No, USA Today, 4th of July Heat was NOT “Climate Change.”

From ClimateREALISM

By Linnea Lueken

July 13, 2026

A USA Today story, “Was that climate change? Scientists ponder a deadly July 4 weekend,” claims that extreme heat in some parts of the country over July 4th weekend was caused by climate change, and is part of a pattern of climate-induced July extreme weather events. This is false. For one, it is not at all unprecedented to have extreme heat in summer, and the other weather events that USA Today references are also not evidence of climate change. USA Today relies on single event attribution studies, which are not actual data.

The article begins by claiming that “early July brought historic extreme weather for the fourth year in a row, and scientists again see the “fingerprints” of climate change in a deadly Fourth of July.” The historic extremes they point to are different kinds of weather that weren’t even actually unprecedented, in completely different parts of the world. The author cites “a record-smashing heat wave” in 2023, implying this was some kind of world-wide single event, but links to an article where heat records were described as being broken in various places across the country and the world, and in different months!

Statistics say that some kind of temperature record is broken somewhere on the planet any given day, it’s not evidence of a trend. Average temperatures have risen modestly in the world over the past century and a half, but extreme heat has not been driving those averages. As Climate Realism has pointed out in many articles covering various heatwaves over the years, data does not show that extreme heat is becoming more common, not even in the United States, which media often claims is seeing worsening heatwaves. (See figure below)

Even more embarrassing for USA Today, they then listed Hurricane Beryl in 2024 as further evidence of the “fourth year in a row” of “extreme weather” they want to attribute to climate change. That isn’t even a heatwave. It isn’t even occurring in the United States, and the “history” it made was by being an early Category 5 storm, the storm it beat was by just two weeks. This is absurd cherry-picking. Extreme weather occurs every day on the planet, and again, somewhere, SOME kind of record is being broken, especially if the net of possible conditions is cast wide enough.

There is no long term trend of worsening, or earlier arriving hurricanes, which would point towards a “fingerprint of climate change.”

Again, USA Today then points to another disconnected weather event as the evidence that 2025 was part of this supposed pattern: the deadly floods in Texas. Again, these were not caused by climate change, there is no long term trend of flood severity on the Guadalupe River. Expert hydrologists reported at the time that “this kind of outcome was a known risk.” That same river valley experienced major floods more than a dozen times over the past century, and has experienced worse floods than the 2025 one in the past, it wasn’t even a record-breaker, which makes it a bad example even among a list of bad examples for the author’s point.

The rest of the article relies entirely on the say-so of climate activist and attribution groups Climate Central and World Weather Attribution. These are not legitimate scientific bodies, and their claims regarding recent heatwaves being “virtually impossible” without climate change have been thoroughly debunked in the Climate Realism post by meteorologist Anthony Watts “No, New York Times, Climate Change Isn’t Causing Modern Heat Waves,” so I will not relitigate them here.

This USA Today article is an embarrassing example of journalistic negligence and demonstrates a lack of understanding about weather history and how record-setting works when 365 days of an entire planet is your sample size. Heatwaves are deadly, yes, but they are not becoming more deadly or extreme over time, and their danger is easily mitigated with human innovations like air conditioning. USA Today should know these things, but they apparently prefer climate narrative over facts.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 20 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
25 Comments
sherro01
July 13, 2026 6:10 pm

It is similar in Australia. Ignorant ideologues are telling fibs by the dozen.
The original Australian temperatures as recorded by observers are not used to imagine past climates. Australia uses a heavily adjusted set of temperatures and claims they are unadjusted.
Serious stuff. Geoff S

July 13, 2026 6:41 pm

“…journalistic negligence and demonstrates a lack of understanding about weather history…” You are being very polite! I think deliberate fear mongering is their game. Many will read and believe.

Scissor
July 13, 2026 7:09 pm

Boulder’s record high temp was 104F reached twice in 1954. It seems likely that this record will be matched or exceeded in the future, just not yet.

Allen Pettee
July 13, 2026 7:51 pm

Where I am from (Rochester, NY), the temperature has reached 100F only 6 times since record keeping began in the late 1800’s:

102F on 7/9/1936, then again on 7/10/1936,
101F on 7/5/1911,
100F on 7/3/1911, also on 7/8/1936, and on 6/21/1953.

And not since then, including not even close this summer so far with the highest at 94F on 7/1.

So it’s been 73 years since we last experienced 100F here (before I was born), but everyone is acting like we’re in living hell.

SwedeTex
Reply to  Allen Pettee
July 14, 2026 5:28 am

Good points. Kind of an opposite observation, here in Austin, Texas since 1927 there have only been 5 years when we did not hit 100 degrees. The last time it happened was 1987, it happened three time in the 70s (79, 75, and 73), and in 1968. Between 1927 and 1968 (41 years) we hit 100 or more every year. Of course the 70s were the ice age catastrophe developing. It’s summer, it’s going to be hot. Use your AC.

oeman50
Reply to  Allen Pettee
July 14, 2026 5:45 am

In my city in Virginia, I recall the temperature getting to 105F 3 days in a row in July of 1977. Obviously due to climate change, although climate change hadn’t been invented back then. BTW, CO2 at Mauna Loa for that year was 331.6 PPM.

And where do you get the “fingerprints” of climate change? Last time I checked, the Earth did not have fingers. (I know, it’s just an expression, but expressions have been known to have a lack of scientific rigor.)

John Hultquist
July 13, 2026 9:17 pm

“… lack of understanding about weather history and how record-setting works when 365 days of an entire planet is your sample size.”

My sample size of one, Central Washington, has had June and July boringly average. Hot? Yes. We know it as summer.
I suspect the USA Today story is an example of a “Base Rate Fallacy” discussed in the statistical literature sinde 1987. My last stat class was in 1970 so I’d best go no further. The subject came up during the Covid Panic as many analyses went off the rails. 

Phillip Chalmers
July 14, 2026 12:03 am

This is an instance when the gross error, the misrepresentation, is not actually in anything like science.
This is gross ignorance of Modern History. Human recording of actual observations preserved in numerous forms and locations and available to competent well-paid journalists in most first world states.
One of the best practitioners of recent recorded history is Tony Heller and his string of posts containing reports in newspaper archives published on the day or within hours of the events which have just been misreported in contemporary news outlets and which prove how wrong they have been.
The best part of those news snippets is that they are preserved as image files even if they are also accompanied by OCR text for the purposes of enabling text searches.

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
July 14, 2026 12:42 am

The Climatistas really hate Tony Heller, and for good reason.

July 14, 2026 12:45 am

Also starting in 1895:

On January 26, 1989 the New York Times ran this headline : “US Data Since 1895 Fail To
Show Warming Trend”
After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of
Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant
change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that
entire period.
While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years
has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new
study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one
direction or another.
The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research
Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at
weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.
====
https://lirp.cdn-website.com/0bdd390b/dms3rep/multi/opt/NYT-as-of-late-1980s-No-Global-warming-1665300876.4429-1920w.webp

====
That data set from 1895 to 1987 should show the same lack of trend shouldn’t it?
Is it still available or has it been tampered with?

July 14, 2026 12:55 am

Here’s a bit on US data since 1895:

Gosh it is darned difficult to post stuff here sometimes 🙂 Must be an age thing.

NYT-as-of-late-1980s-No-Global-warming
Reply to  altipueri
July 14, 2026 1:32 am

The reason I posted the above is that the article says data from 1895 to 1987 showed no warming trend – well the data should still show no trend unless it has been changed in some way.
This is what the text says if it is too small to read:

On January 26, 1989 the New York Times ran this headline : “US Data Since 1895 Fail To
Show Warming Trend”
After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of
Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant
change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that
entire period.
While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years
has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new
study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one
direction or another.
The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research
Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at
weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.
====

Also – those date readings would all be before the fancy new thermometers were introduced – so readings won’t be influenced by a taxiing jet as occurs at UK weather stations at airports.

July 14, 2026 3:47 am

I also take issue with the use of the adjective “deadly,” which was clearly added by the journalist to play on the fear factor. Of course some people die in hot weather. Many more die in cold weather. The important question is the number of deaths (or better yet the normalized death rate to offset the effects of population growth) attributable to heat during a given heat wave compared against the historical record of heat related deaths during prior heat waves. I am sure there is a chart somewhere showing the long-term heat wave related deaths, and I would be surprised if it didn’t show a long-term downward trend.

There are of course a number of other variables that confound this analysis. First of all, one must define what meets the definition of “heat wave”. But then all heat waves are not the same, so one night need to further subdivide based on something like heating degree days. Then there is humidity. Also, how does one account for the increasing effects of urban heat island? In a given heat wave, who died and why (elderly; homeless, etc.?; had no HVAC? Died in a closed car? Did something foolish and unprepared for the heat? )

Just call it a heat wave and leave it to people‘s individual judgments as to whether it was deadly or not.

Recall stories in recent years about the hadj and the number of people who die during the trek to Mecca, in an attempt to link it to climate change.

July 14, 2026 3:56 am

The BBC is on the same tack.
Yesterday evening (Monday) a Professor of Climate appeared on the TV news claiming that the current “heatwave” was 4 degrees hotter than it should have been due to man made greenhouse gasses.
I would be interested to know on what data (imagined or otherwise) she based her claim but there is no point in trying to find out, any request would just be ignored.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Oldseadog
July 14, 2026 7:18 am

I think you are referring to Fredi Otto of World Weather Attribution (WWA)

Roger Pielke identifies three ‘tricks’ used by WWA in their studies: mathematical sloppiness, assume the conclusion that the study seeks to prove and ignore the evidence.

Channel 4 news also had her on last night making similar claims.

Reply to  Oldseadog
July 14, 2026 1:35 pm

You can pretty much assume that poppycock is based on a “model study” circle jerk.

July 14, 2026 6:38 am

This is absurd cherry-picking. Extreme weather occurs every day on the planet, and again, somewhere, SOME kind of record is being broken, especially if the net of possible conditions is cast wide enough.

Statistically speaking, any distribution that is not artificially bounded, will have data at the extremes. In the case of temperature, both high AND low temperatures will occasionally occur. The key to a change will be a changing mean or standard deviation. Funny how this is never described when classifying extreme weather occurrences.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 14, 2026 8:32 am

If the mean moves to the right (higher) then the probability of records broken on the high end will increase and low-end records will decrease. Simple. 
I’ve seen this stated elsewhere and have presented it several times in the past 10 years.

July 14, 2026 9:31 am

Ambulance chasing extreme weather is big $$ for the media and attribution companies.

Sparta Nova 4
July 14, 2026 1:24 pm

Maybe the heatwave was caused by too many politicians clustered together each trying to get the attention of the media?

trafamadore
July 15, 2026 2:43 pm

comment image

trafamadore
July 15, 2026 2:44 pm

This temperature record seems to disagree with that above
comment image

trafamadore
Reply to  trafamadore
July 15, 2026 2:47 pm

So the Q is, which is the misrepresentation?

Allen Pettee
Reply to  trafamadore
July 15, 2026 6:29 pm

So, was Michael Mann responsible for the curve smoothing lines on your graphs, because the data points show some impressive values for the 1930’s….

Reply to  trafamadore
July 16, 2026 5:09 am

Both are incorrect. They are simple curve fitting with the wrong model. A model should be expected to predict the actual data. Neither of these do. The 1930’s have larger anomalies than at any other time, yet the curves don’t acknowledge this at all.

Time series analysis requires more than simple regressions. The data should have some relation to changing time in order to curve fit. The data should tell you that there is no relationship to time at all.