That may indicate something about the legitimacy of the data and conclusions the author(s) reach. Phrased another way: if the only person you can find peddling a claim is someone like Alex Jones, it is not a misuse of your mental faculties to conclude that the claim is probably wrong. Because he has a track record of regularly being wrong. It is not proof of that fact, but it is certainly an indicator.
"There are no other sources" for maps of temperature variation? What is that supposed to mean? Temperature variation is the point of this entire argument. If skeptics show me maps of temperature variation, and then enthusiasts tell me those maps are wrong, and then I ask for links to the right ones, and then enthusiasts tell me those don't exist, what am I supposed to think?
Ah, sorry - I thought you meant for the conclusions from climate4you/Climate Realists, not just the graphs. The IPCC has generated loads of plotted climate data, and I recall very similar graphics. I am on my phone but I am happy to look stuff up when I am back at a computer.
The source is NASA GISS. That site is an indirect source of the actual data. It doesn't matter that the site has a viewpoint that is different than yours. Are the facts incorrect?
We're on pace to beat the 2007 sea ice extent in the arctic and may even beat the 2009-2018 average depending on how fall and early winter go in the arctic.
Meanwhile, antarctic sea ice extent continues to hew close to average.
According that site the source is NASA GISS. At any rate are you aware that clouds and H2O have a much more dramatic effect over the environment than CO2? Are you aware that low clouds have a cooling effect and that even small changes in low cloud cover can have dramatic effects on the Earth's energy budget? Are you aware cloud cover decreased by 2-6% between 1983 and 2009?
Are you aware that climate science is an incredibly young and immature field and that we still don't have a handle on all the factors that drive climate change?
