Monday, September 23, 2013
On Climate Science
As a science, it is quite literally in its infancy. a) The climate models - they could not have been more wrong (placing almost their entire emphasis on CO2, man-made CO2 at that, they hugely overestimated the temperatures, inaccurately predicted a hot-spot in the upper troposphere, and said that the earth's escaping radiation was going to decrease when it has measurably increased). And b) the myriad of other climatic factors that have yet to be factored in (a large chunk of which they haven't even been discovered yet, I would proffer); bacteria, underwater volcanoes, land volcanoes (the fact that we haven't had an eruption over 5 on the VEI in over 20 years), plate tectonics, the PDA (which itself wasn't even discovered until the mid-1990s!), solar flares, sunspots, cosmic rays, planetary perturbations, peat fires, etc.. How anybody could say that anything in this discipline is "settled" is mind-boggling.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your stalker is now posting as George Whyte......batshit crazy.
True enough. It is a rather new science and there are unknowns.
I like science and have no particular ax to grind, other than that there seem to be 'experts'
coming out of the walls. Perhaps
Popular Science
has the right idea-read all the journals, separate opinion from fact, and let the professionals
argue and project. I am currently
reading up on the biochemistry of
the bacteriophage virus groups, which is fascinating. Would an Al
Gore come along and publicize the
enzymatic proteins involved, no doubt a Heartland would spring up
and argue the role of recombinant
DNA; the blogs would catch fire,
congress would hold hearings and
regular folks would take sides.
The pros and cons of the internet
age.
Where, Russ? I gotta check it out.............Hey, BB, I once knew a guy who used to read Dostoevsky, Malroux, and Turgenev for "light reading". I think that you got him beat (the biochemistry of
the bacteriophage virus groups).
Post a Comment