/ Reducing pollution is contributing to global warming? #131
- May 8, 2019
- S.E. PA
- Massey Ferguson GC1720/Simplicity Regents/Echo CS-490/CS-620
That's not offensive in the business. Especially when the work is a survey of other work which is pretty much what the GAST measurement analysis is.I read it, they point out lots of scientific sources, but don't point to any, only their own research, based on their own research.
It seems the more I read it, the less this report makes sense.That's not offensive in the business. Especially when the work is a survey of other work which is pretty much what the GAST measurement analysis is.
The only counterarguments I can think of about the GAST adjustment data would be: 1) to charge that the data was incomplete thus unreliable, or 2) that the conclusions (if any) are in error.
But to insist that there needed to be supporting works cited to, seems a bridge to far to me.
It's as if I did a paper on the number of times the word "Apostate" was used in this forum and then later revised by the original poster.
To what other research would I cite? I either counted correctly or I didn't.
Sitting next to the Cascadia Subduction Fault, I can tell you that 1000 year events leave plenty of traces that can be analyzed and dated. Thinking you have to shuffle through old newspapers for records is nonsense. The Earth speaks.Just because the media calls a storm 1000 year storm is enough evidence for a thinking person to know they are blowing smoke. We don't have 1000 years of good data. Heck, we don't have 200 years of good data.
That paper cherry picks its data in an effort to discredit it. Fortunately for those of us who respect reality, NOAA and NASA have satellite data that is not subject to local variations.The link to this study is clearly there in the article https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf