 |
| The Narrative is strong with this one. |
The sad lack of science is the real problem. The problems with the "data" are almost too many to enumerate. For example, I can make a case for both Global Warming and Global Cooling very easily by simply picking my starting point - which is invariably arbitrary. Ground measurement stations suffer from urban island heat distortions in many cases. Normalization of disparate sources is highly prone to error - Especially the ideological kind - where corrections always lean in the direction of supporting the theory.
We don't have a good method of studying warming of the ocean, which has a much higher heat capacity than the dry surface. Greenland ice is melting, quite possibly because of local geothermal activity, since records indicate that the polar ice mass is actually increasing
The "Theory" has two parts - greenhouse gas effect on temperature (fairly wide consensus) and the 3-5x positive feedback loop in the environment (which as near as I can is a primarily caused by the ubiquitous element Becauseium
If there can be a consensus in science -it should be that we haven't actually done any real science, and maybe we should.
No comments:
Post a Comment