|2011-07-01 04:10:48||The "Kind & Gentle" Denier Drone -- Part II|
Note: The context of this post is set forth in Part I.
Here is the next chunk of caracoid's post:
2. Observed surface temperatures on other planets in our solar system seem to reflect the rises and falls in the Earth's surface temperatures. Which would add credence to those who say the sun, and solar flares, have to do with the rise in temperatures seen in the late '90s early 2000s. Satellite measured temperatures stopped rising at that point. Contradicting the current theory used to signify an impending "hockey stick effect" in rise of surface temperatures. If that theory proved wrong, why is it still used as the go-to scientific justification for warmism?
4. I never once heard the media during the "debate" mention anything other than the most rudimentary--or far more often, no--explanation of the skeptic's position. Big warning flag. It was as if they were purposely covering for an ideology, not a science that could stand up to an open debate. Instead, the science was proclaimed to be too complex for the average human to understand. Another big red flag. Whenever the media presented information on global warming, it was always the explanation that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and--like glass in a greenhouse--traps heat inside. And that was the extent of the "science" that was given to us. Anybody who uses this as their justification for absolute 100% metaphysical certainty in AGW is putting their trust in a religion, or a cadre of scientists.
5. As for this cadre, we know that there are three institutions that aggregated the global temperature data coming in. One would not respond to Freedom of Information requests to release the raw data and--after a year of battles--finally claimed it was lost. The other two said they got their data after it had already been filtered by the first.