England's global boiling summer.

This is satellite data and buoys.

"This raw data is analyzed using methods that account for the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and for urban heating effects that could skew the calculations.



The analysis calculates temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperature. A temperature anomaly shows how far the temperature has departed from the 1951 to 1980 base average."

They also fail to mention that they correct the satellite surface data to take account of the fact that the historic record is air temperature near the ground and they are recording surface temperature. So corrected for difference  in measurement methods, corrected for varied spacing of global temeprature stations and corrected for Urban Heat Island effect. To pile correction upon correction they report the 'record heat' as anomalies not as actual temperatures.

Even now there is a pause in the warming trend of almost a decade yet CO2 has been pumped out relentlessly.

I am afraid it is now par for the course for alarmists to attack the messenger because more  and more the message of alarm is becoming shakier as more info is gained.

Just to add more background I caught a few minutes of any questions on Saturday and some young lady was complaining how floods are becoming worse, storms are becoming worse and sea levels are rising dramatically. The problem she has is that all the official data for floods, storms and sea level rise do not indicate this at all. Yet many people believe it is fact despite the IPCC and the NOAA agreeing that there is no evidence to back up the claim that storms are becoming worse. Sea level rises are at best minimal and no where near the disaster levels once predicted as likely. They also accelerate and deaccelerate in stages, so an acceleration recently is not at odds with the trend which may be followed by deacceleration as happened a couple of times last century. There is too much dishonesty and alarmism at work in the climate change lobby by using selected data.

The problem with our weather data is that a) it only goes back to 1850 and b) over that period of time the way we measure data has changed so much.

And the problem with trying to compare historical data with new data is that the various climate change organisations have to adjust the data for the different methods of measurement and the changing environment of the weather stations (I.e. with regard to UHIs etc). And they've always used this process to get the results that they want.

I think it's pretty obvious that they've underestimated the UHI effect and they've used dodgy smoothing algorithms to eliminate readings that "don't fit" what their models say. And it seems more people are beginning to realise this.