This summary serves as a fact check on the most egregious false claim about climate change made in the media in January 2025. [emphasis, links added]
Counter-Narrative Reality vs. Counter-Reality Narrative
It was a busy January keeping track of President Trump’s first steps toward dismantling the federal government’s Climate Leviathan. It was also a very cold January and that’s what this edition of Climate Fact Check will cover.
Per the relatively unmanipulated NASA satellite data, January 2025 is estimated to have witnessed a substantial drop of 0.34°C from last January concerning the made-up metric of “average global temperature.”
This is despite that atmospheric carbon dioxide increased from about 422 parts per million (ppm) in January 2024 to 426 parts per million in January 2025.
That 4 ppm increase in carbon dioxide is worth about 78 billion tons of emissions. Therefore, 78 billion more tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted in a January that was 0.34°C cooler than the previous January.
February is typically the coldest average month in the Northern Hemisphere. January 2025 was cooler than February 2016 and about the same as January 2016 and February 1998, hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 and a decade of “warming,” ago.
Faced with the counter-narrative reality of the NASA satellite data, the desperate climate hoax machine produced a counter-reality narrative, claiming that January was the hottest ever as in this Associated Press report.
The Associated Press story is based on a claim from the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, which estimated that January 2025 was slightly warmer than January 2024.
Who do you believe? Keeping in mind that there is no such physical place with “average global temperature” and that the “metric” is just a guesstimate invented for the climate hoax, the NASA satellite data is likely more credible.
The NASA satellite data is an estimate based on one data type – satellite measurements of atmospheric brightness.
In contrast, the Copernicus estimates are a black box mélange of surface temperature data going back to 1940 and European satellite data.
That surface temperature data can be wildly inaccurate and biased upward due to the urban heat island effect compromising temperature station readings as it is in the US.
How the surface data gets merged with the satellite data is also a troubling mystery. We’re going with the NASA satellite data’s counter-narrative to better gauge reality.
We will close out this month by noting that President Trump has by Executive order instructed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the White House Office of Management and Budget to begin reconsidering the EPA’s infamous 2009 “endangerment finding,” which determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases harm the public health and welfare.
The endangerment finding is the linchpin of virtually all federal government activity on climate change.
We look forward to it being repealed.
Read more at Climate Realism
Milloy is a low IQ writer
He presents the UAH GAT
Then says no one lives in a GAT
Then he criticizes a different GAT
He has contradicted himself
He also has no idea the 2009 endangerment finding was replaced by the 2022 IRA which was approved by Congress and can only be legally repealed by Congress before more money is wasted. It would be unconstitutional for Trump to act like a dictator and impound the unspent portion of the IRA budget. Not that he cares about the US Constitution.
Greene calls Milloy low IQ? Richard, try again or stop posting this nonsense.
RG is just a low-end lukewarmer who is brain-washed by AGW mantra.
Also has deep-seated DTS !
The Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio selling their Snake Oil to the Gullible eough to bleive them and recite Gores silly Poem
The best thing about those Sattelites is they cant be screwed around with by Fake Scientists to get Government Grants
OMG that’s so ignorant.
The satellite data sets contain huge amounts of “adjustments” and algorithms that are use to compensate for all sorts of problems such as orbital drift, sensor decay, changes to different satellite instruments variations in absorption of different atmospheric layers and much more. Claiming these are “less manipulated” than the surface data sets is plain wrong.