A vast array of Argo buoys sampling the seas was supposed to show global warming.
But the data are not showing any warming in the oceans, which are supposed to generate the increase in air temperatures:
When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.
So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.
In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts -- shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.
So clearly, the data must be bad. The global warming "consensus" is far more resilient to inconvenient data, so it won't panic at the prospect of conflicting reality.
I will repeat my views on the subject. I don't accept that the recent increases in recorded temperature (which are actually flat the last 7 years) since the mid-1970s is anything more than the natural fluctuations of climate that should really be viewed in context over centuries of time; I don't accept that even a verifiable rise in temperatures over significant time frames is caused by man given the size and complexity of our planet that makes me skeptical that climate scientists can pin the problem on man's production of carbon dioxide; and even if the temperature rise is both real and man made, I don't accept that the suspiciously socialist solutions proposed by the global warmers are wise or affordable.
I question the conclusions drawn from the existing data. But at least my position, whether right or wrong, does no require me to ignore the data.
