Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuturtle
It's conspiracy because it is only one contributor of many.
|
If it's a contributer, it is guilty of...er...contributing.
Quote:
|
I note you didn't care to discount any of the other contributors I indicted. A good choice because doing that is a logical fallacy; spitting in the wind so to speak.
|
Of course I wouldn't discount other contributers.
Quote:
|
I do hope you read up on all you can find about heating in the oceans from volcanism and hydrothermal venting.
|
I plan to.
Quote:
|
If in fact as I say this is where a lot of the heat is coming from, and not the greenhouse effect, then spending money to reduce CO2 on that premise is a waste.
|
A waste? Look where that money is going, cleaner energy and cleaner air. Sure it would be nice if we pursued these out of virtue, but either way I don't see it as a waste.
Quote:
|
The fact that the effects of these features is largely unknown, is exactly why the current 'best' model is inherently flawed by virtue of bias. Quite simply the argument/consensus goes that 'we are not bothered by any facts we don't use.'.
|
You can't use facts that aren't there. Since underwater volcanoes seem to be scientifically mysterious at this point, we can't factor them into any model yet, at least not with any reliable certainty.
Quote:
Do read the meteroic dust post above I put up while you were replying. Yet another indictment. Best model yet notwithstanding, to quote Winston quoting Korzybski, the map is NOT the territory. 
|
I haven't read it yet, but I'll do so.
The map is not the territory, but it's certainly nice having a map.
