| | | The planet WAS warming up.
It is known (settled science) that that is what typically happens at the end of an ice age.
It's also known (settled science) that that is what typically happens with increased solar activity.
It is known that both conditions were true of that period when warming clearly was occurring...
When "should" we expect to see change occur ? How should it occur, then ? Science doesn't know.
It seems reasonable, if climate is getting warmer, that the water might get warmer as a part of that... without that doing anything to alter the REST of what's required in the PROCESS OF REASON... that defines science. An observation "the water is getting warmer" doesn't prove why, how, or whether or not it should.
What you posted, though, makes no sense at all...
The planet's temperature is not remaining steady
IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO.
and it certainly isn't cooling
THE DATA SAY IT IS.
Earth, especially its ocean, are heating up… and rapidly. Which is why: a new study shows that the detectable slowdown of global surface temperature increases over the last fifteen years ?
That language is fraudulent... that claims a "slowdown" of increases... is evidence of "heating up... rapidly". If you can't trust the reason applied in their language in simple facts... that is a proof that you should not trust their reason in complicated facts.
The science is a FRAUD... not only because their predictions have failed. That predictions have failed... proves the science is NOT settled... and their theory everything else is based on... doesn't work. Denying the truth of that... requires fraud... and, the fact of fraud is proven in many other instances as well... including falsifying data, coordinating "review", etc.
Tacking on one new instance of "something else we didn't know before" that we think we've learned now... doesn't obviate the fact of being wrong, rather than proving it ?
And, then... "a trend that climate change denialists have seized on to foment doubt among the general public."
Incorrect, re "change denialists". Because only the "advocates" are claiming (obviously wrongly) that climate shouldn't ever change... so that any change occurring is bad, and a reason to try to terrify people... and seize political control of the economy ?
Correct, re fomenting doubt. Because when your science is proven wrong... and is proven to be based in fraud, and about advocacy, not truth... people SHOULD doubt that you are honest, and your opinion correct.
Change... happens. That's a fact... not a prediction. That fact makes any project based in the assumption that change shouldn't happen... one based in fallacy. From there, it's not that you "can't handle the truth"... it's that you can't GET TO the truth.
WHY change occurs... isn't known... and proof requires ACTUAL SCIENCE... not making crap up as you go along, because you think it might be plausible enough to convince the public ?
It is fraud for any scientist to claim they know WHY change is occurring, or why it is occurring AS it is...
When the fraud stops... THEN we'll be able to make better progress in finding the truth. Until then, the RISK being imposed... is being imposed by those perpetrating fraud... and those enabling them in doing so.
If the planet fries to a crisp and we all die in the next 50 years because of runaway climate effects... the blame for that will reside in those who lacked scientific rigor and scientific integrity...
The reason people doubt scientists opinions now... is because they are RIGHT to doubt them.
And that toleration of fraud continues... is no reason to think about trusting them...
The fact they continue learning... seems obvious as a proof they didn't already know it all before ? Claiming they DO know it all when they don't IS THE PROBLEM.
This is not rocket science... and, in fact, it isn't science at all... but OBVIOUS basic reason... where it intersects with social science. When you lie to people... they quit believing you.
Science DOES NOT have the answers. Claiming they do... is FRAUD.
As far as "a false sense of temperature stability when the reality is very much the opposite"...
What is false... is to claim temperature SHOULD be stable. It never has been. It never will be. Change is normal. When science isn't far enough along that it can't tell you what normal is... or why normal change happens... they can't tell you what isn't normal ? And, when science is so obviously wrong as to claim "change" shouldn't happen ?
Otherwise, as before... science doesn't understand it... but, no matter how much science does understand, we understand enough to know that a steady state with a LACK of change... is not normal...
Change is not necessarily bad. Which does not mean change is good ? But, change happens.
What to do about it ? The validity of the assumption we SHOULD "do something about the weather"... as an entering argument ? Every element of the "debate" appears structured to enable authorization for "doing something"... when there appears no valid justification for even considering "doing something"... much less without carefully considering WHAT... and WHO we should trust with WHAT ?
The "science is settled"... only because they don't want there to be any honest debate about "what to do" or "who is legitimately allowed to decide"...
I think you can't trust anyone who is a science whore... who is paid to flog the policy, not apply reason.
So, I think you should ignore any article that doesn't start with "I'm not a science or whore, or a policy marketing whore, and my work shows"... ? |
|
