Quote:
Originally Posted by licker
-edi
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025
Your comments please?
It is as I have claimed. The 'heat' is missing from the equation.
Well unless you accept the fact that its really all the suns fault and stop persisting with the notion that the unproven correlation of temperature to CO2 is meaningful. Unless it's to note that CO2 concentrations LAG temperature as has also been shown in the literature.
By the way... warmer ocean also means greater CO2 sink...
The planet is really quite remarkable at the ways it can seemingly balance itself (not that I'm a Gaiaian) |
Did you even read the article, or did you just jump on its title line and ignore the rest. Do you even understand how science works?
It's pretty clear that the scientists are working within the paradigm of global warming. The robots provide data that tests the paradigm and allows it to be further refined. nothing the robots said conclusively leaned one way or the other, in fact, in the light of other data, their reports seem very confusing. This either means they are faulty, the methodology of their deployment and recording is incomplete, or the theory of global warming needs to be further nuanced and additional variables accounted for.
While the theory is available to be nuanced, the rote "warming of the sun" is an irrelevant variable because it presumably effects all other variables, assuming its even true. Further, it smacks of a deus ex machina that just solves all problems, and forecloses the need for any further science (which is basically your tactic here). But let's take it seriously for a moment.
Here the oceans are rising, the air is getting warmer, but for some reason the oceans are cooling slightly. Yet you would eagerly jump on a theory that says "the sun is getting warmer" and then switch to a "the oceans are getting cooler" without realizing the salient inconsistency between the two. It is so entirely clear you only select data that supports your viewpoint, even when the bricolage of data you select contradicts itself. internal consistency of your data means nothing to you, only that each individual piece when taken alone seems to contradict GW. You've already decided a priori what you want to see, and you only look for data that supports it. Of course, this data inevitably contradicts itself.
Basically what you suggest is...
Quote:
|
Well unless you accept the fact that its really all the suns fault and stop persisting with the notion that the unproven correlation of temperature to CO2 is meaningful. Unless it's to note that CO2 concentrations LAG temperature as has also been shown in the literature.
|
...lets just stop doing science and accept this one very marginal theory as true because it supports my viewpoints the best. It would be akin to the church telling Galileo to stop looking through his telescope and trying to solve eternal mysteries because he might disprove the Ptolemiac Astronomy system the church favored. Except in this instance the theory you're suggesting is already marginal.
so no scientists, don't continue investigating the mystery the robots posed, or trying to solve the problems they raised. just stop looking through your telescopes and trying to understand the world around you. we already have a theory that best supports those with power and money. anything else is just wrong. wag the dog.
Licker seems to lack the reflexivity to understand the game he is a pawn of.