Wet-Bulb Temperature

Side note, I would love it if more a/c merely dried the air. I hate going into office buildings that are set 20C below the outdoor temperature.

I live in BC, which saw all-time record temperatures which killed about 400 people last year. Temperatures were about 10°C higher than a typical year. While average temperatures might grow slowly, peak temperatures are a different story.

"We should only trust people who never ever change their mind or attempt to correct their previous interpretations of data"

Look, I realize what I'm showing you is hard to accept. It was for me too. I did a lot of digging before coming to the conclusion that I couldn't refute what was happening. Nonetheless, please recognize that you're in denial here. These people are not changing their interpretations of the data. They are changing the data itself and I believe I made that extremely clear. It's very hard to get the raw, pre-editing historical datasets. Sometimes it's possible, sometimes it's not. It really depends on the temperature series, the organization that produces it, the time frame in question etc. That's why I'm forced to cite newspaper archives above, because they are one of the places where history is recorded that scientists can't easily rewrite.

"Thanks, random internet stranger, for showing that millions of scientists and dozens of government organizations are completely incompetent and/or malicious liars!"

Unfortunately facts aren't decided by how many people say them or who they work for. Facts are what they are and one person pointing out one fact, can - in fact - show that millions of scientists and dozens of government organizations are doing something highly unusual.

At any rate, there aren't millions of climatologists, lol. It's a tiny field. Even fewer of them produce temperature data sets. Probably fewer than 100 people do that work globally (I'm not counting the people who actually read the thermometers here because they aren't publishing combined temperature series).

With respect to being incompetent and malicious liars, I'm afraid they are something far worse - highly competent and badly incentivized liars. If there was no global warming them climatology would be dusty academic backwater that none of us would ever think about. They wouldn't be the center of a massive cultural industry that venerates them, instead their status and funding would be somewhere near the sort of people who categorize rare species of butterflies.

One: the "glaciers" - I assume you mean something like the Greenland ice sheet here - aren't actually shrinking. See for yourself, data direct from the observation satellites:

http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_comb...

Note that accumulated surface mass balance for both 2021-2022 so far, and for 2020-2021, is pretty much bob on the 1981-2010 average. In fact last year it was a little over the average. You think they're massively shrinking because scientists and the media like to announce years when it's lower than average, then are silent in years when it's average or above average. This form of soft censorship makes you think they're constantly shrinking when in fact size wanders around.

Even so, we must be careful with interpreting this sort of data because they're all at it. Many claims about changes in ice depth or size are the result of ... more modelling ... which has the exact same problem as temperature modelling, it's too easy to bias in your desired direction by constantly adding convenient fixes. Exactly the same problem as seen in COVID models.

The second reason is more subtle. You refer in your comment to temperature "corrections". By definition, "correcting" observational data to make it conform to your theory (which is the effect of what they're doing) is not scientific. Scientists aren't allowed to "correct" their raw data, period, end of story. If they do it's always fraud when judged by the standards of more normal and rigorous fields. If your historical data is of poor quality then you need to admit that, add error bars and propagate them through to your final confidence intervals, then interpret the CIs honestly i.e. if the CIs are wide enough to incorporate "nothing is changing" then so be it even if that's bad for your grant approval rate.

Climatologists don't do this. Instead what happens is that they collect data, it fails to show warming, and they then spend years coming up with plausible sounding justifications for why their observations need to be changed. So they do it, but their corrections are motivated reasoning so newly collected data of course shows the same problem - no warming (hence why we see stories about the mysterious lack of warming from both 1989 and 2015 in the press, see my citations above). So they come up with yet more reasons to adjust the data and do it again.

This practice has now reached its logical conclusion: they adjust every data point every time a new data point is added. That's why NOAA call their temperature history a reconstructed dataset. They literally reconstruct it every day. Climatology is all about making predictions about temperature but literally according to them, they cannot accurately measure temperatures that were recorded last week, not even at specific weather stations. They cannot read thermometers today, but measuring the temperature of the world as it was 1000 years ago, or predicting what it will be in 100 years, no problem. Obviously no rational person can accept such a claim: it is absurd on its face.