.  It is never a good idea to listen to con men or idiots.  Stop playing their stupid game.  Let’s move on from this fake government manufactured emergency and prepare for the next fake government manufactured emergency.