North Pole temperature 20C/36F above average

[flacaltenn]

See any "super-hot" areas on this map??

Arctic Weather Map

Now -- there is a little patch of Blue over a SMALL PART of Siberia.. And I PRESUME -- since it's 12AM UTC on that chart. Thats about mid-day in Siberia.

That little patch is probably why someone got you crapping your pants again.. It's weather.. NOT climate. Stop being a dupe and look at the window.

 

[flacaltenn]

Think anything is MELTING in Siberia tomorrow?

Evenkiyskiy rayon, Russia - MSN Weather

Land bridge flooding?

Ah, the, it's cold here, therefore there can't be global warming.

Check my 3rd post with the land temperatures for the ENTIRE ARCTIC and tell me where it's "super hot"..

Then tell me if a small dot of Siberia where it's STILL 12degF is a problem to ice or Polar bears.. It's weather, not climate. And it's FAKE science to scare folks like poor widdle Matt who's reference on "good and evil" is science. "THEY" are playing on his fears....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Think anything is MELTING in Siberia tomorrow?

Evenkiyskiy rayon, Russia - MSN Weather

Land bridge flooding?

Ah, the, it's cold here, therefore there can't be global warming.

Check my 3rd post with the land temperatures for the ENTIRE ARCTIC and tell me where it's "super hot"..

Then tell me if a small dot of Siberia where it's STILL 12degF is a problem to ice or Polar bears.. It's weather, not climate. And it's FAKE science to scare folks like poor widdle Matt who's reference on "good and evil" is science. "THEY" are playing on his fears....

"super hot" would be relative, right? We're not talking about it being "super hot", we're talking about the temperatures being 20C above average. Which requires a comparison with other years. Which you don't have.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's chalk this up to highly desperate propaganda. I don't believe that pseudo color chart in the OP for even a microsecond. It's got a hot spot the size of Greenland that 25degF WARMER than Boston somewhere in Siberia.

Here's a clue -- probably NOT REAL DATA.. It's from "Climate Reanalyzer" at UMaine. Climate "reanalysis" is MODELING --- not DATA... And sometimes models get the runs and the spits.

It's a convenient tool tho -- to TRY and keep the panic flowing. And now I guess, flat out LYING is the end game when MOST PEOPLE (Matthew excluded) are tired of being panicked. Hell -- if that phony chart was true, I'd be the FIRST in herd to just lie down in grass and die....

My guess is a couple freshmen eco-nauts at UMaine Climate Change lab, busted in on a slow day and played with their "reanalyzer".... And then passed it off to WashPo which is too stupid to check the commercial weather maps..

 

[flacaltenn]

Think anything is MELTING in Siberia tomorrow?

Evenkiyskiy rayon, Russia - MSN Weather

Land bridge flooding?

Ah, the, it's cold here, therefore there can't be global warming.

Check my 3rd post with the land temperatures for the ENTIRE ARCTIC and tell me where it's "super hot"..

Then tell me if a small dot of Siberia where it's STILL 12degF is a problem to ice or Polar bears.. It's weather, not climate. And it's FAKE science to scare folks like poor widdle Matt who's reference on "good and evil" is science. "THEY" are playing on his fears....

"super hot" would be relative, right? We're not talking about it being "super hot", we're talking about the temperatures being 20C above average. Which requires a comparison with other years. Which you don't have.

Actually -- in this case -- It's 20F. And the phony chart in the OP GIVES you the 30 year baseline ADJUSTED anomalies. I've done this before. And we can go look at the 30 year record. But I'm not doing that based on a such a crappy suspect source of "data"... .

 

[flacaltenn]

This "GW" industry is getting meaner and eviler. Freakin the herd out about "reanalysis" modeling, when you could be looking at REAL DATA -- is unethical and scary to me.. It really reeks of desperation....

 

[flacaltenn]

This "GW" industry is getting meaner and eviler. Freakin the herd out about "reanalysis" modeling, when you could be looking at REAL DATA -- is unethical and scary to me.. It really reeks of desperation....

And what pisses me off the MOST about this thread --- is that THESE ARE THE CHARLATANS that Matthew wants the government to give them MORE money to pass crap off as science.....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Think anything is MELTING in Siberia tomorrow?

Evenkiyskiy rayon, Russia - MSN Weather

Land bridge flooding?

Ah, the, it's cold here, therefore there can't be global warming.

Check my 3rd post with the land temperatures for the ENTIRE ARCTIC and tell me where it's "super hot"..

Then tell me if a small dot of Siberia where it's STILL 12degF is a problem to ice or Polar bears.. It's weather, not climate. And it's FAKE science to scare folks like poor widdle Matt who's reference on "good and evil" is science. "THEY" are playing on his fears....

"super hot" would be relative, right? We're not talking about it being "super hot", we're talking about the temperatures being 20C above average. Which requires a comparison with other years. Which you don't have.

Actually -- in this case -- It's 20F. And the phony chart in the OP GIVES you the 30 year baseline ADJUSTED anomalies. I've done this before. And we can go look at the 30 year record. But I'm not doing that based on a such a crappy suspect source of "data"... .

And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? Any source that doesn't agree with you is "crappy" therefore it can be ignored.

I mean, this is the Washington Post sourcing the Climate Change Institute/University of Maine, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Danish Meteorological Society, NOAA and NASA, and you don't agree with it, so it's all "crappy".

 

[frigidweirdo]

This "GW" industry is getting meaner and eviler. Freakin the herd out about "reanalysis" modeling, when you could be looking at REAL DATA -- is unethical and scary to me.. It really reeks of desperation....

So nothing's getting warmer then?

 

[flacaltenn]

Think anything is MELTING in Siberia tomorrow?

Evenkiyskiy rayon, Russia - MSN Weather

Land bridge flooding?

Ah, the, it's cold here, therefore there can't be global warming.

Check my 3rd post with the land temperatures for the ENTIRE ARCTIC and tell me where it's "super hot"..

Then tell me if a small dot of Siberia where it's STILL 12degF is a problem to ice or Polar bears.. It's weather, not climate. And it's FAKE science to scare folks like poor widdle Matt who's reference on "good and evil" is science. "THEY" are playing on his fears....

"super hot" would be relative, right? We're not talking about it being "super hot", we're talking about the temperatures being 20C above average. Which requires a comparison with other years. Which you don't have.

Actually -- in this case -- It's 20F. And the phony chart in the OP GIVES you the 30 year baseline ADJUSTED anomalies. I've done this before. And we can go look at the 30 year record. But I'm not doing that based on a such a crappy suspect source of "data"... .

And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? Any source that doesn't agree with you is "crappy" therefore it can be ignored.

I mean, this is the Washington Post sourcing the Climate Change Institute/University of Maine, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Danish Meteorological Society, NOAA and NASA, and you don't agree with it, so it's all "crappy".

They may have quoted all those other folks. I don't have a beef with that. But their HEADLINE and excuse for DOING the story came from a failed "modeling" run --- not thermometers..

 

[flacaltenn]

This "GW" industry is getting meaner and eviler. Freakin the herd out about "reanalysis" modeling, when you could be looking at REAL DATA -- is unethical and scary to me.. It really reeks of desperation....

So nothing's getting warmer then?

The earth is experiencing a small upward tick in GMAST (global mean aver. surf. temp).. PART of that is probably due to GHouse gas emissions. But the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory are no where NEAR settled science and there are a host of interests that have conspired to scare and lie about the science.

When in fact -- since the 80s when the original apocalyptic predictions came out and started the panic -- most ALL of the science and projections has been consistently toned down.. Year by year, predictions and models get revised. And they are ALL coming DOWN from the panic levels. NOT going up..

It's because "climate science" was in diapers in the 1980s.. Barely had a satellite up worth a damn.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ah, the, it's cold here, therefore there can't be global warming.

Check my 3rd post with the land temperatures for the ENTIRE ARCTIC and tell me where it's "super hot"..

Then tell me if a small dot of Siberia where it's STILL 12degF is a problem to ice or Polar bears.. It's weather, not climate. And it's FAKE science to scare folks like poor widdle Matt who's reference on "good and evil" is science. "THEY" are playing on his fears....

"super hot" would be relative, right? We're not talking about it being "super hot", we're talking about the temperatures being 20C above average. Which requires a comparison with other years. Which you don't have.

Actually -- in this case -- It's 20F. And the phony chart in the OP GIVES you the 30 year baseline ADJUSTED anomalies. I've done this before. And we can go look at the 30 year record. But I'm not doing that based on a such a crappy suspect source of "data"... .

And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? Any source that doesn't agree with you is "crappy" therefore it can be ignored.

I mean, this is the Washington Post sourcing the Climate Change Institute/University of Maine, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Danish Meteorological Society, NOAA and NASA, and you don't agree with it, so it's all "crappy".

They may have quoted all those other folks. I don't have a beef with that. But their HEADLINE and excuse for DOING the story came from a failed "modeling" run --- not thermometers..

So, Sea Ice is lower, you accept that, you also accept that arctic temperatures last winter were higher and they're much higher now?

So if these things are showing warming, you still have a problem with the first part which shows warming.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This "GW" industry is getting meaner and eviler. Freakin the herd out about "reanalysis" modeling, when you could be looking at REAL DATA -- is unethical and scary to me.. It really reeks of desperation....

So nothing's getting warmer then?

The earth is experiencing a small upward tick in GMAST (global mean aver. surf. temp).. PART of that is probably due to GHouse gas emissions. But the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory are no where NEAR settled science and there are a host of interests that have conspired to scare and lie about the science.

When in fact -- since the 80s when the original apocalyptic predictions came out and started the panic -- most ALL of the science and projections has been consistently toned down.. Year by year, predictions and models get revised. And they are ALL coming DOWN from the panic levels. NOT going up..

It's because "climate science" was in diapers in the 1980s.. Barely had a satellite up worth a damn.

No, they're not settled science. For me personally the point here is that we know that we can control things to a certain extent, but that if things get out of control, we're fucked.

There are two choices. The first is to wait until things have gotten out of control, and we're fuck, the other is to try and deal with the potential problems before they may happen.

For me it's a no brainer to do the latter.

 

[flacaltenn]

Check my 3rd post with the land temperatures for the ENTIRE ARCTIC and tell me where it's "super hot"..

Then tell me if a small dot of Siberia where it's STILL 12degF is a problem to ice or Polar bears.. It's weather, not climate. And it's FAKE science to scare folks like poor widdle Matt who's reference on "good and evil" is science. "THEY" are playing on his fears....

"super hot" would be relative, right? We're not talking about it being "super hot", we're talking about the temperatures being 20C above average. Which requires a comparison with other years. Which you don't have.

Actually -- in this case -- It's 20F. And the phony chart in the OP GIVES you the 30 year baseline ADJUSTED anomalies. I've done this before. And we can go look at the 30 year record. But I'm not doing that based on a such a crappy suspect source of "data"... .

And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? Any source that doesn't agree with you is "crappy" therefore it can be ignored.

I mean, this is the Washington Post sourcing the Climate Change Institute/University of Maine, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Danish Meteorological Society, NOAA and NASA, and you don't agree with it, so it's all "crappy".

They may have quoted all those other folks. I don't have a beef with that. But their HEADLINE and excuse for DOING the story came from a failed "modeling" run --- not thermometers..

So, Sea Ice is lower, you accept that, you also accept that arctic temperatures last winter were higher and they're much higher now?

So if these things are showing warming, you still have a problem with the first part which shows warming.

What exactly am I looking at there? You can't shove a graph in my face and expect a reasoned answer. And you shouldn't be playing with them either. If green is mean -- how many years does it represent? And what is the normal DEVIATION over 30 or 100 years?

A SPIKE is weather. Climate does not move except over CENTURIES...

 

[flacaltenn]

This "GW" industry is getting meaner and eviler. Freakin the herd out about "reanalysis" modeling, when you could be looking at REAL DATA -- is unethical and scary to me.. It really reeks of desperation....

So nothing's getting warmer then?

The earth is experiencing a small upward tick in GMAST (global mean aver. surf. temp).. PART of that is probably due to GHouse gas emissions. But the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory are no where NEAR settled science and there are a host of interests that have conspired to scare and lie about the science.

When in fact -- since the 80s when the original apocalyptic predictions came out and started the panic -- most ALL of the science and projections has been consistently toned down.. Year by year, predictions and models get revised. And they are ALL coming DOWN from the panic levels. NOT going up..

It's because "climate science" was in diapers in the 1980s.. Barely had a satellite up worth a damn.

No, they're not settled science. For me personally the point here is that we know that we can control things to a certain extent, but that if things get out of control, we're fucked.

There are two choices. The first is to wait until things have gotten out of control, and we're fuck, the other is to try and deal with the potential problems before they may happen.

For me it's a no brainer to do the latter.

GW theory has about 1/2 dozen hypotheses. I accept ALL of them except for the ones that lead to the Earth destroying itself over a 2degC change in surface temperature. Furthermore, I firmly believe we would not SEE that 2degC until WELL into the 22nd century.. America has ALREADY, thru Free Market innovation, and IN SPITE of govt/world obstacles, reduced it's CO2 emission back to the 1980s levels.

So if those initial scary estimates are NOT gonna happen, what panicked prescription do we write based on more tethered scientific analysis? Also with the realization that the climate community is lately VERY quiet about making monthly NEW scary predictions. They are learning to THINK and analyze, before they write press releases.

And NO -- Spending a couple $Trill on giveaways to 3rd world countries is NOT gonna fix anything. Science and engineering will eventually "fix things" that NEED to get to fixed. Because there are truly NO REAL alternatives today to fossil and nuclear and hydro that don't require a roll-back of economic life as we know it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"super hot" would be relative, right? We're not talking about it being "super hot", we're talking about the temperatures being 20C above average. Which requires a comparison with other years. Which you don't have.

Actually -- in this case -- It's 20F. And the phony chart in the OP GIVES you the 30 year baseline ADJUSTED anomalies. I've done this before. And we can go look at the 30 year record. But I'm not doing that based on a such a crappy suspect source of "data"... .

And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? Any source that doesn't agree with you is "crappy" therefore it can be ignored.

I mean, this is the Washington Post sourcing the Climate Change Institute/University of Maine, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Danish Meteorological Society, NOAA and NASA, and you don't agree with it, so it's all "crappy".

They may have quoted all those other folks. I don't have a beef with that. But their HEADLINE and excuse for DOING the story came from a failed "modeling" run --- not thermometers..

So, Sea Ice is lower, you accept that, you also accept that arctic temperatures last winter were higher and they're much higher now?

So if these things are showing warming, you still have a problem with the first part which shows warming.

What exactly am I looking at there? You can't shove a graph in my face and expect a reasoned answer. And you shouldn't be playing with them either. If green is mean -- how many years does it represent? And what is the normal DEVIATION over 30 or 100 years?

A SPIKE is weather. Climate does not move except over CENTURIES...

The graph is from the source that we're talking about. Jeez. Had you actually read the source that you were trashing, you'd know this. Go have a look at it. I mean, you've just shown that you're opposing things without even knowing what you're opposing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This "GW" industry is getting meaner and eviler. Freakin the herd out about "reanalysis" modeling, when you could be looking at REAL DATA -- is unethical and scary to me.. It really reeks of desperation....

So nothing's getting warmer then?

The earth is experiencing a small upward tick in GMAST (global mean aver. surf. temp).. PART of that is probably due to GHouse gas emissions. But the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory are no where NEAR settled science and there are a host of interests that have conspired to scare and lie about the science.

When in fact -- since the 80s when the original apocalyptic predictions came out and started the panic -- most ALL of the science and projections has been consistently toned down.. Year by year, predictions and models get revised. And they are ALL coming DOWN from the panic levels. NOT going up..

It's because "climate science" was in diapers in the 1980s.. Barely had a satellite up worth a damn.

No, they're not settled science. For me personally the point here is that we know that we can control things to a certain extent, but that if things get out of control, we're fucked.

There are two choices. The first is to wait until things have gotten out of control, and we're fuck, the other is to try and deal with the potential problems before they may happen.

For me it's a no brainer to do the latter.

GW theory has about 1/2 dozen hypotheses. I accept ALL of them except for the ones that lead to the Earth destroying itself over a 2degC change in surface temperature. Furthermore, I firmly believe we would not SEE that 2degC until WELL into the 22nd century.. America has ALREADY, thru Free Market innovation, and IN SPITE of govt/world obstacles, reduced it's CO2 emission back to the 1980s levels.

So if those initial scary estimates are NOT gonna happen, what panicked prescription do we write based on more tethered scientific analysis? Also with the realization that the climate community is lately VERY quiet about making monthly NEW scary predictions. They are learning to THINK and analyze, before they write press releases.

And NO -- Spending a couple $Trill on giveaways to 3rd world countries is NOT gonna fix anything. Science and engineering will eventually "fix things" that NEED to get to fixed. Because there are truly NO REAL alternatives today to fossil and nuclear and hydro that don't require a roll-back of economic life as we know it.

Why do you accept all except those which give you something you don't wish to see?

Why do you believe it will take until the 22nd Century to see those rises?

The US has reduced its CO2 emissions by buying products from places like China which have seen a MASSIVE increase in CO2 emissions. Do you know about PM2.5? Probably not. Go to China and you'll soon learn.

Beijing Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

Beijing right now is at 400. Over 50 is considered not good. Over 300 is considered Hazardous. Basically Beijing's PM2.5 (basically small particles so small they get in your lungs, often made up of things like car exhaust pollution, etc) is 8 times the level it should be at.

All so America can "thru free market innovation" reduce it's pollution levels. Go figure.

So, because you THINK, based on nothing more than what you want, therefore it WON'T happen. Sorry, I can't see that logic.

Science and engineering will fix it all? Well, not necessarily. Do you know why Europeans buy smaller more fuel efficient cars and why companies make them? Because governments increase the taxes on fuel.

So, you want technology to make things better, but you don't want to force the situation where they actually have to make things better. That's a little contradictory.

 

[flacaltenn]

This "GW" industry is getting meaner and eviler. Freakin the herd out about "reanalysis" modeling, when you could be looking at REAL DATA -- is unethical and scary to me.. It really reeks of desperation....

So nothing's getting warmer then?

The earth is experiencing a small upward tick in GMAST (global mean aver. surf. temp).. PART of that is probably due to GHouse gas emissions. But the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory are no where NEAR settled science and there are a host of interests that have conspired to scare and lie about the science.

When in fact -- since the 80s when the original apocalyptic predictions came out and started the panic -- most ALL of the science and projections has been consistently toned down.. Year by year, predictions and models get revised. And they are ALL coming DOWN from the panic levels. NOT going up..

It's because "climate science" was in diapers in the 1980s.. Barely had a satellite up worth a damn.

No, they're not settled science. For me personally the point here is that we know that we can control things to a certain extent, but that if things get out of control, we're fucked.

There are two choices. The first is to wait until things have gotten out of control, and we're fuck, the other is to try and deal with the potential problems before they may happen.

For me it's a no brainer to do the latter.

GW theory has about 1/2 dozen hypotheses. I accept ALL of them except for the ones that lead to the Earth destroying itself over a 2degC change in surface temperature. Furthermore, I firmly believe we would not SEE that 2degC until WELL into the 22nd century.. America has ALREADY, thru Free Market innovation, and IN SPITE of govt/world obstacles, reduced it's CO2 emission back to the 1980s levels.

So if those initial scary estimates are NOT gonna happen, what panicked prescription do we write based on more tethered scientific analysis? Also with the realization that the climate community is lately VERY quiet about making monthly NEW scary predictions. They are learning to THINK and analyze, before they write press releases.

And NO -- Spending a couple $Trill on giveaways to 3rd world countries is NOT gonna fix anything. Science and engineering will eventually "fix things" that NEED to get to fixed. Because there are truly NO REAL alternatives today to fossil and nuclear and hydro that don't require a roll-back of economic life as we know it.

Why do you accept all except those which give you something you don't wish to see?

Why do you believe it will take until the 22nd Century to see those rises?

The US has reduced its CO2 emissions by buying products from places like China which have seen a MASSIVE increase in CO2 emissions. Do you know about PM2.5? Probably not. Go to China and you'll soon learn.

Beijing Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

Beijing right now is at 400. Over 50 is considered not good. Over 300 is considered Hazardous. Basically Beijing's PM2.5 (basically small particles so small they get in your lungs, often made up of things like car exhaust pollution, etc) is 8 times the level it should be at.

All so America can "thru free market innovation" reduce it's pollution levels. Go figure.

So, because you THINK, based on nothing more than what you want, therefore it WON'T happen. Sorry, I can't see that logic.

Science and engineering will fix it all? Well, not necessarily. Do you know why Europeans buy smaller more fuel efficient cars and why companies make them? Because governments increase the taxes on fuel.

So, you want technology to make things better, but you don't want to force the situation where they actually have to make things better. That's a little contradictory.

PM 2.5 or any other particulate is NOT Global Warming. In fact, they have a cooling in the atmosphere. And GW is NOT about pollution either. If you conflate pollution with CO2 and GW -- you've got a LOT of catching up to do on the science. And the misrepresentations. AND the reason why I believe we would not see over 2degC consistently til 2100 or beyond. IF things continued the same.

If you're confused about pollution and GW -- it would most likely be a waste of time to explain that "belief"..

 

[numan]

'
Those whom the Gods would destroy, first refuse to face the facts about the rise of CO2 and methane.
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So nothing's getting warmer then?

The earth is experiencing a small upward tick in GMAST (global mean aver. surf. temp).. PART of that is probably due to GHouse gas emissions. But the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory are no where NEAR settled science and there are a host of interests that have conspired to scare and lie about the science.

When in fact -- since the 80s when the original apocalyptic predictions came out and started the panic -- most ALL of the science and projections has been consistently toned down.. Year by year, predictions and models get revised. And they are ALL coming DOWN from the panic levels. NOT going up..

It's because "climate science" was in diapers in the 1980s.. Barely had a satellite up worth a damn.

No, they're not settled science. For me personally the point here is that we know that we can control things to a certain extent, but that if things get out of control, we're fucked.

There are two choices. The first is to wait until things have gotten out of control, and we're fuck, the other is to try and deal with the potential problems before they may happen.

For me it's a no brainer to do the latter.

GW theory has about 1/2 dozen hypotheses. I accept ALL of them except for the ones that lead to the Earth destroying itself over a 2degC change in surface temperature. Furthermore, I firmly believe we would not SEE that 2degC until WELL into the 22nd century.. America has ALREADY, thru Free Market innovation, and IN SPITE of govt/world obstacles, reduced it's CO2 emission back to the 1980s levels.

So if those initial scary estimates are NOT gonna happen, what panicked prescription do we write based on more tethered scientific analysis? Also with the realization that the climate community is lately VERY quiet about making monthly NEW scary predictions. They are learning to THINK and analyze, before they write press releases.

And NO -- Spending a couple $Trill on giveaways to 3rd world countries is NOT gonna fix anything. Science and engineering will eventually "fix things" that NEED to get to fixed. Because there are truly NO REAL alternatives today to fossil and nuclear and hydro that don't require a roll-back of economic life as we know it.

Why do you accept all except those which give you something you don't wish to see?

Why do you believe it will take until the 22nd Century to see those rises?

The US has reduced its CO2 emissions by buying products from places like China which have seen a MASSIVE increase in CO2 emissions. Do you know about PM2.5? Probably not. Go to China and you'll soon learn.

Beijing Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

Beijing right now is at 400. Over 50 is considered not good. Over 300 is considered Hazardous. Basically Beijing's PM2.5 (basically small particles so small they get in your lungs, often made up of things like car exhaust pollution, etc) is 8 times the level it should be at.

All so America can "thru free market innovation" reduce it's pollution levels. Go figure.

So, because you THINK, based on nothing more than what you want, therefore it WON'T happen. Sorry, I can't see that logic.

Science and engineering will fix it all? Well, not necessarily. Do you know why Europeans buy smaller more fuel efficient cars and why companies make them? Because governments increase the taxes on fuel.

So, you want technology to make things better, but you don't want to force the situation where they actually have to make things better. That's a little contradictory.

PM 2.5 or any other particulate is NOT Global Warming. In fact, they have a cooling in the atmosphere. And GW is NOT about pollution either. If you conflate pollution with CO2 and GW -- you've got a LOT of catching up to do on the science. And the misrepresentations. AND the reason why I believe we would not see over 2degC consistently til 2100 or beyond. IF things continued the same.

If you're confused about pollution and GW -- it would most likely be a waste of time to explain that "belief"..

No, I didn't say it was global warming.
It's pollution which impacts human beings and their lives. It causes cancer, it causes respiratory problems, it causes problems. The US has merely managed to ship the problem off to other countries.

However Greenhouse Gases are also being produced by such countries at the same time as pumping out fine particles.

I'm not confused at all. You seem to think that if someone deviates from your thin line that it's because they're confused.