Upbeat Cynicism

what do you mean i lost my mind?

More epistemological funny business

leave a comment »

NPR is rather charmingly blind to having one of their sacred oxes gored by reality. In an article headlined “The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat“:

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren’t quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

That’s the first paragraph. Notice anything missing?

That’s right, it’s not even possible that the “global warming” hypothesis might be wrong.

Later, they quote Josh Willis of JPL, and add in some editorial comments in what’s supposed to be a straight news story:

“There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant,” Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. “Global warming doesn’t mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming.”

Notice the bit that’s not in quotes? The buildup of heat on Earth is not even questioned, even though just a few paragraphs earlier, the article plainly states:

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.

The only measurements that can be questioned are the ones that don’t support the Global Warming faith:

One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.

But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?

You cannot question the warming, or that there must be extra heat, even though the actual measurements don’t show it at all. That’s not allowed.

At no point in the story is the Global Warming dogma questioned, even though it’s far from proven (advocates always rely on “consensus”, which is, to put it mildly, unscientific).

But you’d never know it from the way this is written, not at all.


Written by [IMH]

19 March 2008 at 12:47 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: