metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But your right-wing sources supposedly are?Scientific Journals are no longer reliable. They are political.
Oh, my aching back.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But your right-wing sources supposedly are?Scientific Journals are no longer reliable. They are political.
Exactly!Electroverse doesn’t sound very credible.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/electroverse/
But your right-wing sources supposedly are?
Oh, my aching back.
Unfortunately, the rigorously and properly vetted data published multiple times in carefully peer reviewed scientific journals refute your claims that the rural data do not show warming trends. These papers and associated data analysis are far far far more credible as they are done by experts in the field and checked by other independent experts, a requirement for publication.Exactly. So the date is irrelevant. You and your cronies seemed to think otherwise with regard to the listed weather station data.
Scientific Journals are no longer reliable. They are political.
You post biased right-wing talking points stuff and then everybody else points out to you why it is inaccurate and/or unscientific.I post data. The leftists then start spinning.
No, you proved it.You proved it. What a genius.
Question: What produces more CO2? Burning a log or letting it decay in the forest?
Just to further highlight the point.
Extensive analysis made in 2008 shows.
No impact of urban heat highland effect on warming trends in developed nations landmasses. Small (1/9 th of total warming trend) and already accounted for warming impact of urban heat island in aggressively urbanizing countries like China.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JD009916
And rural stations clearly show the warming trend in all these landmasses.
As I said. I do not believe the "data" in that website is trustworthy at all. I think they had been carefully cherry picked or outright invented to create a fake narrative. They are fakes.Except for the nearly 200 stations in the OP?
Are those the only exceptions?
As I said. I do not believe the "data" in that website is trustworthy at all. I think they had been carefully cherry picked or outright invented to create a fake narrative. They are fakes.
All good quality scientific investigations that have actually been published in science journals show that the actual data from rural areas have clear warming trends.
If you believe the narrative of a random website that is unpublished, unvetted, unvalidated over the narrative of hundreds of vetted, validated, reviewed scientific publications then, in my opinion, it only shows your bias that is leading you far far away from the reality.
I betcha you can't show us evidence for this.You trust the leftists in control of this data,
That is all I see.No, I've seen enough partisan nonsense from you disguised as "science".