[jfengel]

The actual paper is by professional climate denialist John Cristy.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-026-06200-3

Just because he's paid to do this doesn't make him wrong, but it does suggest that he's motivated to make certain kinds of errors. The discussion section is devoted to proving that climate change data is systematically skewed, which is weird given that his own lab handles the satellites and quite clearly shows increasing global temperatures. Cristy is the "climate change isn't so bad" kind of climate denier, not the "it isn't happening" kind.

He spends a lot of time describing data cleaning, but it's notable that extremes declined as data-collecting methods improved, then started increasing over the past several decades. An alternative hypothesis is that people collecting data by hand make more mistakes than computers and satellites.