This is a pretty neat example of how to mislead using distracting piles of real data and technical jargon. It immediately dives into lots of studies and graphs

This is a pretty neat example of how to mislead using distracting piles of real data and technical jargon. It immediately dives into lots of studies and graphs which are all valid. But if you strip that away and look at the core argument, it is: 1. Climate researchers project temperature will increase by X%. 2. Historical data shows an increase smaller than X%. 3. Therefore the projections are wrong. Once you reduce it down to that, the key flaw in the argument is more obvious: 3 only follows from 2 if you assume that the rate of temperature increase is unchanging. But the article itself even includes a quote that "tropospheric warming is accelerating". The whole point of fears about climate change is that the change is accelerating. Or, by analogy: I project that my height in ten years will not have increased at all. However, looking at the historical data, I clearly grow about 2.25 inches per year. Therefore, Bailey would claim that my projection is bullshit. Well, actually, no. My projection is correct. My rate of growth changed (in this case a rapid deceleration) around the age of 18.