It's more a line of healthy skepticism for me about the validity of the evidence. Global warming is an ideology. People in research positions usually buy into the ideology to start with, furthermore they are paid to produce research which supports global warming - especially man made global warming. I don't even work in the environmental sector, and I have to be 'green' at work - I couldn't speak out about it because it's expected.
I did a search,
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-ice-age-paradox-sea.html I can see that what the article is saying is that it expects sea levels to rise even more than expected, but it's the problem for me,
'The behavior of this ancient ice sheet—called Laurentide—has puzzled scientists for decades because its periods of melting and splintering into the sea occurred at the coldest times in the last Ice Age. Ice should melt when the weather is warm, but that's not what happened.'
Ice sheets can melt even when global temperatures are freezing, because ocean temperature is different from atmosphere temperature.
When I read stuff like that, i'm reminded that we're using computer algorithms to calculate stuff that just isn't up for the job, there's too much data that's not understood, or even computers aren't powerful enough to process the data.
I know that there's an answer for that, that sea temperature are rising, yet I read elsewhere that temperature in Antartica is falling. The point is that there's so much unknowns yet it's been pushed as an accepted ideology that I can't help but suspect we're being sold a bad deal.
Originally Posted by at sirac son of sirac
Reply With Quote