The following are actual pieces of scientific data related to Springfield, Illinois, where I live:
The warmest day recorded in January is 73 degrees Fahrenheit on January 23, 1909, so every day in January, for the last 115 years, has been colder; the warmest day ever in February is February 24, 1930, when temperatures hit 78 degrees; the warmest day in March was March 21, 1907, when the temperature hit 91 degrees.
The average high temperature in Springfield today is around 36 degrees, and this weekend we are supposed to have highs around 30 degrees below normal, with wind chills around 20 below zero. So, after 160 years of exponential growth of all the things the green pushers say cause warming, we are thirty degrees below normal.
Temperatures have always fluctuated cyclically and naturally. Humans have no control over them, and there is no correlation between CO2 content, crude oil use, number of vehicles, and temperatures.
Yet, here is an article from two days ago, full of worthless information and repeated talking points, all to push the radical green agenda to scare people into capitulation:
Earth shattered global heat record in ’23 and it’s flirting with warming limit, European agency says
Earth last year shattered global annual heat records, flirted with the world’s agreed-upon warming threshold and showed more signs of a feverish planet, the European climate agency said Tuesday.
The European climate agency Copernicus said the year was 1.48 degrees Celsius (2.66 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times. That’s barely below the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit that the world hoped to stay within in the 2015 Paris climate accord to avoid the most severe effects of warming.
People with common sense and the ability to critically think should have several questions and comments about this article. First, they should point out that it is impossible to get an average global temperature unless they place the weather stations by area throughout the globe.
For example: 70 percent of the earth is covered by water, so 70% of weather stations should be placed over water to get a statistically accurate global temperature. Placing a much higher percentage of weather stations in urban areas, with cement and buildings, obviously skews the statistical results. Basically it is garbage in, garbage out.
Then they should ask why they picked the beginning of the Industrial Revolution as the starting point from which to measure. The Industrial Revolution spanned the period 1760–1840, which was during the little ice age. So, if you pick a cold period to start from, you exaggerate the change to push the agenda.
Why didn’t they start with the medieval warming period, where the temperature was like today? The reason they don’t do that is that it wouldn’t scare people into capitulation.
Why don’t they recognize the cooling period from 1940-1975 as disproving their theory that our use of natural resources causes warming? Because facts haven’t mattered in a long time.
One sentence that I find humorous is where people got together and decided exactly what the earth’s maximum temperature should be: “Earth last year shattered global annual heat records, flirted with the world’s agreed-upon warming threshold….”
Did they have a multiple-choice question? We will be able to adapt. It is pure arrogance when politicians, bureaucrats, the United Nations, and others pretend they can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity.
There are too many natural variables that we can’t control or predict. What people will never see in these articles that seek to scare people into capitulation is any actual scientific data that shows a direct link between our use of oil, coal, natural gas, methane, number of gas-powered vehicles, and temperature, or any other climate statistic because… there is none. But they don’t care.
The goal has always been to transfer money and freedom from the people to the government and green pushers. They are greedy! It is a massive scam!
Image generated by AI.