>>61814And they still are influenced by their surroundings, and so when man changes their surroundings, there are variables introduced that aren't related to global climate change, merely local microclimate change.
This isn't a new controversy, it's just one that makes the scientists who've decided that they need to sell me fear or sell a government fear chose to ignore. they don't just use datapoints from glorious mountain vistas, they use datapoints from urban areas too. And who would have thunk it, the urban area data points show a much stronger warming trend than the ones from glorious mountain vistas or swamps.
Listen, I don't deny that the macrotrend from about 1750 to present is one of warming, and that in particular, that trend was a fast one from 1890-1940 and 1975-2000. I'm just saying that the people claiming it's the gospel need to back up, use a little more vigor, and remember that they're members of a flaky science community dedicated to gloom and doom (seriously, this is not a new thing, it's been a thing since Lord Kelvin's era, and they keep flip flopping on what direction we're going to enter hell from, the gates of brimstone or the frozen sulfurous lakes), and that as Malthusian doomsayers, they, like every other Malthusian doomsayer ever, are wrong.
