[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
I don't know where you get this info about data being taken from a ship's affluent system. The data come from a number of sources - floating sensors which have satellite uplinks and deep samples. The stratification of the ocean's thermoclines (layers separated by temperature) and the movement of heat within the ocean is very complex, and some scientists have noted that this makes it difficult to interpret the data, but keep in mind that this type of criticism is from scientists who understand the science. They don't dispute the existence of the data or the validity of the data, just how you reconcile the data with existing models of oceanic and climactic change.
Unfortunately, many of the nay-sayers on this issue don't know the difference between an atom and a molecule. We live in a technologically-advanced society, with a population that for the most part doesn't understand the technology or the science behind it. Yet these people feel they can somehow dictate policy without bothering to understand anything first. George W. Bush says the science is flawed? Based on what? His non-existent scientific background?
The excellent article by the NASA scientist (see post above) points out that the situation is even more complex than we are led to believe, with other gases and particulates also being responsible for retention of solar energy. Their relative contributions are known, but forecasting for the future is difficult. One of the difficulties is that atmospheric chemical reactions are complex, and the concentration of one gas ultimately affects another, if they happen to be involved in the same reaction(s). Does this uncertainty mean that the whole thing cannot be trusted? This would be the reaction of someone who doesn't understand anything about science. If you can't answer every question with certainty, the whole system is flawed. This is stupid. Everyone who knows anything can tell you that research often raises more questions than it answers. This is true of every decent research venture. Think about biomedical science. Do we know everything about the human (or animal) body? Well, if not, maybe we should not be doing any intervention, because everything we say we understand up to now must be false and therefore must be discarded.
So, I would say that we don't understand everything and never will, but the data show evidence of global warming, and we think we know why, and we should be concerned for the future, although exact predictions are impossible. If we do nothing and suffer a catastrophe, who in the group of skeptics has come up with a solution for the mess we might find ourselves in? Sorry for the long post. I kinda got going.
, Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:50:29, Wed, 4 Jul 2001 05:26:39
, Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:51:12, Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:20:27, Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:24:04, Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:46:30
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
