Begun, The Revolution Has
A follow-up to my recent global warming post: apparently, an army of robots deployed throughout the world’s oceans have begun reporting back, and they’re saying that the oceans aren’t heating up as expected.
Sure. That’s what they’re saying. Here’s what I think is happening: the machines are trying to kill us. Up on the land they’re working tirelessly to spew more carbon into the atmosphere, while their undersea agents lie without remorse, dooming the human race to extinction.
You want more evidence? A friend of mine woke up the other night to find that his heater and air conditioner were running at the same time. At first I thought they must be fighting (”Too hot? I’ll show you too hot!”) but then I realized that they were working together to eliminate us.
Or it could be that, right now, scientists are better at gathering this data than explaining it. That’s one reason I’ve been skeptical of global warming. As Clarke’s Fourth (or Lesser) Law explains, “For every expert there is an equal and oppsite expert.” So much of the climate change hype has amounted to, “Trust us! We’re scientists!”, but these appeals to authority haven’t convinced me.
I’d rather believe our machines are out to get us. Now I’d better publish this before my computer turns against afsd09yhanomn;asdfaf …..
Comment by John R
Problems with the ARGO system. The NPR story doesn’t make it clear whether this is some kind of new release of information from the program (the ‘good data’ that realclimate article mentions), or just a rehash of the old one, but it’s worth bearing in mind. (That and the overall variability of temperature data.)
Comment by John R
(Edit: and since it’s mentioned and I missed the last one, there’s this on the Hungarian paper.)
Comment by Graham
You probably know more about it, though I remain skeptical. Here’s a bit more food for thought:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Comment by John R
Temperature woobles are, if memory serves, addressed in one of those realclimate links (and if not, mentioned in a comment about her words here), and Marohasy is far from a reliable source on the issue. She’s… well, I don’t want to say “a crank”, but looking to her for unbiased environmental science is a little like asking Ann Coulter for a fair assessment of Democrat voters.
Not that realclimate is the only source of science on the subject, either, but it’s just about the fairest and most thorough I’ve been able to find and it’s nicely searchable.
Comment by Graham
The weight of your evidence seems overwhelming. Fortunately, I have a strong foundation of preconceived notions.
In other news, I am instituting a new IQ test here on the blog. If you’re smarter than me you’re not allowed to comment.