He might be smarter than the average climate "scientist" ... but confirmation bias is a real problem!

@Phishy Wx paste this into Claude and see how the bot responds

See above. Also, just for fun: 1.WRONG. The period of record is nearly identical for both stations. 2. Top 4, 5, 10 whichever the same difference is there. 3. Obvious lack of context on Claude's part here. The past decade has been the focus of many comparisons prior, since that has been period of big time warming. 4. Yeah I chronically ignore UHI. That's part of the point, Claude you dumba**. 5. See #1. Just plain wrong. 6. My point is not to disprove the trend, it's to show that PDX stats paint a much more exaggerated effect on records than OLM. And those PDX records are often cited here. 7. Well, all the numbers have a pretty significant difference percentage-wise. Usually that would be considered statistically significant. If you aim to demonstrate the limits and flaws of AI, well done.

The good news for you is that the bot is more harsh on Phil. You have a pretty solid knowledge of history and context. Phil just fires off jargon to try and sound like he’s smarter than climate scientists.

A Claude agent with an account here should do the trick. Like the Marine Layer fan bot / troll.