Are you referring to misinterpreted cherry picked notions promulgated briefly by fox news and a congressman from Oklahoma? Because decades of research by count

Are you referring to misinterpreted cherry picked notions promulgated briefly by fox news and a congressman from Oklahoma? Because decades of research by countless independent teams has not been invalidated by data and methods so poor they aren't extensively acknowledged in peer reviewed journals. If you think that process is corrupt, have you ever looked at the actual data and methods yourself? If we are dismissing peer review then show us that data and how you came to your conclusions. The story you refer to was created by those philosophically upset by climate change and is in the form "we can't tell if it warmer in this cherry picked area therefore climate change is false" then cloaked that story in jargon. It is identical to the argument used by less bright conservatives "there was snow on tv in Peoria therefore climate change is fake" The disappointing thing here is that people who could genuinely to look into climate change if they were honestly interested don't and instead choose to convince themselves of blatantly false views from biased media outlets for ideologically reasons. If there were knowledgeable people here, this has certainly chased them off in the same way there are no evolutionary biologists chatting on fundamentalists websites.