Settle in for a Sunday Junk Science take-down!
In this opinion piece, Milloy’s opinion gets an F in accuracy, but it's an absolute master-class in denialist propaganda. He employs the classic tactic of discrediting experts with what seem to be reasonable, obvious statements. They’re superficial and easy to discredit, but the point is to hijack the narrative.
He first tries to lay blame with the media's use of Climate Reanalyzer, a tool developed by my colleagues here at UMaine, claiming it exaggerates temperature anomalies (aka, warmer or colder than average) relative to a different website, temperature [dot] global.
Temperature [dot] global has little info about data sources or methods, and the "About" lists no names or orgs.
They say their averages are calculated from a "30-year mean," but it's not provided. The only time interval mentioned is on in the one graph provided: Jan 2015-Jun 2023.
In contrast, Climate Reanalyzer (which has extensive information about the data sources and methods) reports anomalies are from a 1979–2000 average for the 2 m temperature anomalies, because that predates the significant warming in the Arctic. This is important, because...
If you just compare current temperatures to the last few years (e.g., since 2015, as his website does), of COURSE you'll have smaller anomalies than if you calculate them against a normal from a cooler past. Congratulations! You've discovered global warming!
Milloy argues that Climate Reanalyzer's results are skewed because it shows more warming in the Arctic, but his website is actually designed to erase that signal. It's like saying winter doesn't exist because yesterday was hot, too.
Jacquelyn Gill
Stargeezer Smith