This time around, it is intensified by having an unprecedented 3 years strait of cold ocean surface waters (La Nina).

As the paper I linked provides evidence for, global warming is intensifying the ENSO. That includes both the El Nino and La Nina phases.

I'm not aware that a strong La Nina doesn't mean that a following El Nino will be strong, because of that. Can you link me to the research that establishes this causal link you're claiming?

After one extreme swing, we can rationally expect a somewhat extreme swing back (actually this was heavily predicted ahead of time by almost every weather officiant).

That's what you need to show.

The urban heat island effect is when this effect is so concentrated that it extends past the 30 feet from a ground temperature statue the USGS requires.

Nope. "Heat islands are urbanized areas that experience higher temperatures than outlying areas.". No minimum distance from a station required.

In 2015, more than 90% of our stations were out of spec in this way, leading to an obvious incorrect inflation of flawed ground temperature readings, which likely grew slowly over 20 years as more out of spec stations were carelessly added. Our more recent attempts to fix this, came with sketchy and non-transparent algorithms which were expressly meant to mimic the value of these bad flawed stations...for some reason.

I've show you a paper that demonstrates this effect to be small. But also urban temperature measurements are avoided or adjusted so as not to affect the mean temperature with purely local effects.

This article reviews the effects that urban heat islands may have on estimates of global near-surface temperature trends. These effects have been reduced by avoiding or adjusting urban temperature measurements.

The particular algorithms are generally available for a temperature data set you're looking at, if it's based on surface station data.

It was published and highly regarded, very embarrassing, and it is easy to find.

No it wasn't. Follow the money.

This was the second one, which found that after the first embarrassment some years before, that things got even worse.

Oh, boy, you've been drinking the cool aid.

There's scholarly papers on temperature measurements. There's no reason you need to drop down to paid advocates supporting the fossil fuel industry.

I've linked to some of them in this thread, so they're easier to find. Read them. You'll discover the instrumental temperature data is pretty good.

FFS, the temperature trend from satellite measurements is greater than that from the NASA GISTEMP: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1980/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/trend

I assume you can work out that satellite measured temperatures aren't affected by your "temperature stations are inaccurate" bullshit?

Good.