In recent years, particularly around mid-July (the peak of the Northern Hemisphere summer), there has been a noticeable surge in headlines featuring the "hottest day" ever on record in corporate media outlets - which is of course pushed by climate alarmist journalists citing questionable studies. This timing coincides with hot weather, so naturally, it's quite convincing to persuade readers that the world's oceans are boiling and planet Earth will ignite into a fireball unless drastic actions are taken - such as more climate taxes, 'carbon credits,' banning cow farts, prohibiting new petrol-powered vehicle sales by X date, and pushing spending bills to procure more solar panels from China, to save the planet.

The problem is that corporate media only focuses on recent history - and not "in context" (as they love to say). Context is particularly important when it comes to climate change - as their narrative collapses when looking at a long enough timeline.

To wit... a funny thing happened when the Washington Post tried to map out half a billion years of global temperatures and the "disaster of global warming" ... 

WaPo journalists cited a new study about Earth's global surface temperatures over the last 485 million years. In 2023, Earth's average temperature reached 58.96 F (14.98 C), well below the average 96.8 degrees F (36 degrees Celsius) the study showed around 100 million years ago. The trend shows Earth's temperatures have been sliding for 50 million years. 

Of course, all they can focus on is the most recent blip (supported, as astute readers know, by faulty data).

[A] growing chorus of climate scientists are saying the temperature readings are faulty and that the trillions of dollars pouring in are based on a problem that doesn't exist.

More than 90 percent of NOAA's temperature monitoring stations have a heat bias, according to Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute, author of climate website Watts Up With That, and director of a study that examined NOAA's climate stations.

"And with that large of a number, over 90 percent, the methods that NOAA employs to try to reduce this don't work because the bias is so overwhelming," Mr. Watts told The Epoch Times.