brokedownpalace10
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 2,726
(sigh) *Again*. He said satellite measurements were quite accurate but that sea level at individual spots was influenced by many factors. Then he also said that the factors which might influence sea level in a certain spot would have an inverse influence somewhere else. Melting ice lowering sea level near Greenland would cause a commensurate rise elsewhere. You're conveniently leaving that out (again). He says that individual measurements can thus not be accurate for measuring sea level rise but that all the satellite measurements take as a whole can.Because all the factors that influence the final conclusion - which him, you and the mainstream subscribe to - are not bound to that final conclusion. He acknowledges many (but not all of them) of the problems in making the measurements, which are valid points in and of themselves. You all believe the conclusion is valid, I do not, because I see all the numerous factors at play in getting those measurements and see just how easy it is for a huge margin of error to creep in or to draw a faulty conclusion.
Put it another way; I'm not convinced that the conclusion drawn can be drawn, given the inherent multiple factors working against getting an accurate data set.
Thus, you hearing one data point in the video, totally disregarding the rest, and drawing faulty conclusions from that is exactly like Trump telling us to inject bleach.
Last edited: