The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now.
Well, DUH!!
via Climate science: A sensitive matter | The Economist.
Part of the problem with Climate Science is that many are so bent on “proving” their beliefs are correct, that they forget the most important principle of real science.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein
Used to be, all that was needed to put a theory in doubt was contradictory evidence, but Climate Scientists don’t seem to like that kind of science. If your models don’t fit, then you need a new theory, NOT simply a new way to fit odd data to the theory you like most.
So the explanation may lie in the air—but then again it may not. Perhaps it lies in the oceans. But here, too, facts get in the way. Over the past decade the long-term rise in surface seawater temperatures seems to have stalled (see chart 2), which suggests that the oceans are not absorbing as much heat from the atmosphere.
Say, WHAT?!
Since when did FACTS get in the way of SCIENCE? Isn’t that what science is supposed to be about?
When your models don’t fit the facts, IT MEANS YOUR MODELS ARE WRONG!!!!
Now, there is no doubt in my mind that the climate is changing, and it may even be the case that we have something to do with it (and could therefor, potentially do something to change it), today’s Climate Science has been reduced to politics and FAITH. People who question the models (regardless the reason) are uniformly accused of being “denialists”. That sounds far more like religion than science.
WAKE UP FOLKS! Climate Scientists have become so focused on proving their theory correct, that EVERYTHING now magically supports it. That’s NOT science. That’s faith. What’s worse, it is keeping people from doing the research necessary to figure out what’s REALLY going on.
Of COURSE these models are complicated. I’m quite confident that they aren’t nearly complicated ENOUGH. Just like the return of Aspen growth in Yellowstone Park turned out to be because the re-population by wolves ended up changing the Elk’s behavior, would it not make sense to see if maybe there were things beyond CO2 that were having an effect?
