6 ms·

You're proposing "discovering the science behind our climate" by ignoring what the actual scientists are saying. For example their explanation for the 15 year p

• pdonis 13y ago
  You'll note that the article carefully doesn't link to actual data showing the amount of heat that has actually been "trapped". (No, the IPCC report is not "data". I'm talking about actual data sets that are archived on publicly available servers with cryptographic signatures to ensure that it's complete and intact. You know, the sort of thing that is routine when you're downloading a piece of code, but which the climate science community has decided is much too difficult for data on which they want to hang the fate of the planet.) Reading between the lines, their numbers for "trapped heat" are based on computer models, not on actual data; what they're basically saying is "the only data we have doesn't show the heat, but our models say it should be there, so we assume it went into the oceans".
  • guelo 13y ago
    Good demonstration of my point. You refuse to believe what actual scientists are saying.
    • pdonis 13y ago
      I refuse to believe it without checking it, yes. (I noted somewhere upthread that there was a link to a GRL paper that might shed more light on the details in this particular case.) I take the same attitude when I read a claim about physics. I don't accept arguments from authority, and that's what "actual scientists are saying it" is. Actual scientists can be wrong. So can I, but that doesn't mean they get a free pass.