Reducing pollution is contributing to global warming?

[Raul-02]

What reputable scientific journal was it published an peer-reviewed in?

How many do you subscribe to?

 

[Raul-02]

It is fake research.

How would you know? There are three PhDs claiming authorship. Where did you get your PhD?
Oh and it was peer reviewed. But you wouldn't have any way to know that either.
But because I'm a nice guy I'll link you to it

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

 

[Raul-02]

While this makes sense, it does not invalidate the data

No it does not. There are no conclusions about the validity of the underlying information.
But the warming trends that are so frequently publicized for our horrified eyes and ears are in no small measure substantially generated by those adjustments.

 

[Raul-02]

have no idea why the denialists are so dedicated to denying facts.

Surely you don't need to be told what a fact is in the field of science.
Gravity remains to this day just a theory and there are three main contenders for explaining it and none work and play well with the others.

How long has science been studying gravity? I'ts just one phenomena that can be examined in isolation.
To think that anyone will have stumbled upon absolute truth in a field as ferociously complex as planetary climatology in a few short years and especially with the dearth of real data that exists well, it is more than a stretch.
All we have to date are opinions and theories.

 

[Torvy]

So u think this is real? What reputable scientific journal was it published an peer-reviewed in?

They are effectively reviewing the flawed data in other publications. Now you want to review the reviewers. Who's going to review those, and so on and so on....

 

[Raul-02]

They are effectively reviewing the flawed data in other publications.

Someone has to do it. But you didn't read it, did you?
If you had you'd know that they are not making a validity judgment on the underlying data.

 

[Torvy]

Someone has to do it. But you didn't read it, did you?
If you had you'd know that they are not making a validity judgment on the underlying data.

Nope. Talking about my post. The data itself is flawed. The lack of judgment part is about whether the data still says anything one way or another about man made climate concerns. No one could use the flawed data and make any scientifically valid arguments.

 

[Raul-02]

sNo one could use the flawed data and make any scientifically valid arguments.

Sadly science has so very little to do with it.
I live in a ******* state. Yet our State Climatologist doesn't buy anthropogenic climate change.

The world has degenerated into two camps. No one is talking to each other they only talk past each other.
The hardened view from one of the camps is that:
One of the camps is the righteous, the holders of the true truth, the absolute truth. Not just about climate, but about everything.
The other is the camp of pure unadulterated irredeemable evil, so evil that it must be eradicated. The members of that camp must be driven from their employment, chased from their homes, denied housing, and the benefits of society. I know, that sounds exactly like the Fascism of the 1940s. That's where we are today.

I'll leave it to you to decide who is who. Probably best not to articulate it here, it'd just make for more trouble.

 

[cqaigy2]

Surely you don't need to be told what a fact is in the field of science.
Gravity remains to this day just a theory and there are three main contenders for explaining it and none work and play well with the others.

How long has science been studying gravity? I'ts just one phenomena that can be examined in isolation.
To think that anyone will have stumbled upon absolute truth in a field as ferociously complex as planetary climatology in a few short years and especially with the dearth of real data that exists well, it is more than a stretch.
All we have to date are opinions and theories.

Gravity isn't the theory, the theory is explaining why gravity does what it does. Might seem like a subtle semantic argument, but it's a very important distinction.

 

[/pine]

Sadly science has so very little to do with it.
I live in a ******* state. Yet our State Climatologist doesn't buy anthropogenic climate change.

The world has degenerated into two camps. No one is talking to each other they only talk past each other.
The hardened view from one of the camps is that:
One of the camps is the righteous, the holders of the true truth, the absolute truth. Not just about climate, but about everything.
The other is the camp of pure unadulterated irredeemable evil, so evil that it must be eradicated. The members of that camp must be driven from their employment, chased from their homes, denied housing, and the benefits of society. I know, that sounds exactly like the Fascism of the 1940s. That's where we are today.

I'll leave it to you to decide who is who. Probably best not to articulate it here, it'd just make for more trouble.

Your "camp" personas are extreme and at best a very small minority..
And you're omitting the "camp" that is composed of insightful realists who see things the way they are and only want the real truth...They can see through all the baloney regardless of which of the two major parties are spewing it...