Personally the article seems like a bunch of BS to me. The author is basically saying that climate scientists are wrong because they have been corrupted by the multi-billion dollar green industry. With out providing any evidence of corruption or any new scientific evidence against global warming. The author then adds a whole bunch of other distracting bits of information that don't really support his core thesis. For example specific climate change research that turned out to be flawed doesn't really make a difference since there's already a huge body of evidence stretching back over half a century. It's basically just a straw man argument.
The web allowed me to get the data in a matter of seconds.
If your data is really hard numbers (and from sources not subject to the heat island effect) I'd guess you'd find no warming. (Well other than solar cycles, etc.)
Edit: Yes, yes, please down vote this comment talking about actual science stuff. Keep up the brigade. I'm not spamming, I'm just making points that make you unhappy because they disagree with your political dogma. I'm not sorry. You are being anti-intellectual.
Your anti-intellectualism doesn't shame me. It should shame you.
Download the data and run my script. It will be fun and "sciencey".
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurem...
[EDIT] I don't have to the mod points to downvote anyone :)
The global warming proponents changed the name of the movement to "Climate Change" because, as the earth got cooler despite rising CO2 levels after the end of the recent solar maxima, it was undeniable that the plant wasn't warming. But you can't deny the climate is changing!
In fact, look at their use of the word "denier". Calling your opponents names-- and all the other demonization tactics you see in this thread-- tells you that they know their position is completely political and not scientific.
If the science was on their side, they wouldn't need to call people names (And censor those who disagree, which on this site means down voting into invisibility.)
Notice how this article barely made the front page, while the most spurious pro-global warming article makes it to the top 10. (not to mention anything about Basic Income or other pro-marxist propaganda.)
Or you should consider your position to be blidingly, obviously wrong in the face or evidence.