Got A Climate Change Denial Opinion Piece For The WSJ? No Need To Worry About Editor Fact Checking - Global Temperature

Climate change deniers have a couple of go-to websites; temperature.global and UAH Global Temperature. The deniers cherry pick data from these two websites and ignore the fact that the information these two sources provides is at odds with all other credible global temperatures, land air temperatures, marine air temperatures, sea surface temperature, sub-surface ocean temperatures, lower atmospheric temperatures, sub-surface land temperatures, and sea level rise as a metric of a warming climate system. A sampling of the more credible sources are NOAA, NASA, the UK Met Office, and the Japan Meteorological Agency.

In a July 8 Opinion article published in the Wall Street Journal, the author claims "Hottest Days Ever? Don't Believe It". Steve Milloy's data source supporting his claim is the obscure weather.global website. Milloy suggests that the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer report that July 3 and 4 were the hottest days on record is not believeble because it is not comfirmed by temperature.global. However, Milloy conveniently fails to mention that NOAA also confirmed this factoid (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is a scientific  agency within the United States Department of Commerce), And given that killer heatwaves are scorching the US Southwest and Louisiana, Mexico, China, India, and the Middle East, it's challenging to give credence to a data source that has failed to measure a July temperature spike.

The WSJ's editors seemingly failed to catch this bit of hypocracy. Milloy argues that temperature stations utilize corrupted data. But guess what the temperature.global site utilizes to compile it's reports? Yup, surface temperature measurement versus the satelite data utilized by Climate Reanalyzer. And NOAA's methodology is provided on the following webpage: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/noaa-global-temp

It's long past time for the WSJ to stop allowing their "Opinion" section to be filled with misleading climate change editorials featuring manipulated data and cherry picked data sources.