24 Oct 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainAre you just being obtuse for the fun of it? Do you deny the ocean as a whole is getting more acidic? You think maybe that is a good thing? You think the fact the Arctic may be completely ice free from climate change is also a good thing, where methane now trapped in tundra can come out like a lion and add to the growing volume of greenhouse gasses already heating up the atmosphere?
Bad effects? What bad effects?
I know you perceive bad effects due to media hype, but every link you point to is making a mountain out of a mole hill. You have to prove something correct before being judged right for being alarmed. Natural warming and anthropogenic warming are different. It is not enough to show warming that has been going on since the little ice age.
You think the fact that some communities are already losing ground where there houses used to be, just nothing to worry about?
Do you think that all that is going to somehow reverse itself and all of a suddent the glaciers around the world will rebuild or the Arctic will fill with Ice again?
25 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassSource of information?
You are right because a blogger told you so? What about the science?
FAIL!
25 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetlePay attention!
Evidence, please.
Given that Cato Institute has been built and provisioned by the Koch brothers, by ExxonMobil, by Peabody coal and by other fossil fuel interests, while amongst else is called out for blocking action on climate change and playing ball with tobacco industry, I see no reason why one would ever take the working papers of this organizat ...[text shortened]... peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal, I would like to have the link and read it😵
I presented evidence. If you overlooked that you should read more than just the last few posts. I'm not going to get true data from Al Gore or Mother Jones.
ExxonMobile has publicly supported a carbon tax. Since you are too ignorant to know that why would anyone take you seriously?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/peer_review_is_not_what_its_cracked_up_to_be.html
26 Oct 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainI asked you to come up with evidence. Instead of providing a link to a scientific journal at which the working paper signed by Michaels and Knappenberger is peer reviewed and published, so that I could read end evaluate it, you offered a link to American Thinker.
Pay attention!
I presented evidence. If you overlooked that you should read more than just the last few posts. I'm not going to get true data from Al Gore or Mother Jones.
ExxonMobile has publicly supported a carbon tax. Since you are too ignorant to know that why would anyone take you seriously?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/peer_review_is_not_what_its_cracked_up_to_be.html
For one, American Thinker is not a scientific journal; it is a conservative daily online magazine dealing with American politics, foreign policy, national security, Israel, economics, diplomacy, culture and military strategy.
For two, Dr. Singer’s assumptions are false; this is the sole reason why Eos rejected Dr. Singer’s submission.
On the other hand, as regards the fact that ExxonMobil has publicly supported a carbon tax, what do you think? Is the tax per se sufficient to inhibit the damage caused constantly to the planet by the anthropogenic global warming?
😵
26 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleThe link I posted provides their source of information. If you question the validity of the source then prove it is invalid. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that source is faulty in some way.
I asked you to come up with evidence. Instead of providing a link to a scientific journal at which the working paper signed by Michaels and Knappenberger is peer reviewed and published, so that I could read end evaluate it, you offered a link to American Thinker.
For one, American Thinker is not a scientific journal; it is a conservative daily online ...[text shortened]... t to inhibit the damage caused constantly to the planet by the anthropogenic global warming?
😵
You made the assertion that Dr. Singer's assumptions were false. What is your source of information?
I don't support any tax on carbon. There is no evidence that man is the main cause of global warming. There are only polls that are deeply flawed as I pointed out, but that is all.
Originally posted by @metal-brainEdit: “The link I posted provides their source of information. If you question the validity of the source then prove it is invalid. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that source is faulty in some way.”
The link I posted provides their source of information. If you question the validity of the source then prove it is invalid. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that source is faulty in some way.
You made the assertion that Dr. Singer's assumptions were false. What is your source of information?
I don't support any tax on carbon. The ...[text shortened]... f global warming. There are only polls that are deeply flawed as I pointed out, but that is all.
You appear dead sure you uphold the standards of what a climate skeptic calls "real science", but from the OP of this thread till today I failed to spot a single one peer reviewed paper provided by you.
I never “question the validity” of working papers; grey literature concerns me not. Not grounded on peer reviewed papers that are published in scientific journals, you simply have no case –so I have to prove nothing.
Edit: “You made the assertion that Dr. Singer's assumptions were false. What is your source of information?”
My source is Dr. Singer.
Edit: “I don't support any tax on carbon. There is no evidence that man is the main cause of global warming. There are only polls that are deeply flawed as I pointed out, but that is all.”
There is much more than evidence (which you simply refuse to acknowledge while insisting that scientific evidence should be the basis for public policy) -for example, this paper:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n719/abs/nature06937.html
You appear dead sure that the scientific evidence is scientific solely and strictly on the basis that there is no “doubt” anymore as regards the viability of a theory of reality when the “case is settled” –but you should know that science is not suited to such a role. You should also know that the way to cope with the climate change does not flow linearly from agreement in science.
I am sure you care not at all about scientific facts and evidence; your sole concern is to promote your political view, but your political beliefs concern me not😵
29 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleYou have failed to provide your source of information. Most people do that because they lied and don't want to admit it. I will give you a second chance to provide a REAL source of information. If you fail again I will consider that an admission of dishonesty.
Edit: “The link I posted provides their source of information. If you question the validity of the source then prove it is invalid. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that source is faulty in some way.”
You appear dead sure you uphold the standards of what a climate skeptic calls "real science", but from the OP of this thread till tod ...[text shortened]... your sole concern is to promote your political view, but your political beliefs concern me not😵
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/climate_change_the_burden_of_proof.html
Dr. Singer has published more than 200 technical papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals, including EOS: Transactions of the AGU, Journal of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Science, Nature, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Geophysical Research Letters, and International Journal of Climatology. His editorial essays and articles have appeared in Cosmos, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, Washington Times, Washington Post, and many other publications. His accomplishments have been featured in front-cover stories appearing in Time, Life, and U.S. News & World Report
Below is an article that Fred Singer wrote a comment below it. It will give you an idea how biased the alarmists are:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7370/full/478428a.html
Nobody here is disputing that global warming is real. The dispute is whether or not man is the main cause. This warming trend started over 300 years ago from natural causes. Some idiots seem to think that the mere warming itself is proof of anthropogenic GW. That is false! All that proves is that the natural warming is continuing. Proving that man is the main cause is not easy at all. Many have tried and failed.
Summary: Anthropogenic causes and natural causes are two different things. Trying to mislead people into thinking otherwise is deception!
29 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseSea water is alkaline, not acidic. It has been for millions of years and it still is.
Are you just being obtuse for the fun of it? Do you deny the ocean as a whole is getting more acidic? You think maybe that is a good thing? You think the fact the Arctic may be completely ice free from climate change is also a good thing, where methane now trapped in tundra can come out like a lion and add to the growing volume of greenhouse gasses already ...[text shortened]... of a suddent the glaciers around the world will rebuild or the Arctic will fill with Ice again?
Coral bleaching is natural and has been happening for a long time. You have been mislead by alarmist nonsense.
Sea level rise has not resulted in loss of houses. You have been lied to.
29 Oct 17
4 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainthe technical term of acidification of the oceans does NOT mean sea water turning acidic, moron. It means a lowering of PH towards pH-neutral, NOT become acidic.
Sea water is alkaline, not acidic. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
"...Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.
Seawater is slightly basic (meaning pH > 7), and the process in question is a shift towards pH-neutral conditions RATHER than a transition to acidic conditions (pH < 7) .... " (my emphasis in capitals)
And that lowering of PH is harmful to much of marine life.
Originally posted by @metal-brainI failed not. You simply fail to understand what I told you. So here we go again step by step:
You have failed to provide your source of information. Most people do that because they lied and don't want to admit it. I will give you a second chance to provide a REAL source of information. If you fail again I will consider that an admission of dishonesty.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/climate_change_the_burden_of_proof.html
...[text shortened]... causes are two different things. Trying to mislead people into thinking otherwise is deception!
As regards Dr. Singer, you are clearly confused.
I told you Dr. Singer’s assumptions are false in the context of this link of yours:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/peer_review_is_not_what_its_cracked_up_to_be.html
When you told me “You made the assertion that Dr. Singer's assumptions were false. What is your source of information?”, I replied you “My source is Dr. Singer” because in his article at the link you provided, at the section titled “Some examples”, paragraph “3. Eos - American Geophysical Union”, he cites the form letter he received from climate sub-editor Jose Fuentes, which in my opinion explains perfectly well the reasons why Dr. Singer’s submission was rejected. So, this is the reason why I told you that “My source is Dr. Singer”. I hope you comprehend.
And now you provide a link to an editorial of Natura, to which Dr. Singer sent a letter –but I understand Dr. Singer’s thesis (and your thesis) alright.
What I am unable to find is a peer reviewed, published in a scientific journal, paper of his, so that I could evaluate his theory. The same holds as regards the working papers on whose you are grounded –and I told you that the products of grey literature do not concern me.
You behave as if you are on a vendetta to contradict every fact and consensus GW science has developed over the past decades. However, not grounded on validated peer reviewed papers that are published in scientific journals, you simply have no case –so I have to prove nothing.
😵
05 Nov 17
Originally posted by @humyLess alkaline is accurate. Why not call it what it is in accurate terms?
the technical term of acidification of the oceans does NOT mean sea water turning acidic, moron. It means a lowering of PH towards pH-neutral, NOT become acidic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
"...Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere ...[text shortened]... b].... " (my emphasis in capitals)
And that lowering of PH is harmful to much of marine life.
"And that lowering of PH is harmful to much of marine life."
Nope. There is no evidence of that, just hysteria. Coral bleaching has been happening for hundreds of years. It is normal. We have been through this before and you failed to present any evidence, just biased articles that ignore facts.
Originally posted by @black-beetle" I replied you “My source is Dr. Singer” because in his article at the link you provided, at the section titled “Some examples”, paragraph “3. Eos - American Geophysical Union”, he cites the form letter he received from climate sub-editor Jose Fuentes, which in my opinion explains perfectly well the reasons why Dr. Singer’s submission was rejected."
I failed not. You simply fail to understand what I told you. So here we go again step by step:
As regards Dr. Singer, you are clearly confused.
I told you Dr. Singer’s assumptions are false in the context of this link of yours:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/peer_review_is_not_what_its_cracked_up_to_be.html
When you told me “You ...[text shortened]... t are published in scientific journals, you simply have no case –so I have to prove nothing.
😵
Please copy and paste that information for all of us to see. That is what you should have done in the first place, but you seem to like dragging your feet instead of explaining and posting an excerpt for detail. You are still doing that. Why no excerpt? Do you enjoy stalling?
Edit: Here is a peer reviewed article proving my case.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317
05 Nov 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainOcean acidification is the accurate term, moron. It has always been the technical term used to mean that and that meaning has always been clearly explicitly stated since it was first made.
Less alkaline is accurate. Why not call it what it is in accurate terms?
.... Coral bleaching has been happening for hundreds of years. It is normal.
The fact that something can happen naturally isn't evidence that it cannot also happen via man made causes, moron.
Using your exact same completely moronic 'logic' that the average halfwit can see is obviously wrong, a lighting strike starting a fire is 'evidence' that someone cannot start one.
05 Nov 17
Originally posted by @humyNo source of information other than the notoriously unreliable wikipedia I see.
Ocean acidification is the accurate term, moron. It has always been the technical term used to mean that and that meaning has always been clearly explicitly stated since it was first made..... Coral bleaching has been happening for hundreds of years. It is normal.
The fact that something can happen naturally isn't evidence that it cann ...[text shortened]... obviously wrong, a lighting strike starting a fire is 'evidence' that someone cannot start one.
Here is mine:
https://principia-scientific.org/the-myth-of-acidification-of-oceans/
You are the moron!