What is the deal with the "12 year obsession" by Climate Changers?

It’s not that you can’t do that, it’s that you can’t make it relevant. The science and the media are (largely) in agreement this time. They were not, insofar as there was any sort of “global cooling scare”, in the 1970s.

Do you really not understand how the truth values of “if we keep emitting SO2 at this rate we will trigger another ice age” and “we will trigger another ice age” can be different?

The point is that there have been conflicting reports over several decades.

That’s because the media is mostly left leaning and it fits their agenda.

You seem to think that bad journalism means you can never know what is true. But that's not the case. Just because you don't read scientific papers, doesn't mean they don't exist. They proved right then and are the best indicator of what is real now.

Do you understand what you just said?

Yes.

It’s not just the media reports that make me skeptical, it’s also the data manipulation and deletion.

But you're not skeptical of oil companies.
Cherry picked skepticism isn't skepticism.

Why would I be skeptical of oil companies, do you not believe they exist?

Are you talking about the leaked emails, which your Wikipedia link explains was a smear campaign?

So only left-wingers tell the truth?

No, they spread the lies.

You just said that they accurately report the science.

It wasn’t a smear campaign, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

No I didn’t.

So you disagree with the only link you brought on the subject, and the more than thirty sources it cites? Why?

What a strange time to start keeping secrets.

Yes, you did. Try reading.

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/02/heat-wave-fraud-in-the-national-climate-assessment/

No reports of deletion or manipulation in that story.

What the author claims is that if you disregard averages, and look at extremes instead, you can find single years spread out over decades before 1960 that were hotter than the extreme heat reported for every year over the last 15 years. That's like saying Pearl Harbour proves that the Japanese won World War Two.

You know that just because it has "science" in the URL, doesn't mean it actually is, right?

A lie of omission.

Yes.

No.

Wow, a blog that calls itself the deplorable one and admits it is a right wing climate denier opinion blog.

Now there is a source you can trust about as much as Trump.

Then why not show the higher warming in the 1920s and 30s.

There's a conspiracy to make the majority of scientists argue for climate change, I will prove this by arguing that many scientists have argued otherwise!

The data is not omitted, and it's not higher warming.

In the the 1930's there wasn't higher warming? Did you see the other graph?

Yes, let's attack the source and not the content.

There were single hotter temperatures, but not higher warming. Did you notice that the graphs your post provides conspicuously don't track warming at all? You have to transform it to averages in your head in order to see warming, and when you do, it is clear that the 1930s don't compare to the last two decades at all. Here's a graph that shows actual warming data over the same time span.




(Source: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp)

Will you please point to the higher warming you see in the 1930s on this graph?