/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8615839
I read it and responded appropriately.
I responded to the article by NOAA which is obviously biased fear mongering and inaccurately reporting 2016 was warmer than 2015, it was not. the article cites itself. I have no idea what that poster is going on about in the last paragraph but I am sticking to the article in question.

And just look at this map, paints out a picture of climate abnormalities and includes 'events' for plausible deniability because there is nothing abnormal about these events, they are normal weather events. As for the temperatures again they are embellishing the extent to which they are deviating from normal, which is basically not all when margins for error in the data are taken into account, and extremely suspect considering such a biased source is providing them.