# Ocean acidification



## Old Rocks (Apr 11, 2010)

*An increasingly evident effect of the excess CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere.*

An Ominous Warning on the Effects of Ocean Acidification by Carl Zimmer: Yale Environment 360

Effects of Ocean Acidification
A new study says the seas are acidifying ten times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. And, the study concludes, current changes in ocean chemistry due to the burning of fossil fuels may portend a new wave of die-offs.
by carl zimmer

The JOIDES Resolution looks like a bizarre hybrid of an oil rig and a cargo ship. It is, in fact, a research vessel that ocean scientists use to dig up sediment from the sea floor. In 2003, on a voyage to the southeastern Atlantic, scientists aboard the JOIDES Resolution brought up a particularly striking haul.

They had drilled down into sediment that had formed on the sea floor over the course of millions of years. The oldest sediment in the drill was white. It had been formed by the calcium carbonate shells of single-celled organisms  the same kind of material that makes up the White Cliffs of Dover. But when the scientists examined the sediment that had formed 55 million years ago, the color changed in a geological blink of an eye. 

In the middle of this white sediment, theres this big plug of red clay, says Andy Ridgwell, an earth scientist at the University of Bristol.

In other words, the vast clouds of shelled creatures in the deep oceans had virtually disappeared. Many scientists now agree that this change was caused by a drastic drop of the oceans pH level. The seawater became so corrosive that it ate away at the shells, along with other species with calcium carbonate in their bodies. It took hundreds of thousands of years for the oceans to recover from this crisis, and for the sea floor to turn from red back to white.

The clay that the crew of the JOIDES Resolution dredged up may be an ominous warning of what the future has in store. By spewing carbon dioxide into the air, we are now once again making the oceans more acidic.

Today, Ridgwell and Daniela Schmidt, also of the University of Bristol, are publishing a study in the journal Natural Geoscience, comparing what happened in the oceans 55 million years ago to what the oceans are Storing CO2 in the oceans comes at a steep cost: It changes the chemistry of seawater.experiencing today. Their research supports what other researchers have long suspected: The acidification of the ocean today is bigger and faster than anything geologists can find in the fossil record over the past 65 million years. Indeed, its speed and strength  Ridgwell estimate that current ocean acidification is taking place at ten times the rate that preceded the mass extinction 55 million years ago  may spell doom for many marine species, particularly ones that live in the deep ocean.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 11, 2010)

*When the base of the food chain is adversely affected, what happens to the rest of the chain?*

Ecosystems under threat from ocean acidification

ScienceDaily (Mar. 31, 2010) &#8212; Acidification of the oceans as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide could have significant effects on marine ecosystems, according to Michael Maguire presenting at the Society for General Microbiology's spring meeting in Edinburgh.

Postgraduate researcher Mr Maguire, together with colleagues at Newcastle University, performed experiments in which they simulated ocean acidification as predicted by current trends of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The group found that the decrease in ocean pH (increased acidity) resulted in a sharp decline of a biogeochemically important group of bacteria known as the Marine Roseobacter clade. "This is the first time that a highly important bacterial group has been observed to decline in significant numbers with only a modest decrease in pH," said Mr Maguire.


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2010)

Old socks, you post crap like this and you know I am going to call you on it....

First its nonsense.... And here is the real science on it....

Real science bit #1: 550 million years ago in the Cambrian era there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today. And the Cambrian era is the time in which calcite corals and similar lifeforms first achieved algal symbiosis. 

Real science bit #2: 175 million years ago in the Jurassic era there was also 20 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and at this time the Aragonite corals came into being. So we have two points in history which had greater CO2 in the atmosphere and at both points we find coral life forms developing rather than dying off...... So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane....

Real science bit #3: The oceans already have 70 times the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere. Even if by some freak occurrence all of the CO2 we emit unnaturally were to go straight into the ocean (an impossibility) it would only raise the CO2 concentrations by 1%. Not exactly the scary horror stories you are telling now is it...

Real science bit #4: CO2 is the 7th largest particle in the oceans by volume that could in theory effect the PH balance. Meaning there are 6 other elements before CO2 which could in theory do the same to the PH. In practice this means the likelihood of CO2 actually causing oceans acidification is minuscule at best even IF the theory is correct. If you want to be real technical on it CO2 would not alter the PH at all but rather buffer other elements which could possibly make some impact on the PH balance. Those impacts are minuscule given the depth and scope of the entire thing.

Real science bit #5: The ocean rides over vast amounts of alkali. We are talking vast amounts of alkali stone, rock and soil which the oceans stir up and roll over 24/7... Alkali is the acid stopper in case you weren't aware.

All of this garbage is theoretical crap all designed to scare you... Its about as much to do with real science as the Pope has to do with Las Vegas nightlife... 

oh please ask me for my evidence again..... LOL, I love it when you try and play climatologist to save your azz....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2010)

Old Rocks, doesn't the dramatic change in ocean ph 55 million years ago throw the whole notion of Henry Ford "inventing" mass production of the internal combustion engine into question?

Doesn't this mean the SUV is really 55 million years old?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2010)

"It took hundreds of thousands of years for the oceans to *recover* from *this crisis*, and for the sea floor to turn from red back to white."

I laughed so hard I hurt myself...look at they hysterical words they use  "recover" "crisis" LOL

"The clay that the crew of the JOIDES Resolution dredged up may be an ominous warning of what the future has in store. By spewing carbon dioxide into the air, we are now once again making the oceans more acidic."

Ohhhhh, I'm so a-scared!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2010)

They crapped out on the "Hockey Stick Tree Rings of Death" so now changes from 55MYA are harbingers of doom.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2010)

So are the Wamers now saying that the reason there is no demonstrable Global Warming is because the ocean is eating the Deadly Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster?

So is there really more that 380PPM CO2, but the ocean eats it or are we pumping CO2 directly into the oceans?

So hard to keep all the stories straight


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2010)

"To see how ocean acidification is going to affect life in the ocean, scientists have run laboratory experiments in which they rear organisms at different pH levels."

Hey!  I've got a great idea! Maybe they can do laboratory experiments in which they compare atmospheric "changes" with varying amounts of CO2 from 280PPM up to 600PPM!


----------



## konradv (Apr 12, 2010)

_So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane...._
------------------------------------

This is an example of "false choice" and a reason why taking examples from millions of years ago, isn't always the logical thing to do.  The corals of the past evolved during a time of high CO2 and therefore would be able to tolerate lower pH levels.  Modern corals evolved during a time of lower CO2 and don't seem to tolerate an acidic environment as well.  You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2010)

konradv said:


> _So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane...._
> ------------------------------------
> 
> This is an example of "false choice" and a reason why taking examples from millions of years ago, isn't always the logical thing to do.  The corals of the past evolved during a time of high CO2 and therefore would be able to tolerate lower pH levels.  Modern corals evolved during a time of lower CO2 and don't seem to tolerate an acidic environment as well.  You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.



LOL and this is an example of dancing even after the music has stopped.....

Well if I can't use the past as a a template than neither can your side if we use your own logic....

Perhaps our modern planet has evolved and adapted to absorb more CO2? Perhaps the entire theory of GHG's and their effects are overstated? Perhaps the CO2 millions of years ago was actually a bunch of magic beans which grew into killer spores that killed all the dinosaurs?

Freaking asinine argument man... Seriously, the very word calcite should have been a clue... Clacite and aragonite are both forms of calcium carbonite. Ca CO3 ...

Here is some info on them...



> ARAGONITE (Calcium Carbonate)
> Aragonite is technically unstable at normal surface temperatures and pressures. It is stable at higher pressures, but not at higher temperatures such that in order to keep aragonite stable with increasing temperature, the pressure must also increase. If aragonite is heated to 400 degrees C, it will spontaneously convert to calcite if the pressure is not also increased. Since calcite is the more stable mineral, why does aragonite even form? Well under certain conditions of formation, the crystallization of calcite is somehow discouraged and aragonite will form instead. The magnesium and salt content of the crystallizing fluid, the turbidity of the fluid and the time of crystallization are decidedly important factors, but there are perhaps others. Such areas as sabkhas and oolitic shoals tend to allow significant amounts of aragonite to form. Also metamorphism that includes high pressures and low temperatures (relatively) can form aragonite. After burial, given enough time, the aragonite will almost certainly alter to calcite. Sedimentologists are very interested in aragonite and calcite stability fields because the conversion of aragonite to calcite after deposition has a distinct effect on the character of the sedimentary rocks.





> Calcite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Calcite, like most carbonates, will dissolve with most forms of acid. Calcite can be either dissolved by groundwater or precipitated by groundwater, depending on several factors including the water temperature, pH, and dissolved ion concentrations. Although calcite is fairly insoluble in cold water, acidity can cause dissolution of calcite and release of carbon dioxide gas.



LOL I love that last part especially..... lets repeat that oh so embarrassing bit of science shall we? LOL



> Calcite, like most carbonates, will dissolve with most forms of acid. Calcite can be either dissolved by groundwater or precipitated by groundwater, depending on several factors including the water temperature, pH, and dissolved ion concentrations. Although calcite is fairly insoluble in cold water, acidity can cause dissolution of calcite and release of carbon dioxide gas.



Dam that was a severe smackdown now wasn't it.......

SOOOOO, calcite is especially susceptible to acidity and PH factors? LOL so the whole claim you just made about them evolving in such conditions and resistant to CO2 induced acidification is one more example of BS posing as science..... Wow what an embarrassment...


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2010)

CO2 + H2O <=> H2CO3 => H+ + HCO3-

Hey, it works in the body via carbonic anhydrase, so maybe if we really amp up the CO2 it will work in the ocean via La Chatlier's.


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old socks, you post crap like this and you know I am going to call you on it....
> 
> First its nonsense.... And here is the real science on it....
> 
> ...



LORD...is that post YOUR real science?


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old socks, you post crap like this and you know I am going to call you on it....
> ...



LOL, and that is your defense?

The fact is even your fellow warmers don't deny it, but you must be some kind of expert so please, by all means correct it....... LOL


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I am curious about #4.  I've got H2O and CO2, what are the other molecules.  Plus, if CO2 reacts with H2O to make carbonic acid, which spontaneously dissociates to a hydronium molecule, the strongest acid on earth, then what molecular player could be more relevant?


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I'm asking if YOU are the author...


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old socks, you post crap like this and you know I am going to call you on it....
> 
> First its nonsense.... And here is the real science on it....
> 
> ...




Leave the science to educated, honest and intelligent scientist. I'm sure you know more than experts in the field


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



First why don't you try and correct my claims as you seem to pretend you can do instead of trying to change the subject? its called dodging and you are doing it plain as day....

You insinuated it was incorrect, now show me that..... Can't can you... The ocean acidification from CO2 absorption effecting the PH balance is the theory they are claiming. You disagree or want to correct that be my guest. Why not ask them about their hypothesis?

Second your little chemistry quiz is irrelevant to the point and claims. If you want to have a chemistry quiz than create chemistry thread, and I will call my nephew hes a chemistry geek. But if you want to make a broad accusation about my explanation being wrong or claims being inaccurate, then have the decency to back up that claim rather than be a douchebag and try to change the subject to save your azz.....


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Douchebag I am no more a chemist than oldsocks is a climatologist. I don't see you questioning his BS though now do i?  Why is that? Probably for the same reason you don't address the topic anymore in favor of being a douchebag and changing the subject...

if im the author... Grow up azzhole, if you can't show me how I am wrong, and refuse to show the warmers they are wrong, than you are just being a weasel.... either the claims are off or they are not so which is it?


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old socks, you post crap like this and you know I am going to call you on it....
> ...



Fair enough, then I can expect you and your pal to tell oldsocks and his ilk to do the same? yeah thought not...... Nice try pal but I can post on whatever I wish to and no amount of BS "im educated so therefore better" nonsense will dissuade me.

You think this is the first time I have met with this kind of bullying tactic? Its crap to keep people from thinking and using their mind. And its an attempt at censorship and an elitist mentality your so-called liberal side is against..... Way to show the real mentality at work...


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> First why don't you try and correct my claims as you seem to pretend you can do instead of trying to change the subject? its called dodging and you are doing it plain as day....
> 
> You insinuated it was incorrect, now show me that..... Can't can you... The ocean acidification from CO2 absorption effecting the PH balance is the theory they are claiming. You disagree or want to correct that be my guest. Why not ask them about their hypothesis?
> 
> Second your little chemistry quiz is irrelevant to the point and claims. If you want to have a chemistry quiz than create chemistry thread, and I will call my nephew hes a chemistry geek. But if you want to make a broad accusation about my explanation being wrong or claims being inaccurate, then have the decency to back up that claim rather than be a douchebag and try to change the subject to save your azz.....



What the fuck?  I asked you for clarification and to expound on what you stated.  

That's what educated individuals do.  They don't go into a kung fu stance.  I don't claim to be an expert on the chemistry of the ocean.  I was under the impression you were.  Obviously, by your response, you are just regurgitating information someone else collected and have no real idea how to justify it (scientifically).  I don't need to hear from your nephew.  I am sure if I dig hard enough, I can get the answers from people with Ph.D.'s in the matter.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> Fair enough, then I can expect you and your pal to tell oldsocks and his ilk to do the same? yeah thought not...... Nice try pal but I can post on whatever I wish to and no amount of BS "im educated so therefore better" nonsense will dissuade me..



Yeah.  Because when it comes to the natural sciences, education is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



How YOU are wrong, then YOU are the author?


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



He is obviously not. Did you see him flip out when I asked him to expound on point #4?  I was truly curious and sincerely hoped to gain some knowledge on the matter.  

So much for that.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

What people are forgetting is CO2 levels were high during cambrian, but Oxygen levels were also much much higher than they are today.



> Carbon dioxide seems to be almost the total focus of attention in the climate change model as it exists today. After reviewing the results of this study and talking with *Dr. Ralph Keeling (one of the lead scientists on the study)*, it seemed to me that the consequences of atmospheric oxygen depletion should be included in any discussion of atmospheric change.



Read more: Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises - Blogcritics Sci/Tech


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > First why don't you try and correct my claims as you seem to pretend you can do instead of trying to change the subject? its called dodging and you are doing it plain as day....
> ...



Still refusing to show my error? Atypical internet douchebag..... You talk shit and and when confronted on it you divert and then confound..... 

Classic... Then we can assume two things here; one you are a douchebag, and two you cannot show that I am incorrect despite your BS...


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



BS? He cited actual scientists, that are chemist and experts in their field.  You think you can just make statements with no actual scientific education and experience, and without any actual studies, and that's all it takes to rebut a peer reviewed study from trained scientists?


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Umm, his post cited actual scientist, he never claimed he's the authority


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



says the person acting like a typical internet douchebag that think their opinion and making claims without any studies on the internet means they have debunked actual scientific studies


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2010)

so neither you nor dr dumazz have anything to actually dispute in reality do you....

you just wanted to come in here and divert away from your pals who got caught ..... Nice...

So do the two of you have anything to refute the points at all? Didn't think so..... Double teaming and diverting shows how weak your BS is.... But please carry on don't let the truth get in your way...


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

You've proven nothing, and its obvious you don't give a shit about actual scientists, so there is nothing to debunk.\

Why don't you whine some more crybaby


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2010)

WOW, talk about pathetic...... All your talk and all your posturing and in the end its all BS. Neither of you can refute anything said at all... Dam man that is as embarrassing as the other guys BS....LOL


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO 2 Problem: Scientific American



> The planets seas quickly absorb 25 to 30 percent of humankinds CO2 emissions and about 85 percent in the long run, as water and air mix at the oceans surface.





> That careful balance has survived over time because of a near equilibrium among the acids emitted by volcanoes and the bases liberated by the weathering of rock. The pH of seawater has remained steady for millions of years. Before the industrial era began, the average pH at the ocean surface was about 8.2 (slightly basic; 7.0 is neutral). Today it is about 8.1.



Another source, from actual scientists, with actual numbers showing rising pH and reason's why the equilibrium is changing. You know, reasons educated, intelligent, trained scientists take into account, the real complexities of life.



> lthough the change may seem small, similar natural shifts have taken 5,000 to 10,000 years. We have done it in 50 to 80 years. Ocean life survived the long, gradual change, but the current speed of acidification is very worrisome.



You fail to see how important pH is to animals, as it can seriously disrupt metabolic reactions, especially rapid changes that dont' allow animals to change to deal with the changing pH.



> About 89 percent of the carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater takes the form of bicarbonate ion,



Just because you are ignorant of how small changes can have drastic effects on the ecology of the ocean, doesn't mean that little increase isn't having an effect


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> WOW, talk about pathetic...... All your talk and all your posturing and in the end its all BS. Neither of you can refute anything said at all... Dam man that is as embarrassing as the other guys BS....LOL



  you are embarrassing yourself

Well, my post above addresses some of your stupidity. But you did nothing to support your claims, and I'll take peer reviewed scientific studies from people who know what the fuck they are taking about over some dishonest internet douchebag that thinks facts are up for opinion, and think he can spout stuff with no evidence, and then demand others debunk them


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old socks, you post crap like this and you know I am going to call you on it....
> 
> First its nonsense.... And here is the real science on it....
> 
> ...


"Real science"- OK then, why don't you link us to the peer reviewed "real science" you keep spouting? As I've linked to reports based on actual studies, as has the OP.

You don't know what real science is


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



When my dog starts chasing his tail, I take him for a run...maybe mommy can put your leash on you and do the same...

You were caught mid spin there Fido...

Old Rocks never CLAIMED he was a climatologist. But he DID post scientific information FROM a climatologist. AND he provided a link to that climatologist's article.

You posted LORD knows-what nothingness with no link or any provided qualifications of your author. LORD knows you must be ashamed of his qualifications. 

BTW Einstein, if YOU are not a chemist or a climatologist, then HOW would you even KNOW what you are posting is truth or gibberish?


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Plus, the actual articles show he's talking out his ass. He claims CO2 alone can't change pH, yet my link explains why that's simply not true. He claims CO2 was 20X during cambrian, which is true, but conveniently ignores that O2 levels were also very very high, which would play a role in having that many levels, plus the very fact that the earth was very warm during that time with no polar ice caps, which to me supports global warming. We can't afford now to have the ice caps melt and raise ocean temps.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

How much you want to bet that gslack comes back with someone's blog or bogus website and claim that is evidence and peer reviewed science?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



OK, dimbulb. You are not a chemist. I am not a climatologist. But I post the source of my information. What is the source of yours?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> How much you want to bet that gslack comes back with someone's blog or bogus website and claim that is evidence and peer reviewed science?



I do not mind blogs or websites, if they contain links to their sources of information. When they do not, or link to political sites, like the Heritage Foundation, then you know they are completely bogus and without merit.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



I don't think his ass is a legitimate source


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I didn't operate off the assumption that you had made an error.  I operated off the assumption that you knew more about this than me.  I see now that I was wrong about that.  

Arguing the technicalities of this would be pointless with you, as you don't understand the basic science behind the matter.

In reality, I wasn't interested in arguing anything.  I just wanted to see some chemistry get discussed.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 12, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > How much you want to bet that gslack comes back with someone's blog or bogus website and claim that is evidence and peer reviewed science?
> ...




well, naturally. But some blogs will pretend to link science, then completely spin what the actual science says and make up their own conclusions, then pretend they linked to actual science


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Plus, the actual articles show he's talking out his ass. He claims CO2 alone can't change pH, yet my link explains why that's simply not true. He claims CO2 was 20X during cambrian, which is true, but conveniently ignores that O2 levels were also very very high, which would play a role in having that many levels, plus the very fact that the earth was very warm during that time with no polar ice caps, which to me supports global warming. We can't afford now to have the ice caps melt and raise ocean temps.



I only consider chemistry in the physiological context now (unfortunately, I really loved chemistry as an undergrad), but I live and die by this basic chemical equation that sums up respiratory and metabolic acidosis and alkalosis:

H20 + CO2 <=> H+ + HCO3-

If you think about it in context of La Chatlier's principle (i.e. holding your breath would increase CO2 and drive equilibrium towards the product side and cause a respiratory acidosis while hyperventilation would pull the equilibrium to the left and cause a respiratory alkalosis, which is why people breath into backs when they are hyperventilating, they are trying to raise their blood CO2 concentration and restore equilibrium) and you know the lab values, you can figure out any pathology behind those issues.

Not at all germane to the topic, but I thought I'd at least introduce something educational considering the crap that has been tossed about on here as "science".


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2010)

I have seen a lot of that here. Several times these clowns have taken one sentence totally out of context, made a statement about what the article said, and when you link to the article, it says just the opposite.

Now I have done papers for classes in college, and one must always list their sources and referances. When I see bald statements concerning science without referance or sources, I know that person has never been involved in science of any kind.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, the actual articles show he's talking out his ass. He claims CO2 alone can't change pH, yet my link explains why that's simply not true. He claims CO2 was 20X during cambrian, which is true, but conveniently ignores that O2 levels were also very very high, which would play a role in having that many levels, plus the very fact that the earth was very warm during that time with no polar ice caps, which to me supports global warming. We can't afford now to have the ice caps melt and raise ocean temps.
> ...



The chemistry of the ocean is very complex, and there are several factors that are creating a problem right now. CO2 is not the only driver toward and acidic and anoxic ocean. NOx, through atmospheric and agricultural, is also creating a problem. We are conducting a grand experiment, with no turning back in our time, and without any ideas of what the parameters are concerning the effects.


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2010)

HAHAHAHAHA! I just read this and my god is it pathetic......

The 4 of you all hold hands, and chant to gaia while you try and save your azzes from embarrassment?

I find more than a little bit funny that the 4 of you come together just after the idiot showed his ignorance. Oh and I loved the show too... LOL priceless!

"i just love chemistry, especially this one ImAdUmAz3. its the sum of all our IQ's to the tenth." 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pathetic show boys.... Now want to do us a rendition of Hamlet?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 12, 2010)

And now to report on this NEWLY DISCOVERED THREAT to the world, we go to our science reporter, Wanda K Which.  What's the ocean look like out there, Wanda?

I'M MELTING!!!!!!


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 12, 2010)

*53 million years ago, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was much higher than today*, and made the ocean much more acidic, such that only little carbonate is preserved in sediments recovered from those times. In contrast, during the buildup of ice on Antarctica, the ocean became less acidic very rapidly, and more carbonate was suddenly preserved in the deep ocean.

Earth&#8217;s Climate And Ocean Acidification History

So this is one of the problems:

The past two centuries of industrialisation showed a decrease of 0.1 unit of pH .The average acidity of the ocean level is presently just above 8. *The sea absorbs 25 million tons of CO2 each day*. If this continues at the same rate, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts a further decline of up to 0.35 by the end of the century. In such water the balance is tipping: calcification gets slower. *Sea life that needs calcium carbonate for its shell (like mussels) or skeleton (like corals) are hindered*. And at higher CO2 concentrations the mussel shell even dissolves, discovered NIOO biologist Frédéric Gazeau.

Ocean Acidification Predicted To Harm Shellfish, Aquaculture

Yet we read this:

So what happens to these animals over time? That&#8217;s what the researchers wanted to find out by examining vent mussels (Bathymodiolus brevior) living on the side of *submarine volcanoes*. The mussels, *which have* a calcium carbonate skeleton, are under constant stress, bathed by *carbon dioxide bubbling out of the ground and from hydro-thermal vents deep beneath the surface.*

And yet some of the mussels, gathered by remotely operated vehicles along the Mariano volcanic arc near Japan, were determined to be more than 40 years old and had physiologically adapted to living in their extreme environment.

Ocean Acidification: Understanding How Mussels Have Adapted To Extremely Acidic Waters Near Underwater Volcanoes

Note:  The sea absorbs 25 million tonnes of CO2 per day.  Volcaneos produce 200 million tonnes per day.


----------



## momonkey (Apr 12, 2010)

Hmm, so global warming is officially dead?


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

gslack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > _So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane...._
> ...



As soon as I posted this response above in here all 4 of the warmers came in like a platoon and did everything they could to confound, divert, and derail this topic.... Coincidence? Nah they knew dam good and well what it all meant. And they knew it was factual and true, and indefensible...

The above shows categorically and undeniably that despite 20x the amount of CO2 coral life forms formed and flourished. Which blows the entire claim that CO2 will cause the oceans to turn acidic.

Fact: the above evidence verifiable in the supplied links tells us that the two prime elements in coral are extremely unstable in acidic conditions.

Fact: If they are unstable in acidic conditions, then they could not have survived in the PH factors and acidification levels they claim that CO2 would have caused back then. But despite that the corals did thrive and even develop. Showing that either the theory of CO2 causing ocean acidification is incorrect, the levels of effect of CO2 on the oceans is incorrect, or corals somehow despite the very structure making it an impossibility developed magic powers and lived through an acid bath for hundreds of years....

SO which is it now warmers? Come on we know you have a ridiculous hypothesis to excuse this you always do.... Once more your BS is shown for the nonsense it is...


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 13, 2010)

Your not driving the bus warmers.  Just sit back and enjoy the ride on this globe.  You want to help?  Reduce, recycle and stop flying around the planet to environment conferences.


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Your not driving the bus warmers.  Just sit back and enjoy the ride on this globe.  You want to help?  Reduce, recycle and stop flying around the planet to environment conferences.



Exactly!


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 13, 2010)

momonkey said:


> Hmm, so global warming is officially dead?


Anthropogenic Global Warming or Climate Change has never existed.  The truth of that is just now penetrating the mind numbed masses to these sirens of pseudo-science who beach men on the rocky shoals of their 'facts' only to finally drown in stupidity.

So now we're creating a new threat that sez we're all gonna die by killing everything in the ocean and then us too as we become a giant petri dish of acid unless we adopt global fascism to 'stop it'.

This theory is so chock full of straight line assumptions and folly I can't help but mock it.  By the same logic put forth, the only gas release from the internal combustion engine should be pure CO2.  But we know how true that is.  Same here.  An ounce of truth for a ton of theoretical BS.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 13, 2010)

gslack said:


> HAHAHAHAHA! I just read this and my god is it pathetic......
> 
> The 4 of you all hold hands, and chant to gaia while you try and save your azzes from embarrassment?
> 
> ...



 You complained we didn't address anything, then when we did, this is your response. And you wonder why I wasn't even going to bother addressing our unsubstantiated bullshit, cause you are just another dumbfuck acting like a troll.  Go back to elementary school kid


----------



## konradv (Apr 13, 2010)

_The above shows categorically and undeniably that despite 20x the amount of CO2 coral life forms formed and flourished. Which blows the entire claim that CO2 will cause the oceans to turn acidic._
-------------------------------

We trooped in to correct your mistakes.  The above conclusion was shown to be illogical yesterday, yet you're repeating it today.  The corals of the past flourished in high CO2 because they evolved in that environment.  You can't make the same statement about today's corals.  I'm not sure if you should go back to elementary school or sign up for Alzheimer's treatment!


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 13, 2010)

konradv said:


> _The above shows categorically and undeniably that despite 20x the amount of CO2 coral life forms formed and flourished. Which blows the entire claim that CO2 will cause the oceans to turn acidic._
> -------------------------------
> 
> We trooped in to correct your mistakes.  The above conclusion was shown to be illogical yesterday, yet you're repeating it today.  The corals of the past flourished in high CO2 because they evolved in that environment.  You can't make the same statement about today's corals.  I'm not sure if you should go back to elementary school or sign up for Alzheimer's treatment!



That's what they do. They spout unsupported bullshit, get corrected on it with scientifically supported evidence, then ignore that and continue to spout their unsubstantiated opinion as fact.
the 
It's already been mentioned, like you said, that O2 levels were very high also, which plays a role, plus the level of alkalines in the water. Plus the fact that in the past the acidity changes was gradual, giving organisms time to adapt and evolve to be able to survive the slow changing acidity.  Rapid changes in any environment has a drastic effect on organisms. But I know that he really doesn't care, but those at there that want to learn the facts, and not bullshit, there you go


also, they bring up that CO2 was 20X what it was today, but the earth had no polar ice and was very warm, supporting that increased CO2 in atmosphere leads to increased global temps.


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > HAHAHAHAHA! I just read this and my god is it pathetic......
> ...



No you didnt address the point you came in with your pals to try and disrupt the thread and derail the topic to cover the flaw in your sides claims about ocean acidification.... Proof? You still avoided my re-posting of it....

yeah pretty telling huh dumazz.... yep, one more example of bullshit science and bullshit scientists like you, oldsocks, and chemistry boy....


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

konradv said:


> _The above shows categorically and undeniably that despite 20x the amount of CO2 coral life forms formed and flourished. Which blows the entire claim that CO2 will cause the oceans to turn acidic._
> -------------------------------
> 
> We trooped in to correct your mistakes.  The above conclusion was shown to be illogical yesterday, yet you're repeating it today.  The corals of the past flourished in high CO2 because they evolved in that environment.  You can't make the same statement about today's corals.  I'm not sure if you should go back to elementary school or sign up for Alzheimer's treatment!



Hey useless either use the quote feature and cite me correctly or ignore my posts. Grow up azzhole no one is impressed by your ignorant inability to quote people correctly. You don't look unique, you don't appear the rebel, you don't look smart or witty, all you do is look ignorant and immature...

Now point to where and when it was shown to be illogical liar... Can't can you azzhole... of course not all that happened was the troll brigade came and tried to bury it.... use the quote feature azzhole!


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

gslack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > _So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane...._
> ...



REpost to show the truth and stop the attempts by the AGW troll brigade to bury this....


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 13, 2010)

If sea life can live next to an undersea volcaneo vent of CO2 at 8 times the concentration that the air places in the sea, then you have little leg to stand on konradv, Dr gregg anld rocks et. al.  Your alarmist rants are unfounded and quite frankly, annoying.

So that the good people of USMB are not misinformed by you, gslack and myself will continue to challenge you.  By the way, in addition to the ice caps growing, so is the concensus against your little plot.


----------



## Douger (Apr 13, 2010)

gslack said:


> .. Its about as much to do with real science as the Pope has to do with Las Vegas nightlife...
> 
> ..


Actually the Vatican has made some heavy investments in Lost Wages.....and elsewhere.
Illegally, of course.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2357980.ece

As far as C02 is concerned..............Science. Photography. Comprende pendejo ?


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 13, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



then you can't or refuse to read. The link in the OP, and mine to a scientific america article citing actually studies did in fact cover most of your bullshit spouted.

Keep trolling though, really show's your scientific acumen


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 13, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> If sea life can live next to an undersea volcaneo vent of CO2 at 8 times the concentration that the air places in the sea, then you have little leg to stand on konradv, Dr gregg anld rocks et. al.  Your alarmist rants are unfounded and quite frankly, annoying.
> 
> So that the good people of USMB are not misinformed by you, gslack and myself will continue to challenge you.  By the way, in addition to the ice caps growing, so is the concensus against your little plot.




Oh boy you are such an idiot. Certain sealife can, others can't.  so by your theory since fish live underwater that means humans would be able to.  HOly shit, its unreal how many dumbasses think they know anything about science 

I've responded with scientifically supported evidence and facts, if you can't see that, go fuck yourself


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 13, 2010)

FYI Gcunt, so you can't make an excuse that I didn't post it




Dr Gregg said:


> Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO 2 Problem: Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 13, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > If sea life can live next to an undersea volcaneo vent of CO2 at 8 times the concentration that the air places in the sea, then you have little leg to stand on konradv, Dr gregg anld rocks et. al.  Your alarmist rants are unfounded and quite frankly, annoying.
> ...



I see I'm off ignore.  Go run and hide behind the ignore button.  Through science sources I hae demonstrated that CO2 levels in the seas have been far higher than those we curently have AND man was no influence on those rises.  I have also demonstarted that  marine life can and has adapted to these changes.  Perhaps nature uses these cycles to create stronger species for the evolving Earth.

Seriously, you have to be a lab assistant who delivers urine samples, because your language and actions here do not support a learned scientist background.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> If sea life can live next to an undersea volcaneo vent of CO2 at 8 times the concentration that the air places in the sea, then you have little leg to stand on konradv, Dr gregg anld rocks et. al.  Your alarmist rants are unfounded and quite frankly, annoying.
> 
> So that the good people of USMB are not misinformed by you, gslack and myself will continue to challenge you.  By the way, in addition to the ice caps growing, so is the concensus against your little plot.



I have seen life in pools in Yellowstone that were above 180 degrees F. So, by that, it would not hurt your silly ass to take a swim in said pool.

The only challenge you and gslack present is trying to guess what idiocy you are going to post next


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



The topic was ocean acidification and your pals used coral as an example I showed the flaw in this. Your link talks about acidic effects on other sea life correct? Of course... Moving on...

Now if you read my post or any of the two repostings of it you would see the theory behind ocean acidification is in question. The post stated using accepted and known facts about calcium carbonites like argonite and calcite. Two primary compounds in coral. Follow me so far? Good...

The theory claims that rising CO2 makes the ocean waters more acidic. And acidic conditions do not allow for coral to thrive because their very compounds dissolve in acidic water. Even a small change in PH overall can have drastic effects on coral due to their clacium carbonite makeup. Got it so far? Calcium carbonites+acidic water= dead coral. Clear?

So, the fact we had 20x the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago and coral thrived and even evolved at that time, puts the entire hypothesis in question. How could they have thrived and evolved in such acidic conditions if the theory on CO2 and ocean acidification were correct as they present it? Well they couldn't have, plain and simple.

So either the theory is incorrect altogether, or the claimed level of impact on the oceans is incorrect. So then in some way or another the contentions are inaccurate or the theory itself is inaccurate.

And this my dear watson is deductive reasoning 101. Which brings us back to your post and its irrelevance to it all. If the theory or the contentions made based on that theory are incorrect, as the evidence would lead us to believe, than the article you posted is meaningless in reality.

Your article runs on the assumption the theory of CO2 ocean acidification is sound. Well its got some real holes in it that cannot be excused or dismissed, making it suspect to say the least. So in the end your article is as useless as lips on a chicken...

Got it DR? LOL, doctor of what? Freaking idiot!


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > If sea life can live next to an undersea volcaneo vent of CO2 at 8 times the concentration that the air places in the sea, then you have little leg to stand on konradv, Dr gregg anld rocks et. al.  Your alarmist rants are unfounded and quite frankly, annoying.
> ...



Yes, just imagine what would have happened to those forms of life, if man had cooled those pools because we thought they were to warm.  The diversity of life on this planet even within a species, is due in part to a changing environment and what adapts the best.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > If sea life can live next to an undersea volcaneo vent of CO2 at 8 times the concentration that the air places in the sea, then you have little leg to stand on konradv, Dr gregg anld rocks et. al.  Your alarmist rants are unfounded and quite frankly, annoying.
> ...



Yeah, seriously.  There are also fresh water fish that would die in salt water, animals that live under intense pressure very deep in the sea that would explode if brought to the surface and the low pressure. Truly one of the most scientifically dumb statements I've ever seen here, and clearly show this person doesn't know shit about biology.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 13, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Never was on it, usually I'd click on the person avatar to do it,  and you don't have one, so never actually got around to it.

I'm not running from anything, I'm schooling your guys with facts as you continue to make more and more stupid comments


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 13, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



way to ignore my post which tells you why the acidity is rising. You just keep repeating the same  bullshit, nothing supported by actual peer reviewed science.
 Now, go fuck off you piece of shit troll, you are out of your league here


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 13, 2010)

Oh no, a hydrogen atom is Looooooooooooossssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeee!


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



Oh so now you going to try and lie about what your other links were about? 

Good lets address that now shall we?

Your other links.. One was to an article on a site with the word "blog" in the title.... Yeah, blog... LOL, okay okay moving on.... 3 others were to sciencedaily so lets just stick with the sciencedaily links and forgo the blog one....

All 3 of them rely on the theory of CO2 ocean acidification to be correct and accurate as currently claimed by your side. And once again we see that the very theory they rely on is in question.

"knock,knock"  Is this thing on? What part of any of this didn't you get DR.dumazz? Is my type too small or hard to read?

I could have swore I just pointed this all out in the last post... Yep there it is, I see it plain as day. It says basically that the coral thrived in the times where CO2 was 20 times greater than today, which given their weakness to acidification in the oceans they could not have survived if the theory you support is accurate in essence or their claimed reaction levels of that theory are indeed accurate.

So which is it? Is the theory wrong altogether or is the effect levels they claim it has on the oceans inaccurate?

LOL, you can't even keep up with the point I make here... And you claim I am out of my league? LOL please, I walk over better posters than you just to take a beating... You are nothing special azzhole. You came in here with 3 friends to shout down something you couldn't defend logically. So if there is any troll in this thread its you and or your 3 amigos.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 13, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Later troll, obviously you don't want to or can't actually discuss this. I don't care what someone else posted, my post with scientifically supported evidence from actual scientists in the field explain away all you bullshit.

YOu have yet to cite one peer reviewed article supporting your claim, yet I can't keep up.

What the fuck is it with these trolls on this message board?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2010)

These trolls have a read blogs like that of Watts, and have zero scientific background. So they blindly repeat what they have read, often changing the wording, the result being either ridulous, or hilarious. 

And the blog posted linked to the peer reviwed articles in Nature and Science. 

These trolls are not here to impart knowledge, or learn, they are here simply to ridicule and demonstrate the depths of their willfull ignorance. They do this extremely well.


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



Thats it run away coward.... You came in here to be a troll and shout down truth, and when it didn't work and it became clear your ignorance was showing through your BS, you decide to run away like a punk..... 

Buh Bye now.....


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 13, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Dr Gregg was owned yesterday as well.  He just went away and hid.  Definitely a pattern.
The oceans have seen far higher CO2 levels than this in the past.  So the planet obviously has other large sources of C02 than people.  The whole premise is a giant fail.


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> These trolls have a read blogs like that of Watts, and have zero scientific background. So they blindly repeat what they have read, often changing the wording, the result being either ridulous, or hilarious.
> 
> And the blog posted linked to the peer reviwed articles in Nature and Science.
> 
> These trolls are not here to impart knowledge, or learn, they are here simply to ridicule and demonstrate the depths of their willfull ignorance. They do this extremely well.



Anthony Watts spent 25 years on the air as a meteorologist.... he is a trained meteorologist you POS... THats a dam site more than your useless little forum dwelling azz has done....

Ya know you have been caught several times now trying to fake your way through crap you don't understand. Maybe pointing the finger at someone who has made a living as a meteorologist for 25 years isn't a good idea for you....

Dude shut up with your peer review already... You know the reality of peer review? Here is a clue dumazz. Peer review and published does not make a theory correct. Got that?

Science journals serve a few purposes. One, they are a way for scientists to reliably review what other scientists are doing, share info, and learn about their peers. And two, its a way for them to get recognized and rewarded for hard work... A paper published in a science journal is not a proclamation of global acceptance or statement of the theory becoming fact. 

Did you realize the men who showed the error in the infamous 'hockey stick" graph were published in science journals? Yep, Mcintyre and mckitrick were published in a few science journals. Before them the Mann et al paper was published and as we all know the mcintyre and mckitrick paper showed it was flawed. Both were published...

Freaking ignorant internet scientists crack me up.... You realize a lot of theories that are now so much nonsense were once published in science journals? So just knock it off already, publication is not a statement of fact or truth....


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2010)

*Watts is a tv weatherman, not a meteorologist. By the standards you are applying in calling him a meteorologist, I could just as well call myself a Geologist.*


Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

Background and education
Watts grew up around Cincinnati, Ohio and reportedly attended Purdue University[1], studying Electrical Engineering and Meteorology.[2]. Watts's "About" page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. [3]. Watts has not been willing to say whether he graduated.[4]
"Anthony began his broadcasting career, in 1978 in Lafayette, Indiana."[5]


Credentials

Credentials held
Watts holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[6] with a status of "retired".[7]

Credentials not held
Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[8], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[9], and Watts posesses neither certification.[10],[11]


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2010)

*McIntyre has not published in any peer reviewed journal. Period. And the Mann Graph still stands, supported now by at least 15 other studies.*

Steve McIntyre - SourceWatch

McIntyre is, according to the Wall Street Journal, a "semiretired Toronto minerals consultant" who has spent "two years and about $5,000 of his own money trying to double-check the influential graphic" known as the "hockey stick" that illustrates a reconstruction of average surface temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, created by University of Virginia climatologist Michael Mann. He does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment, which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.[3]
McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." [4] He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada. [5]


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2010)

*So, on issues of the physics of GHGs, who am I to believe, an economist from a backwater university, or the head of the GISS branch of NASA, who is also one of the world's premier atmospheric physicists.*

Ross McKitrick - SourceWatch

According to a biographical note McKitrick holds "a BA in economics from Queen's University, and an MA and Ph.D. in economics from the University of British Columbia. He was appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph in 1996 and Associate Professor in 2000."

"His area of specialization is environmental economics and policy analysis. His current research areas include empirical modeling of the relationship between economic growth and pollution emissions; the impact of economic activity on the measurement of surface temperatures; and the climate change policy debate," it states. [1]

A January 2000 profile of McKitrick in his hometown newspaper, the Guelph Mercury, described his PhD thesis as doctoral thesis as being on the possibility of taxing carbon emissions as a way to reduce payroll taxes which he considered to be too high.

The profile also noted that a current McKitrick study was on alternatives to government's and citizens suing corporations for pollution induced damage. It noted that McKitrick didn't support the proposal by the federal government that the federal government sue pulp and paper manufacturers for damage to fisheries. "What I'm interested in is looking at whether, in the end, this kind of system would be more costly to society on the whole than the good it would do," he told the Guelph Mercury.

According to his bio note McKitrick has briefed the Canadian Parliamentary Finance Committee, and to government staff at the US Congress and Senate but it does not state on what issues.

"He has published scholarly articles in The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Economic Modeling, The Canadian Journal of Economics, Environmental and Resource Economics and other journals, as well as commentaries in newspapers and other public forums," it states,

McKitrick joined the Fraser Intitute as a Senior Fellow in October 2002.[2]


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2010)

*Even the National Academy of Science study, which faulted Mann for the statistical methodology that he used, stated that the method they used still resulted in a hockey stick graph. And that has been the case in all serious studies done by real scientists.*

RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).


This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context (see Figures 1 and 2 in &#8220;Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called &#8216;Hockey Stick&#8217;&#8221.

Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder &#8220;Little Ice Age&#8221; and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004).


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *Watts is a tv weatherman, not a meteorologist. By the standards you are applying in calling him a meteorologist, I could just as well call myself a Geologist.*
> 
> 
> Anthony Watts - SourceWatch
> ...



He is a Meteorologist you dumazz, even your source said as much...

Who gives a rats azz what educational requirements the AMS seal of approval has? its not a license you retard its an endorsement by the meteorological society.. Jesus what are you 12?

Here idiot do some reading before you run your mouth....

About the AMS 
 freakin idiot you haven't noticed the AMS seal on TV? Jesus you do anything but post AGW propaganda?

Some more information for you, and BTW stop getting all your information from green blogs, they tend to lie and BS alot. Here is what a meteorologist is, and as it turns out its a bit more than just a weatherman you azzhole...
AMS


> WHAT IS METEOROLOGY?
> Meteorology is the science of the atmosphere. It takes its name from the Greek word meteoron - something that happens high in the sky. The ancient Greeks observed clouds, winds, and rain and tried to understand how they are connected to one another. The weather was important in their relatively simple society because it affected the farmers who raised their food and their seamen who sailed the oceans. Today, our complex society and our environment are affected even more seriously by events and changes in the atmosphere. We must address many complicated issues and answer many difficult questions about the behavior of the atmosphere and its effects on the people of our planet.
> 
> WHAT IS A METEOROLOGIST?
> ...



Oh please give me some other lame azz excuse now.... I love watching you dance when caught lying.....


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2010)

By the way, gslack, note the links to the sources. 

When you start posting links to the stuff you post, then you might get a little respect. As in a fool led around by the nose, rather than just an idiot that post garbage pulled out of his asshole.


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *Even the National Academy of Science study, which faulted Mann for the statistical methodology that he used, stated that the method they used still resulted in a hockey stick graph. And that has been the case in all serious studies done by real scientists.*
> 
> RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"
> 
> ...



Stop changing the subject azzhole...... the point was peer review is not a statement that a theory is fact... now stay on subject....


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> By the way, gslack, note the links to the sources.
> 
> When you start posting links to the stuff you post, then you might get a little respect. As in a fool led around by the nose, rather than just an idiot that post garbage pulled out of his asshole.



Stop lying douchebag, the post above has links in it and unlike you I went to the horses mouth to get it..... Useless liar..... YOU cried like a punk and negative repped me like a true douchebag... Nice work crybaby show your age.....


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2010)

*And here is exactly what that seal says. Note what is in red. In other words, the seal holder is not a professional meteorologist.*

NAME) Earns the AMS Seal of Approval

(City, State): (Name) of (Station) has been awarded the Seal of Approval of the American Meteorological Society in recognition of the quality of (his/her) (television/radio) weather broadcasts.
The Seal is awarded by the Society to broadcast meteorologists who meet established criteria for scientific competence and effective communication skills in their weather presentations.  Among radio and television meteorologists, the Seal of Approval is sought as a mark of distinction and a recognition of achievement in the communication of scientific information.
To earn the Seal of Approval, a broadcast meteorologist must apply to the Society, offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards, along with three examples of his or her work.  The application is judged by a national board of examiners to assess four elements: technical competence, informational value, explanatory value, and communication skills.
Sealholders are highly respected among their peers.  Professional meteorologists have confidence that weather presentations made by sealholders will be technically sound and responsibly delivered.  The general public can have equal confidence in the quality and reliability of weather presentations made by broadcast meteorologists approved by the Society.
The American Meteorological Society was founded in 1919 as a nonprofit scientific and professional society.  It is interdisciplinary in scope and actively promotes the development and dissemination of information of the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences.  The Society currently has over 10,000 members from the United States, Canada and over 100 countries internationally.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2010)

*What the AMS has to say concerning man's impact on the climate.*

AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

Why is climate changing?
Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun&#8217;s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun&#8217;s energy reaching Earth&#8217;s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.

Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, gslack, note the links to the sources.
> ...



My, my, upset now are we, little boy? Well, get used to it until such time as you grow up enough to do actual research before you post.


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *And here is exactly what that seal says. Note what is in red. In other words, the seal holder is not a professional meteorologist.*
> 
> NAME) Earns the AMS Seal of Approval
> 
> ...



OMG! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

YOU complete and total moron! WTF are you on? You really think you can highlight a couple of words and change the entire meaning of entire paragraphs? What an imbecile....

AMS Certification Programs 



> Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program
> 
> The Certified Broadcast Meteorologist (CBM) program was established to raise the professional standard in broadcast meteorology and encourage a broader range of scientific understanding, especially with respect to environmental issues. The goal of the CBM program is to certify that the holder meets specific educational and experience criteria and has passed rigorous testing in their knowledge and communication of meteorology and related sciences needed to be an effective broadcast meteorologist.
> 
> ...



Notice the part I bolded and made red azzhole? Whats that say..... Come on coward say it...


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2010)

Credentials not held
Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[8], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[9], and Watts posesses neither certification.[10],[11]

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

*But Watts does not have either certification. They require a degree, which Anthony Watts does not have.*


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Credentials not held
> Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[8], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[9], and Watts posesses neither certification.[10],[11]
> 
> Anthony Watts - SourceWatch
> ...



Dude I said it once and I will say it again... Sourcewatch is unreliable.... Completely and totally run by irresponsible and unethical lazy dipshits... here is the proof....

Your link to source watch page on anthony watts.... Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

They claim the following part you keep commenting on. In their words....


> Credentials held
> *Watts holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[6] with a status of "retired".[7]*


*
*
Now see the little numbers on the site next to the claims they make? Those are for references to back the claims.... pay close attention to number 6. shown on the site as subscript number 6 just after the college/university words.

Well I followed the link and low and behold I get this site...Untitled
The site says the following....


> *REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AMS SEAL OF APPROVAL PROGRAM*
> *Applications for the AMS Seal of Approval Program will be accepted until 31 December 2008. After that date, only applications for the AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program will be accepted. In order to be eligible to apply for the AMS Seal of Approval, applicants must meet the requirements listed under one of the below sections.*
> 
> (A) *Hold a Bachelor's (or higher) degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.*
> ...



WOW!...... Just completely and totally WOW!!!! UNFUCKINGBELEIVABLE!!!!!!

YOUR site source watch caught red-handed and bald faced outright and undeniably lying through there fucking teeth!!!!!!!!

You two bit, pseudo-science pushing, shit talking imbecile..... NOW do me and everyone else here a favor and kiss both sides of my ass you complete and total hack!!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 14, 2010)

Untitled

 Applications for the AMS Seal of Approval Program will be accepted until 31 December 2008. 

*Just for you, dumbo, I will break this down. Until 31Dec08, you need not have a degree to get an AMS Seal of Approval. See the link below this one.*

After that date, only applications for the AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program will be accepted. In order to be eligible to apply for the AMS Seal of Approval, applicants must meet the requirements listed under one of the below sections.

(A) Hold a Bachelor's (or higher) degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.

(B) Hold a Bachelor's degree (or higher) in "other sciences and engineering" and be engaged in an activity in which the applicant's knowledge is being applied to the advancement or application of the atmospheric or related sciences. Acceptable degrees will be determined after a review of the applicant's college/university transcripts. Arts and humanities are not included; therefore, degrees in English, literature, philosophy, languages, journalism, communications and business administration would not lead to eligibility for Seal application. In addition to a degree in a related science, applicants must also have completed at least 12 semester credit hours in meteorology with 8 of the 12 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 3 of the 5 core areas is required). See (C) for a description of the core areas.

(C) This set of requirements is intended to recognize individuals without a degree from an accredited institution but who have at least a minimal educational background in the underlying science and substantial experience in the field. Individuals accepted under this category must have at least 20 semester credit hours in meteorology with 12 of the 20 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 4 of the 5 core areas is required). In addition, applicants must have 3 out of the last 5 years professional experience in the field. This requirement must be fulfilled by experience that requires independent analysis, interpretation and scientific judgment. It may not be fulfilled by experience that involves nothing more than routine observations or passing on information created by someone else.

*The word is grandfathered tv weatherman can use Section 3. No degree required. Again, by those requirements, I could call myself a Geologist with as much justification as Watts calls himself a meteorologist.*


AMS Certification Programs


AMS Seal of Approval  
The AMS is no longer accepting applications for the Seal of Approval Program

The AMS Seal of Approval was launched in 1957 as a way to recognize on-air meteorologists for their sound delivery of weather information to the general public. Among radio and television meteorologists, the AMS Seal of Approval is sought as a mark of distinction.

To earn the Seal of Approval, a broadcast meteorologist must apply to the Society, offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards, along with three examples of his or her work. The application is judged by a national board of examiners to assess four elements: technical competence, informational value, explanatory value, and communication skills.

Applications for the Seal of Approval were accepted from 1959 - 2008. There have been over 1700 Seals awarded.

*With reading skills as minimal as yours, I would careful about calling others names.*


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2010)

Come on socks you little coward......

While i wait on your latest song and dance, I will inform the forum about source watch ....

the link oldsocks posted to sourcewatch... Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

Now in the left corner of that page we see this a little badge with a earth pic on it saying this... _*"This is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's climate change project."*_

I follow the link and it goes here.....Portal:Climate Change - SourceWatch

Turns out sourcewatch has a special portal for a group known as "the Center for Media & Democracy"

Well who the heck are they? Well they aren't very forthcoming about that on the page and there is no link to their site or contact info anywhere on the page....

Way to show that transparency sourcewatch

So like a thorough OCD sufferer I do a google on them... and bingo! I find they are part of PR watch.

About CMD | Center for Media and Democracy
prwatch says the following about themselves....



> About CMD
> The Center for Media and Democracy is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, public interest organization that focuses on:
> 
> Investigating and countering spin by corporations, industries, and government agencies that affects our health, liberty, security, economic opportunities, environment, and the vitality of the democratic process.
> ...




Hmm, we have a organization claiming non-partisanship while they use an alternate outlet to lie and mislead about a meteorologist who retired after 25 years working in the field, simply because they back AGW and he does not..

WOW!

Seriously douche bag oldsocks not only showed sourcewatch to be a hack site as relaible as he is, but he also showed PRwatch to be a front to promote AGW...... LOL nice inestigative journalism oldsocks bravo!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 14, 2010)

You mean because he could not measure up to present standards. Too bad, happens in every field to those that fail to continue their education.


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Untitled
> 
> Applications for the AMS Seal of Approval Program will be accepted until 31 December 2008.
> 
> ...



LIAR!

You're busted sourcewatch was busted, prwatch was busted, and all because you had to post a BS propaganda misleading article from them..... LOL

So you have all the requirements do you? HAHAHAHAHAHA! you have ...

"have at least a minimal educational background in the underlying science and substantial experience in the field. Individuals accepted under this category must have at least 20 semester credit hours in meteorology with 12 of the 20 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 4 of the 5 core areas is required). In addition, applicants must have 3 out of the last 5 years professional experience in the field. This requirement must be fulfilled by experience that requires independent analysis, interpretation and scientific judgment. It may not be fulfilled by experience that involves nothing more than routine observations or passing on information created by someone else."

Sure ya do stooge sure ya do.....LOL knew you would have to try and dance your way out of it.....

You got owned azzhole.... Sorry but the facts are.... He was a meteorologist for 25 years. he retired and now does his site and few times a week works at his local radio station as a meteorologist. Kind of like our channel 8 we have here. A guy there is about 70 years old, was doing the weather when i was a kid. he comes on a couple times a week to do a report and such....

Question... If a seal or accreditation is now obsolete, what are the requirements to get one of those obsolete and no longer done or awarded accreditations?  LOL, nothing... The seal has been replaced by a new seal and he retired way before that time. So he, you or I do not need anything to get a obsolete and no longer awarded accreditation.... You just been schooled on a propaganda snow job douchebag.... They say things that are inapplicable and then the layman who doesn't check the story (like you) read it and go off posting like idiots half truths and innuendo that means nothing....

And to think you have sourcewatch to thank for all this...... HAHAHAHAHAHAH!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 14, 2010)

By the standards by which one would judge Watts to have been a meteorologist, I would be considered a Geologists. He was not and never will be a meteorologist, I am not a Geologist. Both titles demand that one earn a degree.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 14, 2010)

You know, gslack, were you on my side in a debate, I would stuff a sock into your mouth.


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> By the standards by which one would judge Watts to have been a meteorologist, I would be considered a Geologists. He was not and never will be a meteorologist, I am not a Geologist. Both titles demand that one earn a degree.



LOL, my god man you are so utterly pathetic....

You are without a rope and drowning in this lie and you will continue on telling it no matter what...... Well its your funeral douchebag...

He was a meteorologist AMS sealed and certified, how he got it means squat. They are experts and they accredited him. There was no grandfathering you idiot he wasn't alive before the AMS seal. Whether he has a degree or not I have no Idea, but I do know he had to fulfill these requirements to get his AMS seal and I believe to get a job as a meteorologist for a television station and hold that job for 25 years, he had to have some kind of education or training in it.

Once more the requirements....

 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AMS SEAL OF APPROVAL PROGRAM
Applications for the AMS Seal of Approval Program will be accepted until 31 December 2008. After that date, only applications for the AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program will be accepted. In order to be eligible to apply for the AMS Seal of Approval, applicants must meet the requirements listed under one of the below sections.

(A) Hold a Bachelor's (or higher) degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.

(B) Hold a Bachelor's degree (or higher) in "other sciences and engineering" and be engaged in an activity in which the applicant's knowledge is being applied to the advancement or application of the atmospheric or related sciences. Acceptable degrees will be determined after a review of the applicant's college/university transcripts. Arts and humanities are not included; therefore, degrees in English, literature, philosophy, languages, journalism, communications and business administration would not lead to eligibility for Seal application. In addition to a degree in a related science, applicants must also have completed at least 12 semester credit hours in meteorology with 8 of the 12 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 3 of the 5 core areas is required). See (C) for a description of the core areas.

(C) This set of requirements is intended to recognize individuals without a degree from an accredited institution but who have at least a minimal educational background in the underlying science and substantial experience in the field. Individuals accepted under this category must have at least 20 semester credit hours in meteorology with 12 of the 20 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 4 of the 5 core areas is required). In addition, applicants must have 3 out of the last 5 years professional experience in the field. This requirement must be fulfilled by experience that requires independent analysis, interpretation and scientific judgment. It may not be fulfilled by experience that involves nothing more than routine observations or passing on information created by someone else.


So then tell me about all your training in a related science and or all your years of experience the field doing actual research and data collecting, and such......

LOL you ignorant buffoon....


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2010)

I figured it out.... Old socks is a double agent working for big oil trying to wreck AGW legislation from the inside... Seriously its the only thing that makes sense...

Look at it, he posts retarded and easily refuted obvious propaganda all the time, and then fails miserably in defending it over and again....

LOL well okay you're right he is just an idiot .... it was a fun thought though lol


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2010)

Im off to bed now azzhole you go on and spam the thread to try and redirect and cover your embarrassment... I will fix it later LOL

Way too fun spanking you tonight.... You are in rare form.... LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 14, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > By the standards by which one would judge Watts to have been a meteorologist, I would be considered a Geologists. He was not and never will be a meteorologist, I am not a Geologist. Both titles demand that one earn a degree.
> ...



*Even with the Grandfather clause, Watts could not make the grade, and was retired.*


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2010)

So then tell me about all your training in a related science and or all your years of experience the field doing actual research and data collecting, and such......


Come on you said you could qualify for a meteorologist.....


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 14, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *And here is exactly what that seal says. Note what is in red. In other words, the seal holder is not a professional meteorologist.*
> 
> NAME) Earns the AMS Seal of Approval
> 
> ...



Old Rocks, its fultile, you are arguing with an uneducated child who comes from the retard school of logic


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 14, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> These trolls have a read blogs like that of Watts, and have zero scientific background. So they blindly repeat what they have read, often changing the wording, the result being either ridulous, or hilarious.
> 
> And the blog posted linked to the peer reviwed articles in Nature and Science.
> 
> These trolls are not here to impart knowledge, or learn, they are here simply to ridicule and demonstrate the depths of their willfull ignorance. They do this extremely well.



Yup, hence why I'm not even going to bother when I already have shown with scientifically supported studies that his claims are all bullshit.   If gcunt wants to continue to make an ass out of himself, so be it.


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *And here is exactly what that seal says. Note what is in red. In other words, the seal holder is not a professional meteorologist.*
> ...



Dude seriously.... He is at least not a coward like you.. Whether I agree with oldsocks or not, or whether I approve of his methods, at least he stands and fights. And that is a lot more than I can say for you. Also he has yet to try the lame azz tactics you and your lackeys tried..  If I were him I would ask you to stop helping. The help of a coward who runs when he is wrong is no help at all.

You and your little fake scientist pals already did your little theatrical production. It was contrived BS from the start. Not one of you self-proclaimed scientists did anything more than troll and post irrelevant and already covered crap. So please DR. dumazz  so back to hiding. You had your azz handed to you on this already...

Oh please put on another show where you and your pals discuss your favorite chemistry compounds...... THat was the most ridiculous display of contrived nonsense and BS I have ever seen on a web forum.... BRAVO!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 14, 2010)

gslack said:


> So then tell me about all your training in a related science and or all your years of experience the field doing actual research and data collecting, and such......
> 
> 
> Come on you said you could qualify for a meteorologist.....



Not at all. I said that by the standards that Watts qualifies as a Meteorolist, I qualify as a Geologist. I also stated that was not the reality in this world. You have to finish college and get that degree to earn the title.

Three years doing field work for the Forest Service, core drilling, seismic mapping, simple field mapping, geological hazards studies on proposed roads. Wrote reports, inspected soils engineering field labs for equipment and method compliance. 

Last class at a univesity, Eng. Geo. 470/570. Maintained an active interest in geology for the whole of my life, and have been on many field trips with working geologists holding Phds.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 14, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > So then tell me about all your training in a related science and or all your years of experience the field doing actual research and data collecting, and such......
> ...



Gosh I've  been to church alot and attended many baptisms and weddings.  Want me to perform a ceremony for ya?  Hooked up several dozen gas lines too.  Want me to install your furance?  Can't even begin to count how many episodes of mystery diagnois my wife has seen.  Need a doctor?


----------



## Charles Stucker (Apr 14, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> You know, gslack, were you on my side in a debate, I would stuff a sock into your mouth.



I have that opinion regarding you.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 14, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Coward my ass. you've displayed already you don't give a shit about scientifically supported facts and act like a child and a troll.  What you call coward I call acting like an adult and ignoring the screaming brat in the room, which is you.

Oh, bachelors in biochemistry (year of undergraduate research) , PhD in genetics, 5 years of postdoctoral research experience for a total of 11 years of research experience


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 14, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> [
> Oh, bachelors in biochemistry (year of undergraduate research) , PhD in genetics, 5 years of postdoctoral research experience for a total of 11 years of research experience



Do they let you work on anything other than fruit flies?


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > So then tell me about all your training in a related science and or all your years of experience the field doing actual research and data collecting, and such......
> ...



So once again you have all the qualifications required? LOL, you idiot your busted, your precious source watch has been outed (by you) for being the partisan hack site we were already sure was the case, and instead of showing some class you try and lie and play a semantics game like a child...

Wow man, you have not one single moral/ethical part you will not sell to save your azz.... I really do feel sorry for you now...


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



Lets see.... I was in here arguing with another poster and then you and your lackey started in being insulting little douchebags... In fact your first post to me was an insult.... So you can stop projecting now troll boy....

LOL, DR.dumazz, you are about as likely to have a PHD as I am to be Barrack Obama..... You think you are the first internet fake scientist I have met? Dude you aren't even close to an original.... I just met another peer review internet pseudo-scientist a few months ago.... He had a hell of a lot better bullshit game than you do.... He claimed to be from the UK, turned out his IP was from Virginia. He posted the same kind of crap about peer review and education=right that you and oldsocks try to pull.

You are one of hundreds like you, all trolling the internet forums from their mothers basement. You feel inadequate but you see yourself a victim of one thing or another which made you so. Hence the liberal ideology.... Its tells you exactly what you want to hear. And tell you how you can save the planet, heal the sick for free, feed the hungry with just pennies a day, and even stop the bad people who tell you to get off your azz and do for yourself.

You are one more in a never ending parade of basement dwelling reclusive momma's boys, who try to play what they either wish they were or feel they could have been given the chance... Well pal if you want to be a scientist, get off your azz and go do it. Just don't waste my time and insult my intelligence with this tired old forum game.... Seen it azzhole...

You can always spot the moms basement dwelling recluse in a web forum.. He is the first one to try this kind of "Im a DR" or "I have a PHD so you must be quiet now"... Only a socially inept, agoraphobic with inadequacy issues would try such a lame and tired old tactic.... or a socially inept teenager which is another possibility.

DR. Dipshit, I have no PHD nor Masters Degree... Nope... Don't even have a BA.... I have no such abbreviations nor fancy acronyms to place either before or after my name.. But I have been working beside people with more acronyms and abbreviated titles and degrees than I bet you have ever even seen.

I am a lowly data analyst.... Yep I specialize in seeing patterns, or ambiguous/arbitrary information in complex or even conflicting sets of data. Sounds very impressive doesn't it.... LOL well There are about a thousand people doing exactly what I do all the time, some as contractors (like myself) and some at various buildings and installations for corporations, institutions, individuals and or governments. We are the types that no one cares to know, we are dull to the point of near coma-inducing. The only people who talk to us outside of telling us to get this or that done now, are the PHD's, the Masters holders and so on.

I been doing my job in one capacity or another for 21 years now. And currently work directly with 3 PHD's one Masters, 2 undergrads, and several other assistants, interns and general programmers. Oh and we have dozens of gophers too. And in all the time I have worked with men and women like these not one time has any of them tried to use their education as a means to intimidate, belittle, or shout me down. Sure we have had a few arrogant pricks but soon they see that people like us make them look brilliant. 

I am the little person, a nobody who has a special talent for spotting the little things most overlook, and the balls to tell people with PHD's and Fancy titles about it.....

What disappointed? LOL you were hoping for a "my education is bigger than yours" pissing contest? HAHAHAHAHA! You would wouldn't you....


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 15, 2010)

From what I have read of Dr. Gregg's posts, I would say that it is likely that he has just what he claims. Unlike Si, he has demonstrated a firm grasp of science.

Which, gslack, you have constantly failed to do.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 15, 2010)

again



Dr Gregg said:


> Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO 2 Problem: Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> From what I have read of Dr. Gregg's posts, I would say that it is likely that he has just what he claims. Unlike Si, he has demonstrated a firm grasp of science.
> 
> Which, gslack, you have constantly failed to do.



Bullshit all he has done (like you) is come in here and parrot what he finds on green blogs and liberal media. They tell you to go here or there and look at this or that chart to prove it and you go. And big shock, it lacks context, accurate explanation and a transparent presentation of its true meaning in the bigger picture. But you don't think about any of that you just post it here and claim its definitive proof of a climate doomsday...

That is not a scientific approach and if you really think it is, that shows how much of a real scientist either of you are. I have yet to see any of you algorian climate prophecy believers ever show any accurate study of the data you post. It always the same tired rhetoric, "you aren't a scientist" or "I am a scientist" or an endless rambling of how this is how it is and no one should question it... Well moron thats the kind idiocy that allowed the Nazis, Napoleon, the church, and every other form of absolutism you can think off.

Ignorant tools who blindly follow without question are the bane of humanity, no matter what their intentions or what they are led to believe. They always tell us how its for our own good, how we are not smart or educated or good enough to understand it, so we need to just trust them. Yeah okay like the people of Germany trusted them, or the every other time people blindly follow.

You two are not scientists by any measure. A scientist by nature, first and foremost is an investigator. Their core is a desire for truth no matter what. Neither of you display this desire at all. The both of you desire to be right, and thats not scientific, thats ego-centric and decidedly not scientific.

So go and post more garbage tool, but leave the claims of science out of it because its Bullshit...


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 15, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > From what I have read of Dr. Gregg's posts, I would say that it is likely that he has just what he claims. Unlike Si, he has demonstrated a firm grasp of science.
> ...



Umm, scientifically supported studies, and those links cite actual scientists and their peer reviewed publications. You are the one parroting anti science nonsense, with absolutely no actual science to back it up. And your name calling gibberish filled rant is hardly a sound scientifically supported rationale.

Just another USMB troll not caring about the facts, just what they want to believe.


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> again
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Once more, the findings above rely on the theory of CO2 and ocean acidification to be both sound and accurate. They take that assumption and do the research accordingly. If the premise (CO2 ocean acidification theory)is correct, than all is well. However, if the premise is inaccurate, overstated, or just plain wrong, than the research is moot.

I contend there is a problem with that premise due to the fact in times where CO2 was 20X higher than today, coral type life forms evolved and flourished. Given the claim the oceans are nearing dangerous acidity now with a 387 ppm of CO2, we would expect at a time when CO2 was 20x times that amount there would have been a mass extinction or non-development and evolution of  lifeforms susceptible and sensitive to ocean acidity. But the historical research shows this to be not the case at all.

So either the premise of CO2 ocean acidification is inaccurate somehow, the historical research is flawed or wrong, or coral adapts on the fly to the environment in such a manner to defy there very chemical basis. The last one seems highly unlikely, so one of the other two must be a problem.

Again if you can't grasp this simple logical conundrum, you are no scientist...


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



In a class room or in a lecture hall peer review has weight. In the real world and in application, its a start. Got that? Also, truth is not based on peer review but rather an acceptance of such over time and with one sided real world evidence giving it the status of accepted fact.

I explained peer review before, don't make me do it again. Like I said I know several scientists and work with them daily. None of them try this tactic....


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 15, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > again
> ...


No science to back it up, all while conveniently ignoring the scientifically supported facts from actual studies that show why your CO2 nonsense is flawed.

Scientists cite their sources, and look to support their claims, not just spout their opinion over and over again and think that makes it true.

YOu keep saying the same shit over and over again. . Someone already mentioned, the coral and organisms back during that period evolved in those conditions, and are far different than the ones today, that are not acclimated to high CO2.   Again, leave science to people that know science, as its clearly if you are going to make the argument that animals flourished in a high CO2 environment (in which they evolved in, so of course they will be able to survive it) and comparing today's organisms who are acclimated to lower CO2 and particular ocean pH. Also, if you can't realize how gradual changes allow animals to adapt to the rising levels, and how rapid changes, like we are seeing today, don't allow them the time to adapt and evolve. You dont' also appear to know about ecology and how sensitive organisms are to drastic changes to their environment. Gradual ones, yes, drastic ones is what leads to mass extinctions


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 15, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



In the real world, nobody takes someone like you seriously, you know uneducated in the field and spouting things on an internet forum with no actual data to back it up.

What fantasy world do you live in?


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 15, 2010)

> More than 150 leading marine scientists from 26 countries are calling for immediate action by policy-makers to sharply reduce CO2 emissions so as to avoid widespread and severe damage to marine ecosystems from ocean acidification.


 Global Scientists Draw Attention To Threat Of Ocean Acidification

I'll take the word of trained, leading marine scientists in the world, over some guy who rants and raves on an internet message board and doesn't back up his simple minded claims



> *It is well established among researchers that the uptake of increased amounts of carbon dioxide will make ocean water more acidic as the gas dissolves to create carbonic acid*. Ocean chemistry is changing 100 times more rapidly than in the 650,000 years that preceded the modern industrial era and since the late 1980s, researchers at Scripps Oceanography and others have recorded an overall drop in the pH of the oceans from 8.16 to 8.05.



Well established. You keep mentioning some lame problem with the cambrian period, but you don't think all the scientists studying this and those reviewing and scrutinizing the scientists work didn't think of that?

now, maybe you should publish your results if you can overturn a theory that is so well established and supported by the marine biologist community.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 15, 2010)

http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/FAQ.



> Present conditions differ from the past largely because the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 does not match the rate of mitigating geological processes. If CO2 is added slowly over hundreds of thousands of years, as it was during the Ordovician by volcanic and plate tectonic activity, the CO2 that enters the ocean has time to mix throughout the ocean from top to bottom. As a result, even though the amount of CO2 that is taken up by the ocean is large, it is spread out over a very great volume of water and the resulting decrease in pH is small. At the same time, as the CO2 level in deep oceans increases over millennia, carbonate sediments lying on the seafloor begin to dissolve and release carbonate ions that neutralize some of the acidity, further minimizing the decrease in pH. P*ast oceans also contained higher calcium and magnesium ion concentrations, which helped stabilize calcium carbonate minerals in marine animals&#8217; skeletons. 	*
> Today, the* CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing much faster than the ocean mixes.* During CO2 releases like this over &#8220;short&#8221; (<10,000 year) timescales, the ability of sediments to regulate ocean chemistry is overwhelmed and both pH and saturation state decline. Even though the amount of CO2 that has entered the ocean in the last 200 years is smaller than that added during the Ordovician, the CO2 has built up to a much higher concentration in the surface ocean. As a result, upper ocean pH has decreased more rapidly and by a greater amount than in the geological past. Both the rate of change of pH and the magnitude of the change present problems for organisms that evolved in an ocean that experienced smaller, slower pH changes in the past. &#8212;  Chris Langdon, Associate Professor, University of Miami, USA; Andy Ridgwell, Royal Society University Research Fellow, Bristol University, UK; Richard Zeebe, Associate Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA; Daniela Schmidt, Senior Research Fellow, University of Bristol, UK


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 15, 2010)

Does somebody have a hatchet and a tree stump to stop these chicken littles from squawking?  I mean my GOD!  

First it was DDT.  
Then it was the Population bomb.  
Then it was the coming Ice Age.  
Then it was peak oil.  
Then it was acid rain. 
Then it was Nuclear Power.
Then it was the Greenhouse effect. 
Then it was CFCs and the Ozone Hole.  
Then it was Global Warming.  
Then it was Climate Change.  

NOW.... *NOW*... for fuck's sake it's OCEAN ACIDIFICATION!!!!

Oh but they have charts and graphs and dim bulb scientists who wanna be faaaaaamous and come up with half assed pseudo science to make it look like the world's going to end tomorrow.  Jeebus H Criminy!  Are you guys sitting too close to your cyclotrons?!?  Do you need another hobby???  What the hell is WRONG with you idiots?!?

The world's not going to end tomorrow by anything you can predict today.  Maybe bam we get popped by a meteor out of the blue or Yellowstone explodes in some sillyassed fear mongering made for ratings "science" show on the History Channel, Volcano.  But the chances of that are so astronomical, you may as well believe that we evolved from random chemical combinations somewhere in the far far distant past.

(secretary whispers in hear) uh huh... uh huh... oh really?  (looks shocked at you Chicken Littles)  No come on... they really?... Wow.  And they think intelligent creation is impossible too huh?  Wow.  No wonder.

Nevermind, it has just been determined you people cannot survive by your wits alone and should be kept away from power tools, the press and positions of responsibility... for the rest of our safety.  Go do whatever you want, over there.  I'll even give you some nice blasting caps and plastic bags to play with.

Ta ta!


----------



## PixieStix (Apr 15, 2010)

Maybe it is just me, but when I saw " Ocean acidification" I started laughing really hard 

And thought of this song 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRNTQvXSsfA[/ame]


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 15, 2010)

Well somebody dropped acid and I don't think it was the ocean, and I'm certainly not tripping.


----------



## PixieStix (Apr 15, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Well somebody dropped acid and I don't think it was the ocean, and I'm certainly not tripping.


----------



## PixieStix (Apr 15, 2010)

Ocean acidification is not complete without a chart, I demand a chart!


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



Ok see the bolded parts? Those are the only parts that mean anything in all that. The rest is all your idiotic ramblings..... So in order...

1. LOL, douchebag no science is needed to back it up its a simple logical problem with the theory. They have one group of scientists claiming that ocean acidification due to CO2 acidification caused a mass extinction of sea life 55 million or so years ago. And then we have another group who tell us that during the times in the past where CO2 concentrations were 20x the levels of today sea life flourished and evolved.. So WTF? which is correct?

If we are to believe the claims of CO2 ocean acidification theory, than we have to ignore the one groups findings altogether. So then fossil records (physical evidence) are to be ignored in favor of theoretical (non-physical evidence) hypothesis..... Any scientists that does that is no scientist.

2. Dude coral is based on elements and compounds that are disintegrated in acidic conditions. Remember the cries over ocean acidity bleaching the coral reefs, making the clams and such have thinner shells, and all the other hysteria? Yeah that was your guys crying that remember? 

So a life form based on a compound that cannot exist in acidic conditions Like coral, be it billions, millions, or even a couple years ago would be equally susceptible to acidity. But from the fossil records they were alive and thriving in much higher CO2 concentrations.

Moron we aren't talking about a fish or a complex organism evolving and adapting, we are talking about the simplest of life whose structure is based on compounds that break down in acidic conditions.. 

Now personally DR. Douchebag, I don't care what you think of my education. I  know enough to nail your MO right away. YOU are a basement dwelling momma's boy trying to play big and smart, and failing miserably.

You are busted, I work with PHD's and they don't act like you. Also you respond to every bit of pro-AGW psuedo-science like it's all an already established fact. If your behavior, manner and inability to process and think logically were not enough to give your lie away, than that little flaw should. Its a serious flaw that no scientist could have and get anywhere.

You are a fake, one more internet wannabe.....


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



Quiet basement boy, no one cares what a fake has to say....

As far as my education, I didn't say what my education was, I just told you what it wasn't.... Don't go jumping to conclusions or trying to appear better or smarter here dumazz, it would be a bad move for you trust me...


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 15, 2010)

Acid In The Oceans: A Growing Threat To Sea Life : NPR

August 12, 2009 
When we burn fossil fuels, we are not just putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A lot of it goes into the sea. There, carbon dioxide turns into carbonic acid. And that turns ocean water corrosive, particularly to shellfish and corals. 

Biologists are now coming to realize that rising acid levels in the ocean can affect many other forms of sea life as well. 

Visit Moss Landing, Calif., in the spring and at first blush it seems marine life is flourishing. Sea lions, weighing in at 600 pounds or more, jostle for space and spar with one another as they try to cram themselves onto docks that groan under their weight. 

Marine biologist Eric Pane looks on approvingly at what seems to be part of a Pacific success story. Up and down the coast, biologists see healthy populations of marine mammals, fish and other wildlife.


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/FAQ.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only a internet basement dweller trying to play scientist would go to an agency whose bread and butter is the study of the very theory in question, and pretend it is evidence....

Look idiot, if I wanted to prove Cheney wasn't profiteering off of Haliburton during the war, I wouldn't use his testimony and say "see I told you so".... I also wouldn't go to Haliburton and ask them either.... but then again I am smart like that, and you aren't...


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 15, 2010)

20091210263 | Acid Oceans- warning to Copenhagen negotiators | News | What do we do?

Acid Oceans- warning to Copenhagen negotiators  



A scientific summary on ocean acidification, written by a team of researchers from France, Germany, the UK, the USA, and Australia, and coordinated by the European Project on Ocean Acidification (EPOCA), was released today in Copenhagen.



The guide aims to increase understanding of the science of ocean acidification and shows in clear and simple terms how the ocean is being made more acidic by human-produced carbon dioxide emissions. The guide, written for policymakers worldwide, illustrates the double impact of climate change and ocean acidification on our seas, both caused by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. It sets out the basic facts about the progressive acidification of the ocean and its impact on marine ecosystems.



The 30% increase in ocean acidity since the Industrial Revolution represents a pace of chemical change faster than any in the past 55 million years. &#8220;We now have data from nature that ocean acidification is already having an impact on some marine organisms,&#8221; says guide contributor Dr Will Howard of the Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC) in Hobart, Tasmania. &#8220;Until recently the impact on marine life had only been predicted from computer models and laboratory experiments; now we have demonstrated the effect in the ocean itself.&#8221;


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Acid In The Oceans: A Growing Threat To Sea Life : NPR
> 
> August 12, 2009
> When we burn fossil fuels, we are not just putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A lot of it goes into the sea. There, carbon dioxide turns into carbonic acid. And that turns ocean water corrosive, particularly to shellfish and corals.
> ...



More classic excuse making...Nice!

It was CO2 in the atmosphere making the oceans acidic, and now its not just that but all of this too.....

Sure buddy sure.... Ya know what it really is? Its a snowjob.... THey are caught in this lie and so just like they do every other time the first try and make it vague and all encompassing, and then they will quietly stop making the claims on it. 

Kind of like how global warming became Climate change when they found out the planet was actually cooling..... Nice try....


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 15, 2010)

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms : Abstract : Nature

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms

James C. Orr1, Victoria J. Fabry2, Olivier Aumont3, Laurent Bopp1, Scott C. Doney4, Richard A. Feely5, Anand Gnanadesikan6, Nicolas Gruber7, Akio Ishida8, Fortunat Joos9, Robert M. Key10, Keith Lindsay11, Ernst Maier-Reimer12, Richard Matear13, Patrick Monfray1,19, Anne Mouchet14, Raymond G. Najjar15, Gian-Kasper Plattner7,9, Keith B. Rodgers1,16,19, Christopher L. Sabine5, Jorge L. Sarmiento10, Reiner Schlitzer17, Richard D. Slater10, Ian J. Totterdell18,19, Marie-France Weirig17, Yasuhiro Yamanaka8 & Andrew Yool18

Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, UMR CEA-CNRS, CEA Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France 
Department of Biological Sciences, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, California 92096-0001, USA 
Laboratoire d'Océanographie et du Climat: Expérimentations et Approches Numériques (LOCEAN), Centre IRD de Bretagne, F-29280 Plouzané, France 
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543-1543, USA 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, Washington 98115-6349, USA 
NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey 08542, USA 
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, UCLA, Los Angeles, California 90095-4996, USA 
Frontier Research Center for Global Change, Yokohama 236-0001, Japan 
Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland 
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (AOS) Program, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-0710, USA 
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307-3000, USA 
Max Planck Institut für Meteorologie, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany 
CSIRO Marine Research and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia 
Astrophysics and Geophysics Institute, University of Liege, B-4000 Liege, Belgium 
Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-5013, USA 
LOCEAN, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, F-75252 Paris, France 
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany 
National Oceanography Centre Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK 
&#8224;Present addresses: Laboratoire d'Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, UMR 5566 CNES-CNRS-IRD-UPS, F-31401 Toulouse, France (P.M.); AOS Program, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-0710, USA (K.B.R.); The Met Office, Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK (I.J.T.)
Correspondence to: James C. Orr1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.C.O. (Email: orr@cea.fr).


Top of pageAbstract

Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms&#8212;such as corals and some plankton&#8212;will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean&#8211;carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> 20091210263 | Acid Oceans- warning to Copenhagen negotiators | News | What do we do?
> 
> Acid Oceans- warning to Copenhagen negotiators
> 
> ...



Make that two internet basement dwellers..... oldsocks are you really this stupid?

You had to have seen me point out the problem with accepting the claims of the EPOCA? Their reason for existence relies on the theory in question. A theory which does not hold up to scrutiny. 

Dude never ever defend yourself in court...... You would be convicted of being dangerously ignorant and sentenced to death to prevent it from spreading.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 15, 2010)

Rising Ocean Acidity May Deplete Vital Phytoplankton : Discovery News

Rising Ocean Acidity May Deplete Vital Phytoplankton
Iron-poor oceans may cause populations of phytoplankton -- a critical base of the marine food chain -- to decline. By Jessica Marshall | Thu Jan 14, 2010 09:55 AM ET  
Changing ocean chemistry caused by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide may reduce the availability of dissolved iron to marine phytoplankton, as the kind shown here.
NOAA

Rising acid levels in the world's oceans appear to be robbing the tiny animals that form the bedrock of the marine food web of a vital nutrient. This shift in the ocean's chemistry could reduce populations of phytoplankton, which could touch off a cascade of changes to ocean life. 

Roughly one-third of the oceans contain phytoplankton that are limited in their growth by the amount of iron available to them. A study published today in Science, suggested that zone could grow. 

"The concept of changes to ocean productivity and ecosystems due to acidification is a very important one to consider," said Ken Buesseler of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Mass., who was not a part of the study. "If half of the photosynthesis on the planet is in the ocean and if you reduce that because of acidification, that is a big deal." 

Ocean acidification is a trickle-down effect of climate change. Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drive more CO2 to dissolve into the ocean, making it more acidic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 15, 2010)

Ocean Acidification from CO 2 Is Happening Faster Than Thought: Scientific American

From the February 2009 Scientific American Magazine | 17 comments

Ocean Acidification from CO2 Is Happening Faster Than Thought
Carbon dioxide may be acidifying seawater faster than thought
By Charles Q. Choi 

A lesser-known consequence of having a lot of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air is the acidification of water. Oceans naturally absorb the greenhouse gas; in fact, they take in roughly one third of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by human activities. When CO2 dissolves in water, it forms carbonic acid, the same substance found in carbonated beverages. New research now suggests that seawater might be growing acidic more quickly than climate change models have predicted.

Marine ecologist J. Timothy Wootton of the University of Chicago and his colleagues spent eight years compiling measurements of acidity, salinity, temperature and other data from Tatoosh Island off the northwestern tip of Washington State. They found that the average acidity rose more than 10 times faster than predicted by climate simulations.

Highly acidic water can wreak havoc on marine life. For instance, it can dissolve the calcium carbonate in seashells and coral reefs [see &#8220;The Dangers of Ocean Acidification,&#8221; by Scott C. Doney; Scientific American, March 2006]. In their study, published in the December 2 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Wootton and his team discovered that the balance of ecosystems shifted: populations of large-shelled animals such as mussels and stalked barnacles dropped, whereas smaller-shelled species and noncalcareous algae (species that lack calcium-based skeletons) became more abundant. &#8220;I see it as a harbinger of the trends we might expect to occur in the future,&#8221; says oceanographer Scott C. Doney of the Woods Hole Ocean*ographic Institution, who did not participate in this study.


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms : Abstract : Nature
> 
> Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms
> 
> ...



Okay either you don't read half of what you post, or you don't understand it..... Look at the bolded part and actually read it this time.....

Hmm, so going by the theory of CO2 ocean acidification, the coral and such like would be dead soon because of it... Correct? Good...

So then if the theory is correct coral should have died out or not even have evolved when they did, given the much higher levels of CO2 before....

See the problem? This sinking in yet?

Either the theory is off, or the claims of its effects on sea life are off so which is it?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 15, 2010)

Off-Balance Ocean | Science & Technology | Chemical & Engineering News

Off-Balance Ocean
Acidification from absorbing atmospheric CO2 is changing the ocean's chemistry
Rachel Petkewich

PEOPLE CAN'T walk on water, but scientists say the carbon dioxide emitted by humans into the atmosphere has started to leave noticeable footprints on the ocean.


Justin Ries (both) 
View Enlarged Image 
Contrast Calcifying organisms, such as these sea urchins grown in seawater acidified with 400 ppm CO2 (left)&#8212;the current level in the ocean&#8212;produce spines that are truncated by dissolution when reared in seawater acidified with 2,850 ppm CO2 (right), an extreme level for lab tests. Numbered scale in centimetersScientists have been concerned for years that lower ocean pH caused by absorption of CO2 emissions could decrease calcification processes underlying the growth of shells and corals' hard exteriors. Besides studying that phenomenon, they are investigating how acidification alters the concentration and behavior of the ocean's trace metals, some of which are nutrients for marine life. They are also looking into some unexpected consequences of ocean acidification, such as disruptions to sound propagation and transmission of chemical cues. Some scientists believe the net effect of these and other yet undiscovered changes may threaten the survival of a wide variety of marine organisms.


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2010)

HAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHAA! 

going to use the spamming approach?.... HAHHAHA! you go boy!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 15, 2010)

gslack, what sinks in is that you clearly understand almost nothing that you read. And you are not a scientist, so why don't you post some links to real scientists that state things are as you state? Once again, note the links in my posts.


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack, what sinks in is that you clearly understand almost nothing that you read. And you are not a scientist, so why don't you post some links to real scientists that state things are as you state? Once again, note the links in my posts.



Why don't you post something that you actually thought about? Seriously when was the last time you used your mind for something more than repeating the crap given to you by those you think better?

Why don't you tell me what YOU think, and not what they tell you or want you to think....


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 15, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...




Yet, still no science to support any of your claims 

what is it children week on USMB?


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 15, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Acid In The Oceans: A Growing Threat To Sea Life : NPR
> ...


Still no science


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Whenever I see this kind of behavior I know I hit a nerve....

SO....How long you going to live in mom's basement? I bet you're a thirty-something porn addict who doesn't leave the house until mom makes you mow the lawn or take out the trash... Either that or you're some maladjusted, socially inept, home schooled, teenage pimple popper with too much free time...

So which is it DR. Douchebag? 

LOL, takes real special kind of social outcast to get on a web forum and claim to be a doctor.... Seriously, how many people do you really think believe your bullshit? Or even better how many PHD, Masters, or BA degree holders with real research jobs (like you claim you are) actually either have the time to spend on here that you do, or would even feel the need to come here and try to convince people they are a doctor and worry about what some web forum people think about AGW???

HAHHAHAHAHA! Thats the most damming thing about it all really.... Why would DR with a research job care what some internet forum people think? Is there a lack of compelling conversation amongst the so-called intellectual elite? LOL

Dude you are an idiot... Only an idiot would deny logic and reason because of a theory has to be true... Like Sherlock Holmes said; if you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how highly improbable, must be the truth. And the claims of ocean acidification cause by atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a prime example of this....

Now DR. Douchebag, why don't you go and think for yourself once, and use your own logic and reason for a change. And stop parroting what some else tells you. You claim to be so educated and smart, why not show it for a change....


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



SOOOO.....going to take the cowardly little azzhole style the oldsocks adopted and neg rep me? Nice, very nice.....

Look DR. Dumazz, if you can't think for yourself than you are no scientist. And if you have to resort neg repping me than you are also not an adult. At least not one with any social skills.....

Why don't you stick your tongue out at me too..... Freakin child


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...





actually no troll, no nerve hit. I'm laughing at your frothing at the mouth, excessive name calling rants, and continual lack of any scientific citations. Looks like we are the one that hit a nerve.  The irony of calling me a child is I backed up what I said with actual science, and you have just ranted and raved.  You think your comments are adult like? Not even a clever troll, just so blatant.



Still no science from you


----------



## k2skier (Apr 16, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



when youre badly losing an argument, accuse others of what youre doing (or are) lmfao, get a life


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

k2skier said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



Think that is his idea of being an adult


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



Science? LOL, dude you went to a place whose sole purpose to prove the link between CO2 and ocean acidification and big shock you got what you wanted to hear... Science HA!

Dude you wouldn't know real science if it bit you. 

As far as my comments, you may have noticed I haven't resorted to neg repping, but you have.... Care to enlighten as to how that is the behavior of a scientist?
Dude you are a fake, and a fraud. You are a doctor like I am the pope...


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2010)

k2skier said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



First post? No we see you have a lot of posts, but no rep power.... How does that happen? So many posts yet no rep....


HA! my azz, so whose little friend or sockpuppet are you? Very very mature...


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Yet, I support my statements with links to peer reviewed articles, and you just spout bullshit without backing or supporting anything you said.  Yes, I'm the one that doesn't know anything about science  how many years of research experience do you have, I have 11 years

Still no science to back up anything you said. Please, where is the peer reviewed journal article supporting your claims, Old Rocks and I have provided plenty.


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



YOU IDIOT!

I didn't make any claims I refuted your claims moron. You have done nothing but repeat the AGW algorian mantra. So what if it comes from a group dedicated to its study, what do you expect from a pig but a grunt..

I have yet to see anything that addresses the truth of the theory itself. ALL of the crap you and dipshit have posted relies on the same assumption. Hell oldsocks even posted from groups whose very existence relies on the theory already being fact. WTF? Its not fact because it has very large holes in it...

You algorians crack me up. You cite this peer review as absolute truth when any science major could tell you peer review is not a statement of fact. Look at all the theories that are proven wrong after publishing and peer review. Now grow up and actually learn a little bit more than what they tell you moron.

You realize the paper disproving the hockey stick graph was peer reviewed. Yeah dr dipshit peer review is not a statement of fact, and anyone who claims it is, is an idiot or a liar...


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



In order to refute, you need stuff to back it up. Simply making bullshit statements is not backing anything up. Maybe you should publish your results if you can refute the scientifically supported position of ocean acidification. Oh, that's right, you think you can refute stuff without showing any supporting evidence and scientifically supported facts 

Quite funny to see you continually make an ass out of yourself

get off the forum child


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



They aren't bullshit statements dr douchebag, they are a challenge to the logic. A challenge that you have avoided like a plague, you and your little algorian pal. You keep posting all kinds of crap that does not address the point I raised and then try to contend it refutes something... Dumazz do you understand anything I say to you at all? Or are you too dam ignorant to understand how to think?

Do you understand critical thinking? How about logic? Do you get the fact there is an entire community of scientists all banking on this AGW being sound? Entire research budgets get granted and taken away based on its application to AGW and related studies. SO you will find peer reviewed papers to wipe the azz of every body on the planet and still have paper left. And in the end it won't make any of it any more true or factual than it was in al gores film...

Now grow up basement boy, you been caught trying to play doctor with the wrong man..... You are no scientists punk....


----------



## konradv (Apr 16, 2010)

_You have done nothing but repeat the AGW algorian mantra._
-------------------------

_Prima facie_ evidence that the poster doesn't understand the topic.  Those that do, discuss it.  Those that don't, mention Gore.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



In science, you have to prove your logic. THis isn't philosophy where you just make wild statements without anything to back it up. That's what separates philosophy from science, in science you seek to support your logic is in fact true, until then, its nothing but unsubstantiated bullshit.
Funny you think you have better logic than the leading scientists in the matter that have been highly educated and are experts on the field.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 16, 2010)

In the last year we have:

1.  Discovered raw data is almost impossible to retrieve.
2.  Discovered sea level is dropping.
3.  Found the bulk of ice caps are growing globally.
4.  See that the lead science body has made a habit of manipulating data.
5.  Know that opposition to the global warming group has been harassed in the science community.
6.  Had to correct a great deal of results due to errors.
7.  Found gross errors in UN climate documents.

On this board, a number of us have repeatedly shown the faithers to be absolutely certain of the warming and consider it settled science.  konradv, please consider distancing yourself from the trolling so often done by Dr Gregg.  There is hope for you still.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> In the last year we have:
> 
> 1.  Discovered raw data is almost impossible to retrieve.
> 2.  Discovered sea level is dropping.
> ...



Sure, trolling with facts and logic and making all you ignorant, partisan hack assholes look stupid 

Like someone who claims pissing on someone is free speech really has a foot to stand on


----------



## k2skier (Apr 16, 2010)

gslack said:


> k2skier said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



cluelss fuckstick


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> In the last year we have:
> 
> 1.  Discovered raw data is almost impossible to retrieve.
> 2.  Discovered sea level is dropping.
> ...



But no links to back a single statement. Just idiocy pulled out of your asshole.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 16, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > In the last year we have:
> ...



It is common knowledge at this point and has been posted in threads repeatedly.  You are well aware of them and your insults have no effect.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Really? Repeatedly posted and shown to be totally wrong.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 16, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Well, i'm going to look at this as progress.  You admitted in whole or part that many of my points were true.  I used documented research to disprove your sea level claim.  You used a blog.  Nice.


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



YES YOU DO have to prove your logic. AND that is the problem with your parroting what others tell you without even checking it for obvious logical fallacies. You have done nothing but post crap after crap and then scream that its fact. When we point out problems in the basic premise and logic behind it, you post more of the same crap and then scream about it again. You never showed any bit of logic or reason, or even basic understanding of what you posted.

Want me to demonstrate fake dr boy?.... Here we go...

I have a close friend/co-worker who is a theoretical physicist. His capacity at work is the lead in our little group of number crunchers, coders, and analysts (me). Basically he oversees all our work and tries to keep things from going beyond the factual to the realm hypothetical. Understand so far?

I am the lead analyst, we work closely all the time. I kick my groups findings to him after I go over them, and then he makes sure my reasoning and logic are sound, and that I stay within the proper scope of the task and not venture into speculation. 

You see thats the problem with our kind of work. It's real easy for relatively smart people to make assumptions based on their own preconceptions and thoughts. So we need two people to make sure we stay in the proper frame. I oversee the analysts, the coder lead oversees the coders, and my friend ( call him dave ) Dave oversees all of us. That process is essential to our work.

Now our findings and recommendations are only as sound as the data we derive it from. If we get an inaccurate report that is key to the premise, the report or recommendation will be off. And no amount of excuse making, stretching, or reaching for a hypothesis to secure that premise will change that. And that my ignorant little forum fake is how a scientific process is protected and maintained in research.

Your links, all of them all regard CO2 ocean acidification as fact. That is their premise. However many scientists look at it in published journals and nod their heads that their equations and practices are correct according to what they see in the paper, it means nothing unless the theory holds up in real world application. But we find fossil records stating that life that was particularly susceptible to Ocean acidification not only survived but evolved and thrived at times where the CO2 was 20 times the level of today. 

They claim that even current levels of CO2 are causing severe problems with these same type of life forms in the oceans today, and if CO2 levels increase much more those life forms will perish. They even cite fossil evidence from the past showing what they believe to be mass extinctions, and they claim it was due to CO2 levels turning the oceans acidic.

But if that is the case, why did they not die off millions of years ago when CO2 was much higher? If they evolved some form of resistance to this back then, why didn't they evolve that resistance in the same manner again rather than die off? Why indeed....

You see the problem here yet? Its a illogical to make assumptions either way especially when the premise is so full of holes and unexplainable points of contention. 

What we have here is a series of organizations and research groups, all banking on this. We already know how research money is granted. hot ticket items get the bigger shares and fan fair. And AGW is the biggest ticket. You want funding? then it better be what will sell or what is wanted, and right now that is AGW. Its hip and cool and all the celebrities back it. And there are all those new grant allocations for climate change research or green tech.

So do you really think it is shocking when you can cite a review of a paper up for publication, that supports some form of climate change or CO2 theory from a group who tells you in their mission statement they are in fact trying to prove climate change and educate on it? Give me a break..... Of course they will publish, its the dream of most scientists these days. And if you want the recognition of your peers you will publish, publish, publish...

So do us all a favor and stop with ignorant childish wannabe scientist crap. its fake and it shows...


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 17, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> In the last year we have:
> 
> 1.  Discovered raw data is almost impossible to retrieve.
> 2.  Discovered sea level is dropping.
> ...


no no... we've moved on from that.  Now it's gonna turn the ocean into giant pools of acid and eat us all up, yum.

If this is science, P.T. Barnum was a Physicist.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 17, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Once again, the ridiculous ranting of a someone on a message board, without a single citation to back it up. 

The increase in adidity in the oceans is a measured fact.

An increase in CO2 content in the ocean will result in increased acidity is what Chemical theory states, and is being validated by present observations.

No amount of obfuscation on your part can change any of this.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 17, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



SOS: Sea Level Rise

There are many questions surrounding climate change. One big question is how the changing climate will affect the oceans. The sea level has been steadily rising since 1900 at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters per year. In fact, since 1992 new methods of satellite altimetry using the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters per year. The Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC states that "there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. " - Fourth Assessment Report on Sea Level Rise Sea level can rise by two different mechanisms with respect to climate change. The first is the expansion of the sea water as the oceans warm due to an increasing global temperature. The second mechanism is the melting of ice over land, which then adds water to the ocean. The IPCC TAR predicts that total global-average sea level rise from 1990 - 2100 will be 110 to 770 millimeters (.77m).


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 17, 2010)

Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea level rise

Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea level rise 
Sea level rise
One of the most significant potential impacts of climate change is sea level rise that may cause inundation of coastal areas and islands, shoreline erosion, and destruction of important ecosystems such as wetlands and mangroves. As global temperatures increase, sea level rises due to a thermal expansion of upper layers of the ocean and melting of glaciers and ice sheets.

The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Satellite altimeter radar measurements can be combined with precisely known spacecraft orbits to measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. A series of satellite missions that started with TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) in 1992 and continued with Jason-1 (2001) and Jason-2 (2008) estimate global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3&#8211;4 mm. This climate record has continued with Jason-2 beginning in mid-2008.

Jason-2, launched 20 June 2008, is a joint effort between NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, France's Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT).

The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 17, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea level rise
> 
> Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea level rise
> Sea level rise
> ...



You mean the ARGO system.  This blog shows global graphed data for all the data points from ARGO, which shows a 1mm/yr trend in sea level drop.

The Hockey Schtick: Global Sea Level Decrease 2004-2010


----------



## gslack (Apr 17, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...





> There have been many, many studies, measurements of the increasing acidity, worldwide. That is a fact.



Many, many studies about ocean acidity which already make the assumption of it being caused by CO2 you idiot. When the fact is there no less than 6 other compounds rated above CO2 whose fluctuations could result in ocean acidity levels rising. But you and your algorian dipshits, pseudo-scientists and even real scientists who have their professional reputation riding on CO2 alone being the cause seem determined to ignore those all and focus on this one possibility. The fact is any of the 7 alone could be the cause, yet the7y and you want this to be the cause and forget everything else....

Well retard that just isn't good enough anymore... Look at all the things scientists have been not just wrong about, but dangerously wrong about. DDT, X-Rays, everyday we see this or that medication which was created, examined, tested, and given the go ahead by scientists has now been found to do more harm than it ever did good. For all of that crap alone I can tell them and you to kiss my azz on this theory. 



> Ain't a real world application, boy. It is measured data.



And statements like that are why we know you are no scientist.... Real world application is the goal of scientific theory you imbecile.... If its just supposed to be a theory with no real use than its just rambling. The ignorance you just displayed in that is astounding even for a basement dwelling forum troll. The very core of scientific research hopes for one day a real world application.... What a freakin moron....



> So that is the ethics of your group. Most people in science are a good deal more ethical than that.



Moron why don't you tell me what my side is then.... Azzhole you don't even understand the idea that this is not about republican or democrat or liberal versus conservative. Why don't you ask about my political standing first before you make assumptions like a real scientist would....

Scientists more ethical huh? Okay like the ones who work for Monsanto? Yeah they made DDT, then tried to cover up its bad side effects. And today they are helping to create a new system of seed, fertilizer and pesticide which are dependent on one another. This will force farmers to buy Monsanto round-up ready seed every season. Have their products copyrighted and got the courts to declare saving their seed each season is illegal. They also have scientists who created Bovine Growth Hormone which has been talked about all over the press for its destructive and dangerous results on both dairy cows and the milk they produce.

or how about the scientists who made all those medicines that are continually turning up deadly. Scientists helped to create all those ephedrine energy supplements which are now illegal. Scientists told us that tobacco was harmless or even actually healthy at one time. In fact scientists work in the freaking labs that still churn out more and new ways to get nicotine into peoples system. Scientists are the ones who make WMD's, biological weapons and many many other terrible things that should not have been invented..

Why? Because they get so wrapped up in if they can do this, they forget to examine if they should. They are so eager to be successful and or famous for a theory or discovery, they don't even give a second thought before they jump. This is a business to them every bit as real as Big Oil. 

That was another telling example of how you are no scientist. All scientists know there are just as many unethical shits in the scientific fields as there are in any other. Education doesn't necessitate ethics, and brains doesn't equate decency. Hitler was a genius too...



> Once again, the ridiculous ranting of a someone on a message board, without a single citation to back it up.




Only an idiotic fake like you would deny solid logic and reason because it wasn't peer reviewed. And whats worse no real scientist would go to a web forum and demand every refutation have a peer reviewed paper to back it up.. This isn't yale or harvard, and its not MIT, its a web forum douchebag... 

You couldn't out yourself as a fake any more than you just have...




> Once again, the ridiculous ranting of a someone on a message board, without a single citation to back it up.
> 
> The increase in adidity in the oceans is a measured fact.
> 
> ...



Measured fact? Well then it shouldn't be a problem for you to show some actual real world evidence of this... Not the crap you have been posting because all of it is operating on the assumption of it being fact already....

CO2 can effect PH balance but the effect is based on other compounds. CO2 is a amplifier to those other elements resulting in PH fluctuations. If those compounds change in essence or volume and CO2 is present then we see the change. The reality is CO2 volume has little to do with actual PH balance without those other elements.

The way they make the claim is "CO2 causes ocean acidity". When the true way to say it would be "CO2 reacting with other compounds can cause ocean acidity". The volume or amount of CO2 can alter PH but only if the other compounds are present and in correct quantities and distribution. Co2 alone is no where near a threat no matter how much we make. CO2 with other compounds in correct conditions and criteria is another matter.

And those other compounds and their required conditions are left out of the claims made by the algorians and their bought and paid for researchers.

Now want to debate the logic feel free. Want to go and google to see if my claims about CO2 chemical reactions and requiring other compounds to effect PH? Please knock yourself out.... BUt don't cry and tell me its not scientific just because its not from a green blog linked peer reviewed paper, because thats just juvenile..


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 17, 2010)

*A much more factual blog. However, since I posted several referances to Peer Reviewed articles confiming the increasing rate of sea level rise, blogs are really not needed.*

A broader view of sea level rise

Tuesday, 12 May, 2009
A broader view of sea level rise
The last post on sea level rise emphasised that when analysing sea level rise (or any climate trends for that matter), it's inadequate to use just a few year's worth of data. However, I only went back 16 years. To obtain a more complete picture of sea level rise, I'm taking my own advice and going back to 1870.

Global mean sea level (eg - the global average height of the ocean) has typically been calculated from tidal gauges. Tide gauges measure the height of the sea surface relative to coastal benchmarks. The problem with this is the height of the land is not always constant. Tectonic movements can alter it, as well as Glacial Isostatic Adjustment. This is where land which was formerly pressed down by massive ice sheets, rebounds now that the ice sheets are gone.

To construct a global historical record of sea levels, tide gauge records are taken from locations away from plate boundaries and subject to little isostatic rebound. This has been done in A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise (Church 2006) which reconstructs global sea level rise from tide gauges across the globe. An updated version of the sea level plot is displayed in Figure 1


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 17, 2010)

gslack, did not even bother to read more than three sentences into your silly rant. You are just not worth the time to reply.


----------



## gslack (Apr 17, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack, did not even bother to read more than three sentences into your silly rant. You are just not worth the time to reply.



Oldsocks, you are an al gore faithful, your jumping from this part of AGW theory to the other without affirming the original is evidence to that. in this thread alone you have tried desperately to not prove this or that part of it right, but rather to confound the thread with an endless barrage of crap all saying the same thing. you don't really care if the theory is sound, all you care about is pushing it because they tell you to...

So why don't you just kiss my azz. I know you didn't read it, you never even read the crap you parrot or post here. And that is an established fact...


----------



## konradv (Apr 18, 2010)

_The reality is CO2 volume has little to do with actual PH balance without those other elements._
----------------------

That's patently false!  Bubble CO2 into distilled water and, despite there being NO other elements present, the pH WILL GO DOWN!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 18, 2010)

konradv said:


> _The reality is CO2 volume has little to do with actual PH balance without those other elements._
> ----------------------
> 
> That's patently false!  Bubble CO2 into distilled water and, despite there being NO other elements present, the pH WILL GO DOWN!



ZOMG!!! Fizzy soda is melting the ice caps and turning the oceans onto stomach acid!


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2010)

konradv said:


> _The reality is CO2 volume has little to do with actual PH balance without those other elements._
> ----------------------
> 
> That's patently false!  Bubble CO2 into distilled water and, despite there being NO other elements present, the pH WILL GO DOWN!



Look dufus, if you aren't going to use the quote feature. and you aren't going to read my post fully and comment on it fairly, than why don't you sit quietly somewhere...

Had you actually read my post or were even capable of understanding it, you would realize I explained the CO2 theory in a simplified manner. Even DR. DOuchebage and oldsoxks haven't tried denying....

look carefully.... You are the only moron fro your side left on this thread now. There is a reason for that, its cause they checked my explanation and found it correct, or they knew it correct on their own and knew better than to try and argue it.

CO2 alone will not effect PH balance in water on its own enough to make any real measurable difference in the ocean. It takes other elements for CO2 to react with to effect the kind of PH shift your scientists are claiming. They (scientists) know this but its more popular and gets more grant money if they simplify it and simply say CO2 did it. Technically correct in a sense, but also completely wrong in reality and real world application. It does effect PH but ti takes the presence of those other elements to do any real drastic changes.

SO again quote me fairly worm, or just stop talking to me. Your rudeness and desire to oppose the accepted way we quote people here for no reason other than you wanting to be a douchebag, is intolerable. I don't send my kids out in the world if they can't function and work with others. SO I refuse to accept it from other peoples kid..


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 18, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > gslack, did not even bother to read more than three sentences into your silly rant. You are just not worth the time to reply.
> ...



So dumb, Al Gore has nothing to do with the science, he's just a spokesperson. The actual science and what actual scientists have to say that matters. Once again, shows you know shit about science if you are going to claim Al Gore has anything to do with the science behind global warming


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 18, 2010)

gsucks, such scientific words you use. THe words moron, asshole, and all the other shit you spew are such scientific terms 

Why do people bother trolling? WHat do they get out of it?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 18, 2010)

Distilled water's ph is between 5.6 and 7.  It is going to move toward 7 or above with the introduction of any acid.  I guess my question is this, you finding much distilled water in the oceans, lakes and rivers of the world?


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Finally decided to show your sorry face again in here.... WHY DIDN'T YOU ADDRESS MY LAST POST TO YOU?

The fact is MR FAKE internet Doctor, I have shown more scientific process, a greater ability to think logically and critically, and a much greater understanding of all of this than you, your sock/friend, oldsocks, and all the rest of your ignorant green army.

ALL you have done is parrot crap from others, you have not explained, demonstrated, or given any indication that you understand any of it. I just posted the reality behind the theory of CO2 and ocean acidification and you avoided it only to try and sneak back in and try to avert the truth again.

IF you had any scientific part in you, you would have had the ability and the desire to give some logic to the blind posting, and would have taken greater care to address the actual points raised. Instead of this you have parroted synapses from science journals and then proclaiming it some kind of refutation of my points. When in reality they all took the same premise at face value. And that was the entire issue I made. 

That issue was not one I got from some blog or science paper telling me exactly what I wanted to hear on a subject I was expressly looking for only one side of. NO it came from simple logic, critical thinking, and a desire for real truth. And all you have managed to do about it is scream about science they give you....

You are a complete and utter fool. You have as musch to do with science as I do used car sales. And you are as much a PHD holder as I am being Brad Pitt.

Now if you aren't going to show some of the traits of a scientist; critical thinking, logic, reason, process of elimination, and the desire for real truth, just admit and drop the fake act already...


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 18, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



No point, you don't give a shit, and none of your posts are backed up with science. 

Keep trolling, we are  laughing at you


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



"WE" as in you, your mom, your sock/pal, and your green army of what is it 3?

LOL,DR. Douchebag, You have been outed in a grand and all telling manner already. Please keep on with your BS so the thread is continually viewed over and again. That way everyone can see you for the fake scientist you are...


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 18, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...




says the person who bastardizes science and has no clue what scientific evidence is


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 18, 2010)

We, as in multiple personalities. One of which is a genetics scientist.  The dominant one is a troll.


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



YOUR definition of scientific evidence so far has been,to say look what this scientists said out of context and offhand which I got following a link from a green blog...

So you claim to be a Geneticist huh? Sure you are buddy sure you are... All of the geneticists take all claims by scientists they agree with at face value without question, or is that just the idiotic fake ones like you?


----------



## konradv (Apr 19, 2010)

_Distilled water's ph is between 5.6 and 7. It is going to move toward 7 or above with the introduction of any acid. I guess my question is this, you finding much distilled water in the oceans, lakes and rivers of the world?_ 
---------------------------------


LOL!!!  Do you understand pH at all?  Is that why you had to ask a stupid question?  To cover up that fact?  Read a chem text and get back to us.


----------



## konradv (Apr 19, 2010)

_CO2 alone will not effect PH balance in water on its own enough to make any real measurable difference in the ocean. _
------------------------------

That's a statement for which there is no proof whatsoever.  How can you claim to be discussing the topic scientifically and make such a unscientific statement.  Proving a negative is difficult at best and here you claim it with no evidence at all.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> _Distilled water's ph is between 5.6 and 7. It is going to move toward 7 or above with the introduction of any acid. I guess my question is this, you finding much distilled water in the oceans, lakes and rivers of the world?_
> ---------------------------------
> 
> 
> LOL!!!  Do you understand pH at all?  Is that why you had to ask a stupid question?  To cover up that fact?  Read a chem text and get back to us.



Nope, I asked a stupid question to trap stupid people.  Welcome to the trap sucker.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> _Distilled water's ph is between 5.6 and 7. It is going to move toward 7 or above with the introduction of any acid. I guess my question is this, you finding much distilled water in the oceans, lakes and rivers of the world?_
> ---------------------------------
> 
> 
> LOL!!!  Do you understand pH at all?  Is that why you had to ask a stupid question?  To cover up that fact?  Read a chem text and get back to us.



Moron enough of your idiocy already! You have no knowledge of any of this so shut the fuck up! Seriously, all you have done is pop your head in randomly and spout off how wrong we are. You haven't shown any understanding what so ever. This will be the last lesson I give you moron....

Pool Water Chemistry



> pH
> 
> pH is the single most important element in swimming pool water chemistry. It affects every other chemical balance in pool water.
> 
> ...



Read that.... Understand it yet? Well lets hope so.

By that very accurate and unbiased source we learn the basis of PH. Follow me? Moving on....
If you want a very long detailed explanation read the wikki link below.

pH - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For simplicities sake lets use a standard and recognized chart graphic....






Notice the chart mentions distilled water..... yeah its at 7 which is considered neutral its in the middle of the dam chart... YOU mentioned distilled water and how CO2 will lower the PH(raise acidity level) in distilled water... WELL NO SHIT! You add any kind of PH lowering element to a pure (or as close as possible) neutral PH environment and the PH will lower.

On the chart notice where Distilled water is? now notice where Sea water is... Yeah idiot, distilled water is already lower by 1 full unit. Also in ocean waters we have various and innumerable other elements and compounds which counteract the effects of CO2 lowering the PH. Which means; one, it is already higher on the PH scale than distilled water requiring even more CO2 to effect change, and two its full impurities, compounds, alkali and various factors which resist and act against the effects of CO2.

Which brings me back to my point you keep crying about. All the factors mentioned above and even some other factors we are not yet sure on, make it so CO2 alone cannot raise acidity levels to any drastic or dangerous amounts. Its a part of a much bigger process....

Now stop trolling and use the quote feature correctly you annoying little weasel.. Again you aren't unique, clever, or stand out. You are just annoying and show your immaturity.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 19, 2010)

Funny to see the trolls call other's trolls. FUnny to see such contradictory responses. Saveliberty asshole cries when called names, yet goes around trolling and calling people names. PHony

Gsuck, his posts speak for themselves


----------



## konradv (Apr 19, 2010)

LOL!!!  Saveliberty and gslack don't like being told they're wrong, do they?  Having spent my entire career in a scientific environment, I think I know a little bit about pH and apparently a lot more than either of our deniers, who will go with ANYTHING as long as it opposes AGW, whether it makes sense or not!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 19, 2010)

I wonder now if they're going to try and say that the volcanic ash is going to speed up the process?

My money's on 'yes'.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Funny to see the trolls call other's trolls. FUnny to see such contradictory responses. Saveliberty asshole cries when called names, yet goes around trolling and calling people names. PHony
> 
> Gsuck, his posts speak for themselves



Whats the matter punk, you're not crying for science anymore...

What happened? Afraid to look even more idiotic? You should be... How long have you been pulling this crap on people here? I bet you been playing scientist all over the web using this same shtick.

Well think of this as a peer review... This is a web forum, and we are all members of that web forum. Therefore we are your peers. And since you like to come in and cry about peer review, we have reviewed your act. Our findings are as follows...

We the community of intelligent USMB members have reviewed your scientist and Doctorate holding claims and found the following discrepancies.

We, the intelligent members of USMB, find the claims of your being a scientist working in the field of genetics to be very dubious and lacking credibility. We came to this conclusion based on your manner, speech, and behavior. Also we have found a lack of any substantive knowledge on your part that one would expect from a scientist. Particularly one with such credentials you claim.

The reasons are:

1. You show no desire nor ability to study scientific claims by others. You only parrot what others tell you and show no concern for their logic so long as you like their claims.

2. You show time again a tendency to try and shout-down, confound, and or ignore all other scientific possibilities, theories or hypothesis that do not conform to your preconceived or desired form or claim.

3. You continually talk on the pretense that peer review or publishing in a science journal makes a theory fact. When a real scientist would know this is nowhere near the truth. 

4. When you are confronted on the fact peer review is not a statement of this or that theory becoming fact, you ignore that and keep on talking as if it wasn't brought up at all or you post another peer review synapse and claim it refutes the point.

5. A real scientist would not seek the approval of scientific theory or any such matters from virtually anonymous members of a web forum. What would be the point? They aren't the scientific community, they are not in charge of policy or fact vs theory decisions, and true discussion of science where real scientists are concerned take place in and amongst other scientists. But as you so pathologically show us, this is all you wish to do.

6. You have shown no reason to believe you are anything more than a basement dwelling momma's boy with a massive need to feel superior to everyone else. You show no reason for us to consider you better or more educated, yet you try and tell us you are and we should just accept it.

7. Your complete and total ignorance of what you speak of and post on, is an undeniable testament to the truth you are NOT a scientist. You have shown nothing but an ability to post from what other real scientists have done and claim it fact. There is no logical conclusion or deductive reason employed by you in any of your postings. Just a copying of what some like-minded scientists say.

8. You pretend (or actually believe) that all the reasons stated here are as you so smartly put it are dismissed by saying  "no science from you yet" or "still no science"... Again no trademark of a scientific mind trained and educated or otherwise, just the kind of thing one expects from a parroting buffoon.

9. You think yourself better, smarter, more qualified on this subject based on a (fake) education in an unrelated field. No real scientist thinks in those kind of terms.

10. You came in here name-calling and insulting people, and then cry when its handed back. Again, a scientist wouldn't bother...

In conclusion, we the intelligent members of USMB forum, find your claims and pretense of your being a scientist to be blatantly false in every respect.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> LOL!!!  Saveliberty and gslack don't like being told they're wrong, do they?  Having spent my entire career in a scientific environment, I think I know a little bit about pH and apparently a lot more than either of our deniers, who will go with ANYTHING as long as it opposes AGW, whether it makes sense or not!!!



Oh good another fake scientist.....

Lets handle you too now shall we....

Please respond to my post to you then science boy...


----------



## Meister (Apr 19, 2010)

konradv said:


> LOL!!!  Saveliberty and gslack don't like being told they're wrong, do they?  Having spent my entire career in a scientific environment, I think I know a little bit about pH and apparently a lot more than either of our deniers, who will go with ANYTHING as long as it opposes AGW, whether it makes sense or not!!!





What was your position?  enviromental technician?

(garbage collector)


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

Meister said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!!!  Saveliberty and gslack don't like being told they're wrong, do they?  Having spent my entire career in a scientific environment, I think I know a little bit about pH and apparently a lot more than either of our deniers, who will go with ANYTHING as long as it opposes AGW, whether it makes sense or not!!!
> ...



The same position he has here, DR. Douchebags parroting bitch....


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Obviously nothing higher up in science as his constant name calling and lack of citing peer reviewed articles, as well as thinking spouting rants on an message board can overturn scientific theories supported by evidence, from the experts in the field.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 19, 2010)

konradv and Dr Gregg, the gifts that keep on failing.  Can't wait for the news about April being a huge month for ice cap melting from global warming.  Never mind the huge volcaneo eruption.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Thanks for making my point again for me....

You just confirmed my list of reasons why you are a fake. Nice work!


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > Funny to see the trolls call other's trolls. FUnny to see such contradictory responses. Saveliberty asshole cries when called names, yet goes around trolling and calling people names. PHony
> ...


YOu really like to hear yourself speak? Never seen somebody rant so much bullshit and think it passes as a strong scientific argument

You think your comments bother me? I'm laughing as you continue to make yourself look like a fool, in fact, every post further supports you are trolling. We have time and time again linked to peer reviewed articles, you just rant and rave and think that's a sound scientific position, with no evidence.\
\
Keep saying things over and over about me that fit you to a tee. Anyone with a brain can see who really knows what they are talking about here, and who's the science hating fool who just can't accept facts that go against their dumb ideology


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



You really can't be this dumb? you just keep proving yourself a troll with every post you make 


I dont' need to prove anything to some disrespectful, ignorant punk who has no life but to troll around the internet looking stupid.  

Guess trolls can be amusing, especially ones so blatant as gcunt


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 19, 2010)

Please, cite your peer reviewed evidence gsuck. And we are supposed to believe you are a scientists? 

cookoo for cocoa puffs

OK , I'm done feeding the troll


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



FAKE!

HAHAHAHAHA!

Dude anyone can get on a web forum and claim to be a scientist. just as anyone can post synapses linked from green blogs to peer reviewed papers and claim its irrefutable proof.

The use of reason and logic are the core of any scientist, and you have no desire to show that. In fact every time you are given a logical and reasonable point of contention you cry about it and cite another synapse like a mindless tool... Well DR. Douchebag trusting blindly might be what you think science is about, but the rest of us thankfully see it differently.

Now isn't there some pressing work for an employed geneticist to be doing on a Monday morning?  Give me a break phony.....


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 19, 2010)

Volcaneo eruptions can cause global cooling.  Got a hockey stick for that?


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



DR. Douchebag I was unaware there was a published, peer reviewed article about your not being a scientist already out there. please point me to it...

Wow you must really get around the net....

You still back my claims, in particular numbers 1, 2 , 3, 5, 8, and 10. Again thanks for clarifying....


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Volcaneo eruptions can cause global cooling.  Got a hockey stick for that?



Which means what? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of geology or meteorology understands the effects of volcanic eruptions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 19, 2010)

Anyone on the web can claim to be a scientist, and immediatly, by their own posts, prove to everyone that they are a liar. 

Dr. Gregg, and konradv posts reflect well thought out positions, and referances to real science. Much more than I can say about most of the trolls here.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Volcaneo eruptions can cause global cooling.  Got a hockey stick for that?
> ...



Yes, but will the manipulated data show that.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Anyone on the web can claim to be a scientist, and immediatly, by their own posts, prove to everyone that they are a liar.
> 
> Dr. Gregg, and konradv posts reflect well thought out positions, and referances to real science. Much more than I can say about most of the trolls here.


Excuse me????

well thought out???  Real Science??? I'm seeing battling blogs and nonsensical garbage that ignores basic logic, resting on a foundation of straight line predictions that are ALWAYS wrong.


----------



## Meister (Apr 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Anyone on the web can claim to be a scientist, and immediatly, by their own posts, prove to everyone that they are a liar.
> 
> Dr. Gregg, and konradv posts reflect well thought out positions, and referances to real science. Much more than I can say about most of the trolls here.



Dr. Gregg, and Konradv reflect what you want to believe, rocks.  Any other well thought out positions, and references to science that you don't achnowledge are posted by "trolls".
Just shows that your a blooming moron, rocks.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Anyone on the web can claim to be a scientist, and immediatly, by their own posts, prove to everyone that they are a liar.
> 
> Dr. Gregg, and konradv posts reflect well thought out positions, and referances to real science. Much more than I can say about most of the trolls here.



Yeah like DR douchebag and konradv have done..... idiot I never claimed to be a PHD packing scientist or a lab assistant like those two morons did.

You are a proven liar and deliberate propagandist. I have busted you several times in just the short time I have been here. So please do not even speak to like you understand a well thought out position and references to real science. 

Well thought out? Like the time you posted that garbage about a meteorologists qualifications? yeah... Azzhole, got busted on that...

or real science like the BS you posted that was misleading about the true nature of CO2 and its reactions in the ocean? Again busted...

You don't have the first inclining of real science...


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 19, 2010)

Don't forget to buy your Earth Day flags before April 22nd

Earth Day Flag

These things are polyester.  They will burn great!


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 19, 2010)

you said BURN your earth day flags for Hitler's Birthday... right?


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Don't forget to buy your Earth Day flags before April 22nd
> 
> Earth Day Flag
> 
> These things are polyester.  They will burn great!



Tell ya how pathetic and fake these AGW cultists are.... The other day I followed one of the 3 douchebag's links to a green blog. Guess what company had an ad on the very page they sent me to... BP british Petroleum. One of the giants of Big Oil itself. A freakin BP ad on a site pushing AGW.... ANd when I mentioned it to the 3 mousketeers, they kept right on dancing like it never happened. 

There is pathetic, and then there is that... Something beyond pathetic, to the point of utter soulessness. 

They preach about fossil fuels, but they take their money just the same. THe reality behind their BS big oil conspiracy, is a little more damming than they like. The truth is Big Oil companies are among the elite early and large scale investors in Al Gore and Maurice Strong's CCX company. The very first carbon trade market company in the USA. And partners with no less than 4 other similar markets all over the world.

THe level of their hypocrisy knows no bounds. And the sickest part is if you tell any of their faithful they will pretend its no big deal or even a sound investment they made. WTF? THey cried rivers over cheney being the former head of Haliburton, but this is all okay. And why? Because the placating BS artists tell them what they want to hear. They don't tell them to get off their asses and get jobs or careers with a future, they tell them how its not their fault. They don't tell them the realities behind big government and taxation used to further government itself and not the people or country. They tell them its for feeding the hungry or free health care, or saving the planet and no matter how many times they are busted lying, its just the one guy and not the whole.

Freaking impossible! If you would write a script or book like this people would call it too unbelievable.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 19, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> you said BURN your earth day flags for Hitler's Birthday... right?



Actually I thought ironic to burn them on Earth Day.  You'd think the goobers would make them out of biodegradeable corn products, but no, use something that burns great.  I'm waiting for the flag burner patrol to get all bent about burning the Earth Day flag.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 19, 2010)

gslack said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget to buy your Earth Day flags before April 22nd
> ...


Moralization, hypocrisy and profiteering.  it's the 3 for 1 package deal.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 20, 2010)

Gsuck still thinks I"m lying, too funny  making more of an ass out of himself with every post. 

Guess you come from the school of USMB logic, whatever you say is truth, regardless of anything to back it up.


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Gsuck still thinks I"m lying, too funny  making more of an ass out of himself with every post.
> 
> Guess you come from the school of USMB logic, whatever you say is truth, regardless of anything to back it up.



LOL, moron no one cares but you now.... notice that? Seriously if you are what you claim to be, why do you care what I or other anonymous forum members think? Don't you have other scientist friends to talk to? Unless.... Well I already know I am right but you still want to play pretend, so I will try and not upset you anymore... MR. Big Scientist man....


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Gsuck still thinks I"m lying, too funny  making more of an ass out of himself with every post.
> 
> Guess you come from the school of USMB logic, whatever you say is truth, regardless of anything to back it up.



Desperation.... Take a good look above....

Desperation - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: des·per·a·tion 
Pronunciation: \&#716;des-p&#601;-&#712;r&#257;-sh&#601;n\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : loss of hope and surrender to despair
2 : a state of hopelessness leading to rashness


Use desperation in a sentence | desperation sentence examples

desperation sentence examples


Don't apologize for your age, lack of recent relevant experience, and do not convey desperation.

With increasing desperation are they are trying to find ways of getting you to pay for their party.

Out of his predicament grew desperation, out of desperation grew resentment.

Nice work junior.... Now run along and play DR. somewhere with more gullible people..........


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2010)

momonkey said:


> Hmm, so global warming is officially dead?



No, your brain is officially dead.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Does somebody have a hatchet and a tree stump to stop these chicken littles from squawking?  I mean my GOD!
> 
> First it was DDT.
> Then it was the Population bomb.
> ...



LOL. I guess you are unable to see how extremely idiotic you posts make you look. How far is your head shoved up your ass anyway? It seems likely that you can tickle your tonsils when you wiggle your ears.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > In the real world, nobody takes someone like you seriously, you know uneducated in the field and spouting things on an internet forum with no actual data to back it up.
> ...


Which is exactly why no one cares what you say...besides, of course, the fact that everything you say is complete bullshit.




gslack said:


> As far as my education, I didn't say what my education was, I just told you what it wasn't.... Don't go jumping to conclusions or trying to appear better or smarter here dumazz, it would be a bad move for you trust me


LOL. Oh, we can all tell what your education was, gslackjawed. It is obvious that you flunked out of the fourth grade and never went back. But don't feel too bad about that. Most imbiciles with brain damage as bad as yours only make it to the third grade.


----------



## Meister (Apr 28, 2010)

Do you have something to add to this thread other than a flame throwing troll?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 28, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Does somebody have a hatchet and a tree stump to stop these chicken littles from squawking?  I mean my GOD!
> ...


Hmmmm who's sock puppet or seminar poster are you I wonder?  Cubemate of the usual suspects at the Daily Kos or American's Coming Together or the SEIU put a troll center together?

Or do you have something real to offer?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms : Abstract : Nature
> ...



Slackjawed, you are obviously too stupid to understand what you read. Are you getting paid to be a troll or does it just come naturally to you?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


So my guess was correct and you can't see how idiotic these kind of nonsense posts make you look. What is it with you fruitcakes and 'sockpuppets' anyway. Were you molested by an uncle wearing a sock on his hand or something? You and the slack jawed idiot seem to be both very afraid of 'socks'.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2010)

For all the confused people who are in denial of the reality of this situation and ignorant of the science but who keep posting anyway, here's a good rundown of the basic facts of the matter.

As humanity continues to pump, every single year, more than 28 billion tons of previously sequestered fossil carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, sending world atmospheric CO2 levels skyrocketing to heights not seen in millions of years, the excess CO2 is also causing another huge environmental disaster besides just the more well known global warming/climate change problem. As the oceans absorb more and more of the excess atmospheric CO2, they become more acidic, threatening the whole marine ecosystem with the kind of mass extinction event that has been seen before in the distant past when the oceans got too acidic.

*Carbon emissions creating acidic oceans not seen since dinosaurs*



> Chemical change placing 'unprecedented' pressure on marine life and could cause widespread extinctions, warn scientists
> 
> David Adam, environment correspondent
> guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 10 March 2009 00.05 GMT
> ...



Remainder of piece *HERE*.

_*Forum policy on copyright and fair use, to be found HERE, prohibit the posting of copyrighted pieces in their entirety.

Learn it, love it, live it.

~Dude*_


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 28, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> For all the confused people who are in denial of the reality of this situation and ignorant of the science but who keep posting anyway, here's a good rundown of the basic facts of the matter.
> 
> As humanity continues to pump, every single year, more than 28 billion tons of previously sequestered fossil carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, sending world atmospheric CO2 levels skyrocketing to heights not seen in millions of years, the excess CO2 is also causing another huge environmental disaster besides just the more well known global warming/climate change problem. As the oceans absorb more and more of the excess atmospheric CO2, they become more acidic, threatening the whole marine ecosystem with the kind of mass extinction event that has been seen before in the distant past when the oceans got too acidic.
> 
> ...


Then I guess we don't have to worry about all that excess CO2 in the atmosphere for much longer now, do we?  Bubye Globullshit Warming.  And then, without warming, doesn't that drop absorption?

Ever hear of negative feedback loops?  Just common sense, but... I figure you edumucated people have considered that.


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2010)

He's either DR, Douchebag, konradv, or oldsocks.... Take your pick really.... And does it really matter? All he has done is try to save oldsocks ass and now revive old threads to try and fix them....

He is a sock, or a friend or family member of one of those three pathetic excuses....


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 28, 2010)

Unfortunately their not a sock.  He's probably a seminar poster.  Dude was kind enough to peek under the hood and make sure.


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Unfortunately their not a sock.  He's probably a seminar poster.  Dude was kind enough to peek under the hood and make sure.



well he came for a reason, i would say one if not all of them post for a group then..... a group of idiotic ding-dongs, whose stock and trade is posting propaganda in web forums....

WOW, what a useless existence..... I am here for fun and my own enjoyment. TO make a job of trolling webforums like these guys do? HAHAHHAAHHAHA!


----------



## Meister (Apr 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Unfortunately their not a sock.  He's probably a seminar poster.  Dude was kind enough to peek under the hood and make sure.



I checked his 16 posts....they all were just flaming posters he didn't agree with.
From the drsmith mantra of trolling.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2010)

In other words, Rolling Thunder information instead of yap-yap bullshit like you cretins.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 28, 2010)

Nope.  All yap yap trollshit.  but at least it was confirmed it wasn't you.

See?  The scientific method worked.  We believe it was you playing with your socks.  But the evidence showed we were wrong, therefore he's not a sock puppet.

What HASN'T changed is his being a troll.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2010)

Post information and sources and you are a troll. Post yap-yap, and you are an authority. LOL. Typical dingbat Conservative.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 28, 2010)

Sources?  Information?  One news article about a theory that has yet to be proved by anyone who isn't associated with hoaxers and frauds is considered truth come down from Mt. Sinai.

Popping the theory by pointing out that there is a negative feedback loop between them by simple logic is considered yap yap.

Whatever millrat.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2010)

Post a source for your 'negative feedback'. Other than your ass.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 28, 2010)

Okay... logic game.

More CO2 causes warming producing even more CO2
More CO2 means the oceans become more acidic from absorbing CO2
Warmer oceans mean more absorbed CO2 
Which means less CO2 in atmosphere to warm the earth.
Less CO2 in atmosphere means cooling occurs.
Cooling means that ocean absorption of CO2 decreases
Which means that the oceans stop ass-idifying.

See how simple it is?  Pop goes the bullshit.

This is just your logic taken all the way to it's logical end.

By the way... what ever happened to sequestering CO2 emitting waste in the deep oceans?


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Post a source for your 'negative feedback'. Other than your ass.



Douchebag, I am very sorry I called you the puppet master.... I was wrong in that and I am sorry..... But I am quite sure you have something to do with this BS, they came to defend you and pretty much you alone to my knowledge... Seems an odd coincidence doesn't it? yeah a bit more than odd...

You are involved with those two and thats pretty clear. So you are still a documented and proven liar and propagandist. Only now you work with professional trolls as well...


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 28, 2010)

Now... show me where my logic is wrong.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2010)

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) &#8212; Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century
> 
> Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century
> 
> ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006)  Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.



LOL, your lying and posting propaganda non-stop like a tool, forcing me to come in and stop you is a negative feedback loop....


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 28, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century
> ...



Science vs your bullshitting.


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Oh good the other fake is here..... So how have you been? Tell any good lies lately? I bet you got a new degree to tell us about don't ya DR. DOuchebag....


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 29, 2010)

I find it difficult to believe in the temperature data due to grain prices.  It seems grain pricves would be quite a bit higher with all the high heat damaging crops globally.

It is amazing how easy it is to invalidate the warmers claims with a simple look at the lack of supporting results in other effected fields.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 29, 2010)

Stocks of foodstuff are dangerously low 

Low stocks of foodstuff make the world's falling agriculture output particularly worrisome. The combined averaged of the ending stock levels of the major trading countries of Australia, Canada, United States, and the European Union have been declining steadily in the last few years: 

Catastrophic Fall in 2009 Global Food Production

2002-2005: 47.4 million tons 
2007: 37.6 million tons 
2008: 27.4 million tons 

These inventory numbers are dangerously low, especially considering the horrifying possibility that China's 60 million tons of grain reserves doesn't actually exists .


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Stocks of foodstuff are dangerously low
> 
> Low stocks of foodstuff make the world's falling agriculture output particularly worrisome. The combined averaged of the ending stock levels of the major trading countries of Australia, Canada, United States, and the European Union have been declining steadily in the last few years:
> 
> ...



Right, and why is this not reflected in grain prices?  Because there will be a nice crop grown this season.  Global warming will not effect crops, so no need to jack up the prices.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> Real science bit #1: 550 million years ago in the Cambrian era there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today. And the Cambrian era is the time in which calcite corals and similar lifeforms first achieved algal symbiosis.


I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study



> Real science bit #2: 175 million years ago in the Jurassic era there was also 20 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and at this time the Aragonite corals came into being. So we have two points in history which had greater CO2 in the atmosphere and at both points we find coral life forms developing rather than dying off...... So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane....



I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study. It isn't the CO2 in the *AIR *that kills the shellfish, you do understand this, right?
*

Real science bit #3: The oceans already have 70 times the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere. Even if by some freak occurrence all of the CO2 we emit unnaturally were to go straight into the ocean (an impossibility) it would only raise the CO2 concentrations by 1%. Not exactly the scary horror stories you are telling now is it...*

You are confusing total amounts of CO2 present in the air and ocean at a given time with the fluxes of CO2 into and out of those systems. 


> Real science bit #4: CO2 is the 7th largest particle in the oceans by volume that could in theory effect the PH balance. Meaning there are 6 other elements before CO2 which could in theory do the same to the PH. In practice this means the likelihood of CO2 actually causing oceans acidification is minuscule at best even IF the theory is correct. If you want to be real technical on it CO2 would not alter the PH at all but rather buffer other elements which could possibly make some impact on the PH balance. Those impacts are minuscule given the depth and scope of the entire thing.



Wouldn't the likelihood of CO2 causing acidification depend on factors other than its size? For instance, the amount of CO2 being added or subtracted to the system would seem important, as well.





> Real science bit #5: The ocean rides over vast amounts of alkali. We are talking vast amounts of alkali stone, rock and soil which the oceans stir up and roll over 24/7... Alkali is the acid stopper in case you weren't aware.



So why does the ocean's Ph vary at all then? Can you please direct me to your calculations showing that this alkali base is sufficient?


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Real science bit #1: 550 million years ago in the Cambrian era there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today. And the Cambrian era is the time in which calcite corals and similar lifeforms first achieved algal symbiosis.
> ...



Don't bother, gsuck is a pathetic troll. Our links to actual science has already shown his statments and logic is flawed. He' just act like a child and rant and rave about how stupid and phony we are, all while never citing any actual science.

Just another asshole that thinks posting on a forum with no evidence to back it up can discredit research from trained professionals.

Cue gsuck's rantings and ravings in 3.....2.......1


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

A computer model is not "Science" LOL

The computer model predicted Cat 5 in the Gulf the last 4 years

OOpsies


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> A computer model is not "Science" LOL
> 
> The computer model predicted Cat 5 in the Gulf the last 4 years
> 
> OOpsies


That's like saying math isn't science.


----------



## Meister (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > A computer model is not "Science" LOL
> ...



Not at all, CrusaderFrank is saying that a computer model isn't exact science.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

Meister said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That's like saying math isn't exact science.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 29, 2010)

It's an estimation.  An educated guess based off math.  It cannot truly predict, because it cannot take all variables into account, let alone true random chance.  it can only guess.

And don't forget, they are never better than their human programmers.  Garbage in, Garbage out.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 29, 2010)

It's an estimation.  An educated guess based off math.  It cannot truly predict, because it cannot take all variables into account, let alone true random chance.  it can only guess.

And don't forget, they are never better than their human programmers.  Garbage in, Garbage out.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > A computer model is not "Science" LOL
> ...



I doubt you know anything about CFD at all, let alone enough to form an informed opinion.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> * it can only guess.*



I see we have another GCM expert.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 29, 2010)

No, we have someone who can think critically, and is aware of tricks inherent in computer models.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> No, we have someone who can think critically, and is aware of tricks inherent in computer models.



I see no evidence of that. Please justify your statement.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 29, 2010)

Okay.  The Climate models.  Please give the absolute complete list of random factors that can affect the weather and accurately predict them out only 64 months.  Should be easy right?  we can do that with chess programs.

Now, do you have all the possible factors that can ever affect the climate?  And if we have not accounted for ALL the factors, even one can start an error in the model, can't it?

This is known as critical thinking.  Hell, the original models of the Greenhouse effect made the error of assuming an infinitely deep atmosphere.

Garbage in, Garbage out.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Okay.  The Climate models.  Please give the absolute complete list of random factors that can affect the weather and accurately predict them out only 64 months.  Should be easy right?  we can do that with chess programs.



Why would factors that affect weather be relevant? We are trying to model climate, not weather.



> Now, do you have all the possible factors that can ever affect the climate?  And if we have not accounted for ALL the factors, even one can start an error in the model, can't it?



You are right, if not properly handled, a small error can propagate into a much bigger error. Fortunately, numerical and fluid scientists have worked very hard over decades and come up numerical methods that result in small errors dissipating from the solution rather than being multiplied to ever increasing proportion. The reason for this difficulty is due to the non-linear nature of the hyperbolic conservation equations, but I'm sure you already knew that.




> This is known as critical thinking.  Hell, the original models of the Greenhouse effect made the error of assuming an infinitely deep atmosphere.




Can you name one of those models?


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Real science bit #1: 550 million years ago in the Cambrian era there was 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today. And the Cambrian era is the time in which calcite corals and similar lifeforms first achieved algal symbiosis.
> ...





> I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study



Why of course you fail to see how it invalidates the study.... Its the standard Bullshit from your side these days. I will answer this with more detail after the next quote because they same the same thing...



> I fail to see how this fact invalidates the study. It isn't the CO2 in the *AIR *that kills the shellfish, you do understand this, right?


*

CO2 in the air according to theories your side proposes are what increases CO2 in the oceans..... Get it yet? Yeah you really are that thick..... According to your sides claims increased atmospheric CO2 increases the ocean CO2 levels turning the oceans acidic.. IF that is the case, then the times I mentioned above when CO2 concentrations were 20 times greater, the oceans would have been too acidic for those life forms to survive much less evolve. So either the theory is incorrect regarding CO2 and its effects on the ocean PH level, the theories are inaccurate and misleading, or the reaction of such life forms to CO2 induced acidification in the oceans is not understood fully. 

Either way something is not right in it... now do you understand this now? Do not make me repeat this crap again, its been gone over and over. All of your so-called scientist pals have ran from this like the plague. They know its impossible to fight. They resort to claiming im a troll and refuse science.

I do not refuse science I refuse idiots who think they can pass of Bullshit as science.....




			You are confusing total amounts of CO2 present in the air and ocean at a given time with the fluxes of CO2 into and out of those systems.
		
Click to expand...


uh no, thats your sides theory doing that.... They make the claim that current atmospheric CO2 is causing ocean acidification. I simply show the fallacy in that assumption based on the past knowledge we have, which categorically shows this assumption false in the manner they claim.... If you don't like the theory they use than talk to them about it.... jesus you can't keep your arguments straight can you.....





			Wouldn't the likelihood of CO2 causing acidification depend on factors other than its size? For instance, the amount of CO2 being added or subtracted to the system would seem important, as well.
		
Click to expand...


Do you understand what "size by volume" means? it means the largest amount or quantity. For instance, if I have 50 red gumballs and 20 blue gumballs, the largest by volume is the red gumballs.....

Seriously? This is a prime example of the idiocy plaguing your side.... One in ten of you can think logically and maintain a clear argument on this..... unbelievable... You are just as bad as konradv...




			So why does the ocean's Ph vary at all then? Can you please direct me to your calculations showing that this alkali base is sufficient?
		
Click to expand...


Ignorant, retarded and classically stupid remark...

 The oceans PH varies for many reasons we know of and many others we don't yet know about or understand fully. The problem is your side like to claim its all because of CO2, when in reality they cannot make such a claim with any real certainty.

My calculations? Tell ya what azzhole lets see any calculations you personally have done on any of this... From the looks of this display of ignorance you just gave, we can be assured that you certainly didn't do any calculating so far....*


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Coming from a fake elitist wannabe, that must be as valuable a theory as AGW....

DR.DOUCHEBAG! you want to tell us all how we are unfit to discuss this because we are not super smarty-smart science experts like you and oldsocks again?

Fuckin fake ass forum scientist, your BS act has been outed.... Get a new persona dipshit...


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

I love it when the little AGW propaganda army has to circle the wagons..... LOL


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

> CO2 in the air according to theories your side proposes are what increases CO2 in the oceans..... Get it yet? Yeah you really are that thick..... According to your sides claims increased atmospheric CO2 increases the ocean CO2 levels turning the oceans acidic.. IF that is the case, then the times I mentioned above when CO2 concentrations were 20 times greater, the oceans would have been too acidic for those life forms to survive much less evolve. So either the theory is incorrect regarding CO2 and its effects on the ocean PH level, the theories are inaccurate and misleading, or the reaction of such life forms to CO2 induced acidification in the oceans is not understood fully.



You are assuming that the functional relationship between CO2 levels in the air and and ocean Ph is and has always been the same. That seems like an oversimplification to me. You yourself have stated that there are many other factors influencing ocean PH.





> uh no, thats your sides theory doing that....


Oh really, it is my side? Then by all means, please explain the difference between total amounts of CO2 present in the air and ocean at a given time with the fluxes of CO2 into and out of those systems.


> They make the claim that current atmospheric CO2 is causing ocean acidification. I simply show the fallacy in that assumption based on the past knowledge we have, which categorically shows this assumption false in the manner they claim.... If you don't like the theory they use than talk to them about it.... jesus you can't keep your arguments straight can you.....



Would you mind directing me to some of your more recent publications on the matter?




> Do you understand what "size by volume" means?


Yes, but that's not what you said.  You said CO2 is the 7th largest particle in the ocean. Are you retracting that statement?




> The oceans PH varies for many reasons we know of and many others we don't yet know about or understand fully. The problem is your side like to claim its all because of CO2, when in reality they cannot make such a claim with any real certainty.


I do not know what side you are referring to here. AGW theory is one based on all greenhouse gases, including CO2, but also methane, etc.



> Tell ya what azzhole lets see any calculations you personally have done on any of this..


.

I'm not an expert like you are. Please show me your calculations. Your most recent publication would be a good starting place.


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> > CO2 in the air according to theories your side proposes are what increases CO2 in the oceans..... Get it yet? Yeah you really are that thick..... According to your sides claims increased atmospheric CO2 increases the ocean CO2 levels turning the oceans acidic.. IF that is the case, then the times I mentioned above when CO2 concentrations were 20 times greater, the oceans would have been too acidic for those life forms to survive much less evolve. So either the theory is incorrect regarding CO2 and its effects on the ocean PH level, the theories are inaccurate and misleading, or the reaction of such life forms to CO2 induced acidification in the oceans is not understood fully.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Come on douchebag show me your credentials then...... THought so just some more of the same lame ass "your not qualified" Bullshit.... Then neither are you, and since that is the case you are not qualified to dictate who to believe on this, because you have shown an inability to think critically and follow a simple thread....*

Jesus christ you are an idiot..... Do you even understand any of this?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> *Come on douchebag show me your credentials then...... THought so just some more of the same lame ass "your not qualified" Bullshit.... Then neither are you, and since that is the case you are not qualified to dictate who to believe on this, because you have shown an inability to think critically and follow a simple thread....*
> 
> Jesus christ you are an idiot..... Do you even understand any of this?





I'm not a climate scientist. That's why I rely on other people to get my climate science - namely - climate scientists. I am a PhD candidate in astrophysics, and would expect that climate scientists who wanted to know about binary stars would consult someone like me (or my professor), instead of just making up theory on the fly as they like.

You, on the other hand, seem to have your own theories you've developed.  So I assumed you knew what you are talking about.  Are you telling me that I should accept your conclusions even though your conclusions aren't based on any actual research you did?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 29, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> For all the confused people who are in denial of the reality of this situation and ignorant of the science but who keep posting anyway, here's a good rundown of the basic facts of the matter.
> 
> As humanity continues to pump, every single year, more than 28 billion tons of previously sequestered fossil carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, sending world atmospheric CO2 levels skyrocketing to heights not seen in millions of years, the excess CO2 is also causing another huge environmental disaster besides just the more well known global warming/climate change problem. As the oceans absorb more and more of the excess atmospheric CO2, they become more acidic, threatening the whole marine ecosystem with the kind of mass extinction event that has been seen before in the distant past when the oceans got too acidic.
> 
> ...



Volcanic vents feed far more acids into the ocean than what little actually transfers from the discharges you cite.  Your sources are so biased and founded on falsified data results it defies rational thought.


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > *Come on douchebag show me your credentials then...... THought so just some more of the same lame ass "your not qualified" Bullshit.... Then neither are you, and since that is the case you are not qualified to dictate who to believe on this, because you have shown an inability to think critically and follow a simple thread....*
> ...



I knew you would try that DR DOUCHEBAG tactic....

Sure you are a phd candidate buddy sure you are.... THats why you couldn't follow the simple line of debate here... I suppose its common in the PHD candidates huh.... Sure...

You are full of shit..... You just spent two posts showing how utterly ignorant you are and then just like DR DOUCHEBAG you try and save face by claiming you are a PHD candidate.

Let me clue you in on some things right quick... You can't hide miles of ignorant evidence with a simple claim you are smart or educated..... That only makes you look even more ignorant...

And nice bit of dodging junior...... Pathetic....


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Oh irony, and more proof you are nothing but a pathetic troll

YOu've been spouting the same bullshit over and over for 18 pages know, calling everybody the same stupid names, ignoring scientists logic and their evidence and data, all while providing none, and you claim I need a new persona?

YOu need to get a life is what you need to do


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



You can say it over and over, but everything you say up here fits you to a tee. You have shown how full of shit and ignorant you are. 

Man some people are so fucking pathetic and have such a sorry life they have to troll the internet being purposely dense and idiotic.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> Sure you are a phd candidate buddy sure you are.... THats why you couldn't follow the simple line of debate here... I suppose its common in the PHD candidates huh.... Sure...




 I find it interesting you believe PhD's to be incapable of scientific thought, especially considering the vast majority of scientific breakthroughs come from people with PhD's. Can you please justify your statement with anything other than insults?


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Sure you are a phd candidate buddy sure you are.... THats why you couldn't follow the simple line of debate here... I suppose its common in the PHD candidates huh.... Sure...
> ...



No dumass I think YOU are incapable of scientific and critical thought... Don't add LIAR to the list a second time.... You are a liar, and now you try and lie about what I said.... Typical and pathetic.... Some PHD candidate..... GO and play scientist with DR DOUCHEBAG now...


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



AWWWW, you crying still? You sure do sound all sciency there douchebag.....

Please spare us your BS now you are already outed as a fake scientist. Maybe you should try and help your little clone here....


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> No dumass I thin YOU are incapable of scientific and critical thought...



Then why do you insist on engaging me in a scientific debate? Wouldn't it make more sense to go have a debate with people you agree with?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> > You are assuming that the functional relationship between CO2 levels in the air and and ocean Ph is and has always been the same. That seems like an oversimplification to me. You yourself have stated that there are many other factors influencing ocean PH.
> 
> 
> 
> *DUMASS, your side has tried and still tries to use past climate to dictate current trends in climate.... Moron! THis is your sides methods, got that yet you insufferable idiot?*


Why would you use a method you believe to be incorrect? That doesn't make sense. Please explain.




> No I don't have to the OP tried to do that you imbecile!!! And as far as my publications where are yours retard???


I have no journal publications yet. I have given talks on the flux-limited diffusion approximation for radiation hydrodynamics, models of super-eddington accretion in binary stars, as well as presented my proposed thesis topic along the same lines. If you are interested I could send you copies, just have to take my name out to protect my anonymity.





> Jesus christ you are an idiot..... Do you even understand any of this?



Do you have anything to offer other than insults?


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > No dumass I thin YOU are incapable of scientific and critical thought...
> ...



No dipshit you came trying to engage me remember? yeah thats all part of that "following the thread" thing I mentioned earlier.... you brought up an old post in here because you thought you had a new plan all worked out. Well the reality was you didn't have anything planned out at all, and it blew up in your face and made you look even more ignorant.

1. you couldn't keep the premise of the OP separate from my arguments. As evidenced by your inane claims it was my theory...

2. you couldn't grasp the entire theory well enough to keep the concepts of it while reading my arguments against it. As seen by your statements in that post, you were flailing and your points were nonsensical.

3. you claimed I didn't say something the way I said originally. When the post itself shows I did exactly that. The words were the same. To this you have not even responded at all.....

Those are just the simplest and most obvious reasons we can be assured you are neither a PHD candidate or even know anything about astro-physics..... So go peddle you BS elsewhere, you are one more fake internet scientist.....


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> assured you are neither a PHD candidate or even know anything about astro-physics.....


I couldn't possibly know more than you, because you know everything.


And since you do, can you help me out? I'm trying to figure out how to model super-eddington flows without relativity - the problem is the radiation pressure pushes the velocities towards infinity. Any ideas?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > A computer model is not "Science" LOL
> ...



No, it's like saying, "Subject your hypothesis to laboratory testing" In fact, it IS saying "test your Hypothesis in a lab!"!

There's no more real math to the study of Global Warming than there is to Palmistry.


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > > You are assuming that the functional relationship between CO2 levels in the air and and ocean Ph is and has always been the same. That seems like an oversimplification to me. You yourself have stated that there are many other factors influencing ocean PH.
> ...




Yeah I do you are an idiot and your posts prove it.....


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > assured you are neither a PHD candidate or even know anything about astro-physics.....
> ...



Nice response..... Really showed your age here asshole.... Completely ignore the points raised and try to sell your new scientist persona.. Do you really think this will save you? HAHHHAHAHAHA!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Stocks of foodstuff are dangerously low
> 
> Low stocks of foodstuff make the world's falling agriculture output particularly worrisome. The combined averaged of the ending stock levels of the major trading countries of Australia, Canada, United States, and the European Union have been declining steadily in the last few years:
> 
> ...



Try Walmart


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Man Made Global Warming =/= math


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 29, 2010)

Louisiana State University is in Baton Rouge and they do have an Astrophysics department.  Just saying.  77 students.

Rotating or nonrotating ST?


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > No dumass I thin YOU are incapable of scientific and critical thought...
> ...



OH snap! 

Troll outing


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Troll irony, every word out of you from the beginning is idiot, moron, douchebag.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Oh irony, your first post in the thread. Very mature response here 



gslack said:


> Old socks, you post crap like this and you know I am going to call you on it....
> 
> First its nonsense.... And here is the real science on it....
> 
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Not all hypothesis can be tested in labs. Some are tested through direct observation of natural phenomena outside the lab - e.g. the existence of black holes, for instance, cannot be verified in a lab.



> There's no more real math to the study of Global Warming than there is to Palmistry.



Are you telling my systems of ordinary differential equations don't qualify as "real math" ?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



This is how anyone can tell that Warming isn't real science.

It's beyond our power to make a black hole of any meaningful size, but any HS Science class can put a teaspoon of dry ice in a covered fish tank and see it the temperature goes up from the slight increases in CO2 like you claim it does


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> No dumass I think YOU are incapable of scientific and critical thought...



Hey at least I can spell the word "dumb ass" correctly, 

DUMB ASS


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Louisiana State University is in Baton Rouge and they do have an Astrophysics department.  Just saying.  77 students.
> 
> Rotating or nonrotating ST?



Is what rotating? The stars?


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



LOL, your prodigy is failing worse than you did DR DOUCHEBAG.... And you were bad st this scam too..... Wow! maybe you two should go back and re-think this whole game?

I bet there are other forums where people might fall for it.....


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 29, 2010)

I thought they were making small black holes at the particle accelerator in Europe?

Despite Rumors, Black Hole Factory Will Not Destroy Earth | LiveScience

Scientists could generate a black hole as often as every second when the world's most powerful particle accelerator comes online in 2007.

This potential "black hole factory" has raised fears that a stray black hole could devour our planet whole. The Lifeboat Foundation, a nonprofit organization devoted to safeguarding humanity from what it considers threats to our existence, has stated that artificial black holes could "threaten all life on Earth" and so it proposes to set up "self-sustaining colonies elsewhere."

But the chance of planetary annihilation by this means "is totally miniscule," experimental physicist Greg Landsberg at Brown University in Providence, R.I., told LiveScience.

The accelerator, known as the Large Hadron Collider, is under construction in an underground circular tunnel nearly 17 miles long at the world's largest physics laboratory, CERN, near Geneva.

SEEMS LIKE AN ASTROPHYSICS DOCTORIAL CANDIDATE WOULD BE AWARE OF THAT.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's beyond our power to make a black hole of any meaningful size, but any HS Science class can put a teaspoon of dry ice in a covered fish tank and see it the temperature goes up from the slight increases in CO2 like you claim it does



You don't think a box with some gas in it small enough to fit in a classroom is a gross over simplification of the Sun-Earth climate system? For one thing, you're missing the Sun, that's a pretty important factor.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Louisiana State University is in Baton Rouge and they do have an Astrophysics department.  Just saying.  77 students.
> ...



Jig's up Spiderman Tuba.  I just outed you.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> I thought they were making small black holes at the particle accelerator in Europe?



Not yet. But we already know black holes exist, without having to have created them in a lab.


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > No dumass I think YOU are incapable of scientific and critical thought...
> ...



LOL, so you are not a PHD candidate but you can spell Dumb ass?


You can spell it because its your MO DUMB ASS! Its like knowing to spell your name for you..

Go the grammar nazi route see what that gets you retard....


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



OK, I guess that's a "no", then what were you referring to? I had presumed you were either referring to rotating or inertial cylindrical coordinates or synchronous v non-synchronous rotation of the binary components.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It's beyond our power to make a black hole of any meaningful size, but any HS Science class can put a teaspoon of dry ice in a covered fish tank and see it the temperature goes up from the slight increases in CO2 like you claim it does
> ...



But you're the ones making the hypothesis that a de minimus change in one variable causes cataclysmic changes!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Very scientific of you DR DOUCHEBAG.... Is that one of your scientific terms?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Small changes in a materials chemical composition can often lead to huge shifts in its opacity to radiation. This is a well known fact, measured in the lab - not a hypothesis.


From an astrophysical POV we see this effect all over the place. It plays a crucial role in star formation, for instance. The addition of even a small amount of metals to a proto-stellar medium can have drastic effects on the star's subsequent formation and evolution.


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



You are busted already dufus..... The large hadron collider was used already... Like he said a astro-physics Phd candidate would know this..... You are done boy no go join DR DOUCHEBAG in the known and proven fakes section....


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I thought they were making small black holes at the particle accelerator in Europe?
> ...



Actually they have.  The data is being reviewed at several world leading universities in the field.  Michigan State University for example.  Someone in your field of study should know that.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> You are busted already dufus..... The large hadron collider was used already... Like he said a astro-physics Phd candidate would know this..... You are done boy no go join DR DOUCHEBAG in the known and proven fakes section....



And they already made a black hole? Wow. That was fucking quick! Can you please direct me to the relevant publications?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



But you haven't yet measured climate changes from small increases in CO2 in a lab because....?

Seriously, you don't have to pretend with me, I know you're full of crap


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...





By all means, I'm eager to read more. Please link me up. And tell me what you mean by rotation. I'm interested.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> But you haven't yet measured climate changes from small increases in CO2 in a lab because....?



Because you can't fit Earth's climate in a lab. That should be obvious! LOL!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > But you haven't yet measured climate changes from small increases in CO2 in a lab because....?
> ...



Yet you know that deminimus increases in CO2 are the culprit.

See, that's not science, that's solidly between phrenology and palmistry


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Louisiana State University is in Baton Rouge and they do have an Astrophysics department.  Just saying.  77 students.
> 
> Rotating or nonrotating ST?



LOL, alright, I figured it out. No, I don't rotate. I've actually never even heard of a rotating physics graduate student, outside maybe the context of medical physics.  Isn't that something that mostly PhD/MD's do?


I apologize for not being familiar with terminology which is irrelevant to my quite narrow field of study.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yet you know that deminimus increases in CO2 are the culprit.



The increase in CO2 mass or volume concentration isn't what causes the greenhouse effect - its the amount of opacity to infrared radiation that is added to the atmosphere that causes it. Do you understand?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Yet you know that deminimus increases in CO2 are the culprit.
> ...



I understand you're totally full of crap, but that's OK so is every other Global Warming "Scientist"

If I were a real scientist I'd demand my university move the Warmers to the Cafeteria or tennis court because what they do is not science


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That's great, but do you understand that the opacity is the relevant physical quantity that determines how much IR gets trapped by a gas - NOT its mass or volume, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



How'd ya manage to rule out water vapor so quickly?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





Hold up Crusader, you're moving too quickly for your own good. We first have to make sure you understand the very basic issue. So please, answer the question, yes or no:

Do you understand that the opacity is the relevant physical quantity that determines how much IR gets trapped by a gas - NOT its mass or volume, right?


----------



## Meister (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Are you trying to be stupid...or is this coming natural for you? 

Computer models have a margin of error.
Where in math is there a margin of error?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

Meister said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...




Pretty much whenever math is applied to anything in the real world, there is a margin of error. This is because the numbers you input into the equations themselves are not exact - for instance, if you want to know the area of a rectangle, you have to measure it - but those measurements have a margin of error associated with them - So even though the equation itself is exact = Area = width * length, the result has a margin of error.

In this case the error is (Width_error/Width + length_error/length) * width * length


Anymore basic stuff you need to know?


----------



## Meister (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



So it's not natural, and your just trying to be stupid.....got it.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

Meister said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



???  Uhh, no, I was showing you how math isn't exact when applied to science. 

Are you OK?


----------



## Meister (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



I think you have lost sight of what the original debate was.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

Meister said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Considering* I was directly addressing a point that YOU made*, you should address that statement to yourself.


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

Geez, you guys are like weeds..we have to keep stamping out the nonsense.  First to your original post about acidification I wish to turn your attention to 

[CO2 Science

And then for this latest piece of propoganda I refer you to

The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud - IBD - Investors.com  But this is just the reason for the continued barrage of falsehoods.

The actual prognostications by the legitimate scientists believe this

Global Cooling until 2030 by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD | Climate Realists

And I understand that any blog that doesn't adhere to your propoganda is ipso facto wrong
but nonetheless here is what the real sea ice people have to say

Another Arctic Sea Ice Milestone | Watts Up With That?

And once again the tedious dance goes on.  Please, please, please, please, please (as my three old would say when she reeeeeaalllyy wants something) come up with some new propoganda and horse manure.  This stuff is so dated that it's really no longer fun poking holes in it anymore...it's simply too easy.







QUOTE=Old Rocks;2257180]Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006)  Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.[/QUOTE]


----------



## rdean (Apr 29, 2010)

But, as harmful as our forebears may have been, nothing compares to what's under way today. Throughout the 20th century the causes of extinction - habitat degradation, overexploitation, agricultural monocultures, human-borne invasive species, human-induced climate-change - increased exponentially, until now in the 21st century the rate is nothing short of explosive. The World Conservation Union's Red List - a database measuring the global status of Earth's 1.5 million scientifically named species - tells* a haunting tale of unchecked, unaddressed, and accelerating biocide.*

When we hear of extinction, most of us think of the plight of the rhino, tiger, panda or blue whale. But these sad sagas are only small pieces of the extinction puzzle. The overall numbers are terrifying. Of the 40,168 species that the 10,000 scientists in the World Conservation Union have assessed, one in four mammals, one in eight birds, one in three amphibians, one in three conifers and other gymnosperms are at risk of extinction. The peril faced by other classes of organisms is less thoroughly analysed, but fully* 40 per cent of the examined species of planet earth are in danger*, including perhaps 51 per cent of reptiles, 52 per cent of insects, and 73 per cent of flowering plants.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...n--the-greatest-threat-to-mankind-397939.html


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> Geez, you guys are like weeds..we have to keep stamping out the nonsense.  First to your original post about acidification I wish to turn your attention to
> 
> [CO2 Science



Co2science.org is an oil company funded science propaganda mill, I have no idea why you think it credible. Probably because you didn't bother to check it out.




> The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud - IBD - Investors.com  But this is just the reason for the continued barrage of falsehoods.



Inverstors.com? Seriously? You get your science from investment websites? How high up was your mother when she dropped you?


> Global Cooling until 2030 by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD | Climate Realists



climaterealits.com? Are you serious? You know who runs that website? Sheep farmers. Says so right here: About us | Climate Realists

I love lamb and trust them to provide me some good gyros - but I'd prefer not to get my climate science from sheep farmers.

Seriously, its amazing you survived such a fall!



> Another Arctic Sea Ice Milestone | Watts Up With That?



Dude, TV WEATHERMEN are not scientists.


Listen, if you want credible scientific sources, go here:
http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&tab=ws


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

Actually we don't KNOW they exist.  A preferred wording of your statement (and certainly the way a legit scientist would put it) is this...."it is our current belief based on observed data and empirical evidence, correlated with Quantum and Cosmological theory that Black Holes exist.  To support our contentions we present this evidence."

Now please do the same for AGW.  So far all that has been trotted out for the last 20 years are computer models that can't accurately predict what will occur in 10 days and can't accurately recreate what happened 10 days ago.  That is not what I would call a ringing endorsement.







SpidermanTuba said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I thought they were making small black holes at the particle accelerator in Europe?
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

Personal insults only show how weak your arguments and propoganda are.  It also shows how completely clueless you are when it comes to the reason for the propoganda you pander.  

The Investors article was presented to show not the science but the reason why the AGW crowd is commiting the fraud that they are.  It is about money and how much they can take from you, me, everyone and give to them..the fact that you are not bright enough, or choose not to figure it out only shows that your mother dropped you from a higher elevation than my mother dropped me.

And actually if the weatherman is a meteorologist (as my local weathermen are) then yes in fact he is a scientist, in fact many of them attended the same universities as your "climateologists" did...they are just honest.



SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Geez, you guys are like weeds..we have to keep stamping out the nonsense.  First to your original post about acidification I wish to turn your attention to
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> Actually we don't KNOW they exist.  A preferred wording of your statement (and certainly the way a legit scientist would put it) is this...."it is our current belief based on observed data and empirical evidence, correlated with Quantum and Cosmological theory that Black Holes exist.  To support our contentions we present this evidence."



Uhh, why wouldn't I mention anything about general relativity?


We do know black holes exist, just as we know the wind exists without having to see it.







> Now please do the same for AGW.  So far all that has been trotted out for the last 20 years are computer models that can't accurately predict what will occur in 10 days and can't accurately recreate what happened 10 days ago.



I can tell that you haven't actually been keeping up with it at all. You do realize that your failure to even search out this information does not mean it doesn't exist, right? For instance, you've omitting the observed fact that there has been statistically significant warming over the last 30 years.

GCM's are not designed to predict what will happen in 10 days. You really should have already known this if you had bothered to do even one iota of the background research you seem to act like you have.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> Personal insults only show how weak your arguments and propoganda are.



I don't really follow you. Are you saying that if I were to tell you "the gravitational force between two bodies is inversely proportional to their distance from one another" - I would be correct - but if I were to tell you   "the gravitational force between two bodies is inversely proportional to their distance from one another, oh, and BTW, go fuck your mother dipshit!" - I would be wrong?

That's interesting logic. Please tell me more.



> The Investors article was presented to show not the science but the reason why the AGW crowd is commiting the fraud that they are.



They aren't committing fraud, and even if they were, you wouldn't find proof of it in an investors journal before finding it in an actual scientific journal.


> It is about money and how much they can take from you, me, everyone and give to them..the fact that you are not bright enough, or choose not to figure it out only shows that your mother dropped you from a higher elevation than my mother dropped me.



Sorry I'm not smart enough to realize I need a tin foil hat because tens of thousands of scientists, starving graduate students, and staff have conspired with government officials on an international level over a period of  100 years in what must surely be the largest conspiracy ever conceived of in the universe!


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

No, we don't know.  Currently the observed theory is validated by observations but a new theory could come along in the next day that would then render current black hole theory obsolete, just like Aristotelean physics was supplanted by Newtonian, which was then  supplanted by Einsteinian, which in its turn was supplanted by Quantum theory, which was then supplanted by String, which is now challenged by M theory.  

Unlike you I had the priviledge of taking classes from Feynman.  I had many long talks with him over dinner and he was the first to educate me on the fallacy of AGW(I was a supporter before I actually learned the science you see) as well as how to truly look at the world.  It's amazing what you can learn when you have a genius as an instructor.  I suggest you find one.




SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Actually we don't KNOW they exist.  A preferred wording of your statement (and certainly the way a legit scientist would put it) is this...."it is our current belief based on observed data and empirical evidence, correlated with Quantum and Cosmological theory that Black Holes exist.  To support our contentions we present this evidence."
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> No, we don't know.  Currently the observed theory is validated by observations but a new theory could come along in the next day that would then render current black hole theory obsolete




By that argument you could claim the force of gravity doesn't exist.


> , just like Aristotelean physics was supplanted by Newtonian, which was then  supplanted by Einsteinian, which in its turn was supplanted by Quantum theory, which was then supplanted by String, which is now challenged by M theory.



Newtonian physics was not "supplanted" by Einstein - Einstein just generalized what Newton had done to include physical regimes that Newton's physics did not work in. You wouldn't use Einstein's theory of relativity to compute the trajectory of a baseball, that would take you forever, you'd use Newton.

And the fact you think quantum physics supplanted general relativity goes to show how little you understand of physics. These two theories describe things in different physical regimes - quantum physics applies to the very tiny, and general relativity to the not so tiny. The unification of these two theories into one is still the forefront of modern theoretical physics.





> Unlike you I had the priviledge of taking classes from Feynman.



Wonderful, you clearly didn't learn shit, and since it was Feynman, I can say with certainty its all your fault.




> I had many long talks with him over dinner


I take it you did all the talking. I can't fathom how you could hang out with Feynman and not know that quantum physics does not supplant general relativity.


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

Let me ask you a simple question then if you're so smart.  Please show me anywhere where the AGW crowd has ever been able to accurately predict anything.  Please show me one computer model that has been able to successfully recreate any paleoclimate for any time you choose.  They can't, they havn't, and they never will.  The Earth is too large an engine for them to accurately model.  

You contend that the data shows that the earth has been heating and yet the raw data that is available shows exactly the opposite.  It shows that, in fact, temperatures have been declining at least since 1998 and probably even before that.  The data also shows that the lead "scientists" in the AGW movement have been falsifying data for at least the last 10 years and most likely for the last 12 to 13 years.

Paleoclimate data shows that 2000 years ago and 1000 years ago the worldwide temperatures were higher than they are now (with no influence from mankind), Mann with his now proven fraudulent "hockey Stick" graph was trying to blot those events from the historical record.  That my good person is not science that is academic fraud, and because they were taking money from the US taxpayers,  ACTUAL FRAUD.  And he will be (as will his other co-conspirators) be punished severly for that.

You can yell and scream and whine and snivel all you want but the fact remains there is no verifiable science that you can point to that verifys what you say.  I can point out these verifiable reasons why the powers that be want to push this agenda forward however.

Barbara Hollingsworth: Fannie Mae owns patent on residential 'cap and trade' exchange | Washington Examiner

Newsmax - Scientist: Climate Change Legislation a Power Grab

Buying carbon offsets may ease eco-guilt but not global warming - CSMonitor.com

Carbon offsets: Using the green cloak of 'certification' to sell - CSMonitor.com

Pajamas Media  More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official

Post Carbon: The Planet Panel at washingtonpost.com

Now add to this very small but robust sampling the fact that the carbon trading scheme was proposed by Ken Lay...you remember him don't you?  He was the CEO of ENRON and he proposed the trade to Al Gore who realized "hey I can make a lot of bucks off of these environmental 'tards) and proceeded to set the government controls in motion.

So there you go...you're a smart guy...use Occams Razor here....which is most likely.

Global warming is occuring even though we can't prove one single aspect of it either in the lab, or with empirical observation (remember they "lost" the raw data and only have "value added" data to support their cause-please show me anywhere in the scientific method where that is OK) or with their vaunted but so far incompetant computer models.
And also please show me where climateologists have ever researched a possible other reason for the warming that was observed in the 80's and 90's.  

You can't, because they went in with a preconceived agenda and never bothered to research anything else.   Please show me any other field of science where they limit themseves to one avenue of research..just one.
Or maybe, just maybe...it really is all about money and power and how they want it and they want to take it from you.





SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Personal insults only show how weak your arguments and propoganda are.
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

Please tell me what gravity is.  Feynmen certainly didn't know..c'mon smart guy it's an instant Doctoral Degree if you can tell us what gravity is.  We can certainly observe the effects but we don't know what it is.

Can we travel faster than light?  Current theory says no, but we can observe gravitational effects between two stars that require it.

I am not a physicist, I am a geologist but I happened to enjoy having a conversation with Richard.  And no, if you knew him, which you clearly never had the priviledge, he did the vast majority of talking.  Thankfully!

So once again lay off of the personal insults, they demean you and are totally unnecessary.
Present your data and have a civil conversation, who knows you may learn something as might myself.  As it is you prejudice anyone who reads your correspondence because they think you an ass.





SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, we don't know.  Currently the observed theory is validated by observations but a new theory could come along in the next day that would then render current black hole theory obsolete
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > You are busted already dufus..... The large hadron collider was used already... Like he said a astro-physics Phd candidate would know this..... You are done boy no go join DR DOUCHEBAG in the known and proven fakes section....
> ...



Made several artifical ones in 2005.  The current CERN project has created some too, but we will have to wait until the data is reviewed to see if any of them were captured.


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

This is not true.  They made "simulations" of the event horizon using fiber optics.  No black holes have been made and most likely won't be for many years...if ever.


Direct experiments with black holes are unlikely, due at the very least to the distance any are from Earth, not to mention how difficult these warps in space and time would be to work with.

Instead, researchers are searching for ways to create lab models of event horizons.

Now scientists have created an artificial event horizon on a tabletop using fiber optics.

The researchers started by firing a stream of intense, brief laser pulses inside an optical fiber. These pulses acted like a current of flowing light.

Such intense, brief pulses "make physical effects visible that would also occur for much longer and weaker pulses, but are hard to detect there," explained researcher Ulf Leonhardt, a theoretical physicist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. "High intensity and short pulses are needed for seeing subtle effects and discriminating them from noise."

At the same time, the researchers fired a continuous beam of infrared light down the optical fiber. This beam created waves that got overtaken by the laser flow, resembling how light waves are overcome by the gravitational pull just past an event horizon.

"The most surprising aspect for me is how simple it actually is to create artificial event horizons," Leonhardt told LiveScience.

Related StoriesSaturn Moon May Have Rings of Its Own 
'Death Star' Gamma-Ray Gun Pointed Straight at Earth 
NASA Space Probe Takes Photos of Avalanche on Mars 
Four More Spacecraft Show Bizarre Speed Changes 
Scientists Predict When World Will End 
He and his colleagues detailed their findings in the March 7 issue of the journal Science.

Scientists had proposed other systems to mimic aspects of black holes. All those, however, needed moving parts &#8212; specifically, very fragile, ultra-cold blobs of matter &#8212; and none of them have yet successfully displayed phenomena resembling event horizons.

The artificial event horizons Leonhardt and his colleagues have devised could help researchers explore bizarre aspects of black holes, such as radiation they are supposed to emit.

Black holes are not entirely black. Physicist Stephen Hawking discovered that all black holes should instead evaporate at least a bit, leaking energy dubbed "Hawking radiation."

Scientists have not yet seen this mysterious energy &#8212; Hawking radiation from normal black holes is completely obscured by the cosmic microwave background, radiation left over from the Big Bang that pervades the entire universe.

However, Leonhardt suggests that with their new lab model, "we can create artificial event horizons that would generate enough Hawking radiation to be detectable."

A greater understanding of Hawking radiation could help unite our currently disparate theories of physics into one "theory of everything" that could conceive of all the natural forces.

So far scientists have not successfully united the field of general relativity, which explains how matter and energy behave at large scales and predicts the existence of black holes, with that of quantum mechanics, which helps explain how matter and energy act at atomic and subatomic levels and predicts the existence of Hawking radiation.

A better understanding of Hawking radiation could help bridge general relativity with quantum mechanics to understand how these "worlds are connected," Leonhardt explained
aveliberty;2259597]





SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > You are busted already dufus..... The large hadron collider was used already... Like he said a astro-physics Phd candidate would know this..... You are done boy no go join DR DOUCHEBAG in the known and proven fakes section....
> ...



Made several artifical ones in 2005.  The current CERN project has created some too, but we will have to wait until the data is reviewed to see if any of them were captured.[/QUOTE]


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> Now add to this very small but robust sampling the fact that the carbon trading scheme was proposed by Ken Lay



Then you have to be wrong, because AGW theory predates Ken Lay by quite a bit.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> I am not a physicist



Really? I had no idea, honestly.



> And no, if you knew him, which you clearly never had the priviledge, he did the vast majority of talking.



You do realize, you don't learn physics simply by talking to physicists, right? You do understand that, right?

So did you hang with Feynmann when you were working on your undergrad or your PhD?




And you do realize that quantum physics does not supplant general relativity, right?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Does the experiment in 2005 have a name?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> This is not true.  They made "simulations" of the event horizon using fiber optics. * No black holes have been made and most likely won't be for many years...if ever.*




Finally we agree on something.


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

Yes it does, but the carbon trading scheme originated from him and that is when you first see governments become interested in the trade and when massive amounts of money first started flowing to the AGW proponents. 





SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Now add to this very small but robust sampling the fact that the carbon trading scheme was proposed by Ken Lay
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> Yes it does, but the carbon trading scheme originated from him and that is when you first see governments become interested in the trade and when massive amounts of money first started flowing to the AGW proponents.
> Emissions credit trading schemes were not thought up by Ken Lay.   SO2


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

Yes I do realise that, it was a poor choice of words on my part, my primary point was that each succeeding theory of physics became the primary avenue of research theryby supplanting that which had existed before it.  The others are clearly relevant to their area but are no longer the current theory of physics being researched.  Undergrad at the time, though my friend who introduced me to Feynman proceeded to obtain his PhD at Cal Tech in Theoretical Mathmatics.

My interest in physics is the same as my interest in chemistry and biology, paleontology etc. they all have an influence on geology so I try to stay relativley conversant with them all.




SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a physicist
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

Technically this is true as I believe it was the US Air Pollution Control Admin that tried them first in the 1960's but,  Ken Lay is the person who figured out how to commercialise the market.

And isn't this nicer than yelling epithets at everyone?






SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it does, but the carbon trading scheme originated from him and that is when you first see governments become interested in the trade and when massive amounts of money first started flowing to the AGW proponents.
> > Emissions credit trading schemes were not thought up by Ken Lay.   SO2


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> Yes I do realise that, it was a poor choice of words on my part, my primary point was that each succeeding theory of physics became the primary avenue of research theryby supplanting that which had existed before it.



Wrong again. General relativity is still being heavily researched right now along with quantum physics. In fact LSU has a huge general relativity department - one of the LIGO telescopes is nearby, and we also have a theory group.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> Technically this is true as I believe it was the US Air Pollution Control Admin that tried them first in the 1960's but,  Ken Lay is the person who figured out how to commercialise the market.



That's like saying electricity is evil because Enron figured out how to make a more efficient market for it - its bull crap.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Yes, I understand that.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 29, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Great then!

The reason we know water vapor is not the culprit is that water vapor levels in the atmosphere have not been going up.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Did you get that from the Vostok Ice Cores or from the precise measurements they took 50 or 500 years ago?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2010)

I already know the answer, Tuba, but it's OK, you can still pretend with Old Rocks and the rest of the Warmers that you had a really good reason to exclude all other variables in favor of CO2


----------



## rdean (Apr 29, 2010)

Why would anyone debate science with Republicans?  To them, "The Great Flood of Noah" IS science.  And for "looking back" she was turned to a pillar of "salt", obviously "chemistry".  The burning bush - botany.


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

No it doesn't.  Before Ken Lay there was no market.  After Ken Lay there was a market.  What's so hard to understand about that?





SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Technically this is true as I believe it was the US Air Pollution Control Admin that tried them first in the 1960's but,  Ken Lay is the person who figured out how to commercialise the market.
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

How do we know that?  Does anyone even bother to measure it?  We know that Kilauea is pumping 4000 gallons of H2O per minute into the amosphere, logically we must assume it doesn't vanish, ergo it must be adding to the water vapor percentage.





SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

How many Doctoral thesis' are coming out of General relativity as opposed to String or M theory?  If you want to make a name for yourself and get a Nobel Prize which area of research  are you most likely to get it from?  The last I checked Quantum work is primarily geared toward confirming what has allready been theorized.

If I am wrong forgive me but most of the Journals I check that is what is going on.






SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I do realise that, it was a poor choice of words on my part, my primary point was that each succeeding theory of physics became the primary avenue of research theryby supplanting that which had existed before it.
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2010)

All that shows is that it is Republicans that are actually making the money so that the government can tax them to support the Democrats that are running the government(poorly for the most part..but then the Republicans did no better either) and the Democrats living in the lap of academia but not producing much of anything else.  I know I know academia invents things but it is the private sector that figures out how to use it.  What will you do when the private sector can no longer support you?   Like..oh California for instance?

You revile the very people who support you...that is dumb.  Instead you should nurture them and cherish them, because if you don't you may actually have to go to work for real....you know digging ditches and other manual labor like that.





rdean said:


> Why would anyone debate science with Republicans?  To them, "The Great Flood of Noah" IS science.  And for "looking back" she was turned to a pillar of "salt", obviously "chemistry".  The burning bush - botany.


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

Why have you all been playing with this ignorant child playing scientist? Seriously, the little idiot couldn't follow the debate in the thread, couldn't follow his own sides claims, didn't understand the CO2 ocean acidification premise he tries to defend, and then couldn't hold a coherent argument for it...

Jesus I have to go away for a few hours to do some work and the place turns into romper room...


Spidermantubal..... You are another douchebag internet scientist..... You and DR douchebag are no more scientists than I am Barrack Obama.... Now go and play grabass together some where....

Trust me on this guys, this is the only way to handle idiotic internet super geniuses. You show their inability to think on multiple levels and across multiple areas, and then you bash them over the head with it.... It's ugly, its not nice, but its the only way.... Entertaining them is empowering them. Thats how this kind of lying grows.... Now please stop empowering liars and weasels who have to claim higher education to debate on here.....

BTW, notice the little idiot didn't mention his education until I pointed out his ignorance? Yeah a PHD candidate wouldn't have let his ignorance show like that.... I work with PHD's, and believe me he wouldn't be allowed to fetch coffee in our offices. We have interns with higher thinking ability than this moron....


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> All that shows is that it is Republicans that are actually making the money so that the government can tax them to support the Democrats that are running the government(poorly for the most part..but then the Republicans did no better either) and the Democrats living in the lap of academia but not producing much of anything else.  I know I know academia invents things but it is the private sector that figures out how to use it.  What will you do when the private sector can no longer support you?   Like..oh California for instance?
> 
> You revile the very people who support you...that is dumb.  Instead you should nurture them and cherish them, because if you don't you may actually have to go to work for real....you know digging ditches and other manual labor like that.
> 
> ...



I have had no liberal or progressive on this board demean the fact that I work as a millwright in a steel mill. The only people to do that have been conservatives. Mill rat is one of the nicer things that they have said.

Now a ditch digger in todays economy is hardly a dumb big fellow with a manual shovel. A ditch digger today has to know how to run several differant peices of machinery, some of which are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Since most small companies hire few engineers, he usually has to establish the grade of the ditch, and make that grade level, with the proper base, whether that be sand or gravel, or some thing else.

Now I do wish you would cease lying about Republicans supporting Democrats. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Most of the Red States recieve more from the Federal Government than they recieve. Most of the Blue States send in more money to the Federal Government than they recieve. So it is the Democrats supporting lazy Republican ass.


----------



## gslack (Apr 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > All that shows is that it is Republicans that are actually making the money so that the government can tax them to support the Democrats that are running the government(poorly for the most part..but then the Republicans did no better either) and the Democrats living in the lap of academia but not producing much of anything else.  I know I know academia invents things but it is the private sector that figures out how to use it.  What will you do when the private sector can no longer support you?   Like..oh California for instance?
> ...



Dumazz no one denied you were a millwright, no one cared.... I pointed out your being a millwright doesn't make you a scientist, just as my being a data analyst doesn't make me a scientist with a PHD....

Stop lying for once can you..... Seriously give it a try....

P.S. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, its all the show to keep people bickering.... None of it is anywhere near what they claim, and if you think I am wrong why do we have centrist after centrist despite what they claim before getting elected? Why did Obama's policies toward the bailouts mirror George W. Bush's when all he did was bitch about them before? Why hasn't he gone after the Patriot act when it was such a terrible thing before? Simple; because its a show.... Like wrestling... Its all BS to keep us fighting and quarreling over inconsequentials  which we will be getting anyway, while we are slowly marched to a worldwide oligarchy.....


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 29, 2010)

> Now I do wish you would cease lying about Republicans supporting Democrats. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Most of the Red States recieve more from the Federal Government than they recieve. Most of the Blue States send in more money to the Federal Government than they recieve. So it is the Democrats supporting lazy Republican ass.



I would propose to end this, by getting rid of most federal taxes and services, forcing them on the states as they should constitutionally be.  Other than the Military, court systems, transportation infrastructure (to a degree), organizing foreign trade, and printing money... the fed has little it should be doing.  

We are a federal nation, not a National government with sub-states.  The states are sovereign and as long as they obey the Federal constitution, they can make their state any way they wish.  Check out the Commonwealth of Massachusetts constitution to see what it was and how much is being ignored.

This also means AGW legislation (which since it's a fraud shouldn't be passed) should be dealt with at the state level, since the federal government has no legal right to enforce it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 29, 2010)

Well, under the Commerce clause, the Federal Government has every right to enforce rules concerning environment. What one state does on environment does not stay in that state. Coal fired generators in Ohio were killing fish in New England's lakes. Chemicals in the Missouri in Montana end up in the Mississippi, and the Gulf Waters.

You are fighting a fight lost 150 years ago.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, under the Commerce clause, the Federal Government has every right to enforce rules concerning environment. What one state does on environment does not stay in that state. Coal fired generators in Ohio were killing fish in New England's lakes. Chemicals in the Missouri in Montana end up in the Mississippi, and the Gulf Waters.
> 
> You are fighting a fight lost 150 years ago.


Commerce clause does not allow the government to create markets where there are none or regulate in state commerce.  Only an out of control supreme court twisted that clause in the 1930's and it needs to be rectified.  You cannot say self sufficiency is able to be regulated by the fed.  

Pollution is not an act of trade, therefore it is also constitutionally unregulatable by the fed.

Of course, as we've seen since the 1930's, the federal government has really not cared to much to abiding by original intent, focused instead on twisting it to whattever the hell they want at the time.

Lost the fight though?  No.  Any decision can be reversed once sanity returns, and we get some originalists back in the SCOTUS.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



i'm not sure how you'd get water vapour measurements from an ice core considering ice is water.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I already know the answer, Tuba, but it's OK, you can still pretend with Old Rocks and the rest of the Warmers that you had a really good reason to exclude all other variables in favor of CO2



I doubt you know much of anything that you didn't pick up from a right wing blog.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> No it doesn't.  Before Ken Lay there was no market.  After Ken Lay there was a market.  What's so hard to understand about that?





Honestly, I don't see the relevance. You appear to be suggesting that because someone stands to profit off of the solution to a problem, the problem doesn't exist.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> How do we know that?  Does anyone even bother to measure it?  We know that Kilauea is pumping 4000 gallons of H2O per minute into the atmosphere, logically we must assume it doesn't vanish, ergo it must be adding to the water vapor percentage.



LOL! Seriously dude, you brag about hanging out with Feynman - yet you've apparently never heard of 

RAIN

?!?!?!?!?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 30, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, under the Commerce clause, the Federal Government has every right to enforce rules concerning environment. What one state does on environment does not stay in that state. Coal fired generators in Ohio were killing fish in New England's lakes. Chemicals in the Missouri in Montana end up in the Mississippi, and the Gulf Waters.
> ...



President Obama will probably appoint 2 or 3 more Supremes before his terms end in 2016.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 30, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How do we know that?  Does anyone even bother to measure it?  We know that Kilauea is pumping 4000 gallons of H2O per minute into the atmosphere, logically we must assume it doesn't vanish, ergo it must be adding to the water vapor percentage.
> ...



Westwall is one of the most ignorant posters we have seen in a long time. He apparently has never considered that the residence time of H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. 

In one of his posts he claimed to be a scientist


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> How many Doctoral thesis' are coming out of General relativity as opposed to String or M theory?



Much much more in general relativity, man are you kidding? Its the hottest thing in computational physics.  

Just look at the numbers of google scholar hits. So far in 2010 there are 4300 for "relativity" and 1500 for "string theory".

 A lot of respected scientists don't even think string theory is a scientific theory. 



> If you want to make a name for yourself and get a Nobel Prize which area of research  are you most likely to get it from?




If you're in it to make a name for yourself you're in it for the wrong reasons. You follow whichever subfield you are most interested in. Otherwise you may as well just ditch the whole science thing and get a degree in Medical Physics where you can make some money.

If you're in it to win the Nobel Prize you're just stupid. Most people are way too old to enjoy it by the time they receive it. Plus your odds are better playing the lotto.




> The last I checked Quantum work is primarily geared toward confirming what has allready been theorized.


Yeah, tell that to this guy: Jonathan Dowling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is still active theoretical research going on in ALL areas of physics.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

gslack said:


> I work with PHD's,



Good for you! So do you like being a janitor?


----------



## westwall (Apr 30, 2010)

You can't really expect me to take you seriously when you use wikipedia as a source now do you?





SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How many Doctoral thesis' are coming out of General relativity as opposed to String or M theory?
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 30, 2010)

And yet I don't ever resort to lying or removing certain data from a post that would weaken my position as you have repeatedly done in only the last four days that I've been a member of this forum.

Ignorant perhaps, intellectually dishonest and a prevaricator of the first order...no I'll leave that particular appelation to you.  





Old Rocks said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Commerce clause does not allow the government to create markets where there are none or regulate in state commerce.



Actually, any intrastate commerce which can affect interstate commerce can be regulated by Congress under the commerce clause. See Railroad Commission of Wisconsin v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company (1922)



> Only an out of control supreme court twisted that clause in the 1930's and it needs to be rectified.



LOL! OK, you're one of those dufus's that doesn't care how the law will actually be applied, only how you wish it was applied in your fantasy land. Sorry buddy but your opinion doesn't count on matters of law.



> Pollution is not an act of trade, therefore it is also constitutionally unregulatable by the fed.



Have you ever heard of the "necessary and proper clause" ? Pollution affects trade. You don't like it, quit your fucking whining, get a law degree, and sue the government.


----------



## westwall (Apr 30, 2010)

You know as a grad student you must be a real peach.  I suggest you take a few geology classes so you can get some practical knowledge of exactly how the world works because clearly your head is lost in the theoretical world.

Just don't allow yourself to become intellectually dishonest like your confidant Old Rocks.  I still have some hope for you young man.  You may be saveable as you seem to understand a modicum of manners but really, expand your knowledge a bit.





SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How do we know that?  Does anyone even bother to measure it?  We know that Kilauea is pumping 4000 gallons of H2O per minute into the atmosphere, logically we must assume it doesn't vanish, ergo it must be adding to the water vapor percentage.
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> You can't really expect me to take you seriously when you use wikipedia as a source now do you?



Are you a robot? Go to the dude's fucking home page if you want, I don't give a shit. You said there was little theoretical quantum going on, I give you the name of someone very active in theoretical quantum.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> You know as a grad student you must be a real peach.  *I suggest you take a few geology classes so you can get some practical knowledge of exactly how the world works* because clearly your head is lost in the theoretical world.



Is that a joke?

I mean, you do realize that when people say "scientists don't know anything about the real world!" - that they aren't literally talking about the physical, geological Earth itself, right? Is that why you consider yourself a practical guy? You know something about the "real world" - that being what's inside of it? That's hilarious.


I'm going to go ahead and take a stab and guess you're a *petroleum geologist?* Which oil company do you work for?


----------



## westwall (Apr 30, 2010)

Jeez but you have an amazingly thin skin don't you!  When I say you need to get out in the real world I mean exactly that.  In geology we have scientists (who we refer to as black box geologists because they are never in the field) who if they ever are in the field are lost.  They have no clue what the heck they are looking at.

I perceive you have the same problem.  You resort to ridicule and personal attacks punctuated by expletives and yet you have never even seen a volcano close up I would wager.  I have been to Kilauea on 7 different occasions over the years and have visited several other volcano's as well.  

You boys are allways talking about how "when the CO2 does this or when the CO2 does that the world is going to end" and yet it is running merrily on ignoring your predictions.
The last time Iceland had a major eruption was 1783 and it went on for 8 months....the worldwide weather was altered for years.  Crops failed throughout Europe and tens of thousands of people died.  Hell thousands of people died from the gases that wafted over Europe.

So riddle me this Batman.....if we are doing so much damage how come we havn't come even remotely close to doing that much damage with 65 years of effort?   A single volcanic eruption wreaked havoc on Europe for a couple of years and according to your facts and figures we have done thousands of times more damage and yet.......nothing!  Where is the mass destruction?...where is the death?.... where is the moonscape?   C'mon you're a smart guy.  Show me the destruction we are causing.







SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You know as a grad student you must be a real peach.  *I suggest you take a few geology classes so you can get some practical knowledge of exactly how the world works* because clearly your head is lost in the theoretical world.
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 30, 2010)

I spent three months in the Amazon basin living off of the land...how about you?  I've been on every continent how about you?  I have more real experience with the world than you ever will.  I remember watching the Day the World Stood Still and at the end when the filmaker has the wonderful end of electricity I was thinking to myself...ah yes utopia..no filthy electricity to ruin our lives...of course within 6 months 5 billion people would be dead but who cares!  Kill 'em all!  Those scenarios crack me up.  Most of you folks would be dead in the first three months because you havn't a clue how to do anything.  You would all either starve or be someone elses sandwich.

Oh and one more thing I wasn't bragging about hanging with Feynman.  I was stating that because of the talks I had the priviledge of having with him I can carry on a conversation with a narrow minded scientific Neanderthal and not lose my temper.  And never forget he said this and please note the emphasis on Nature!


"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." 





SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How do we know that?  Does anyone even bother to measure it?  We know that Kilauea is pumping 4000 gallons of H2O per minute into the atmosphere, logically we must assume it doesn't vanish, ergo it must be adding to the water vapor percentage.
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> Jeez but you have an amazingly thin skin don't you!  When I say you need to get out in the real world I mean exactly that.  In geology we have scientists (who we refer to as black box geologists because they are never in the field) who if they ever are in the field are lost.  They have no clue what the heck they are looking at.



I spent 1 1/2 years operating a telescope for the United States Navy. Does that qualify as "in the field" enough for you? Or would you expect that "in the field" in astronomy would involve doing the things that "in the field" in geology would for some stupid reason?




> You resort to ridicule and personal attacks punctuated by expletives and yet you have never even seen a volcano close up I would wager.  I have been to Kilauea on 7 different occasions over the years and have visited several other volcano's as well.



Good for you. Did it ever occur to you that as a student of astrophysics, I wouldn't really have the time to be doing the types of things that students of geology do? Jeez man, you're essentially stating "You're not in the real world because you don't study the same science as me" which is about as fucked as it gets.





WHICH OIL COMPANY DO YOU WORK FOR ?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> I spent three months in the Amazon basin living off of the land...how about you?



I walked 450 miles from Georgia to Virginia through the mountains on a footpath with 60 lbs on my back until my knee blew out. Are we seriously in a pissing contest over who has had the most awesome outdoor experiences? Really? Is that what this has come down to? Because guess what - you win - and I don't give a fuck. So you can stop your pissing.



> I've been on every continent how about you?  I have more real experience with the world than you ever will.



By your big headed "I've had dinner with Feynman and have been all over the world" attitude I can imagine you've got quite a bit more experience sucking your own dick than an ordinary person as well, but I wouldn't brag about that.




> Oh and one more thing I wasn't bragging about hanging with Feynman.


Sure you weren't.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

I couldn't have made the point any better if I said it myself!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

You have no records, yet you ruled out H2O

Thank you!

Thank you

Thank You!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 30, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You know as a grad student you must be a real peach.  *I suggest you take a few geology classes so you can get some practical knowledge of exactly how the world works* because clearly your head is lost in the theoretical world.
> ...



Spider, Westwall is not a scientist of any kind, and certainly not a geologist. His 'knowledge' in Geology is nill.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Nil is how we describe the "SUV's are melting the polar ice caps!" hysteria you try to pass off as science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Water vapor has a residence time in the atmosphere of less than ten days. So if there is a great deal of water vapor in the atmosphere, there will be thicker annual layers for that period. If the thicker layers in the Anarctic are contemperaneous with thicker layers in Greenland, then there is a reasonable chance that there was more water vapor in the atmosphere worldwide at that period.

For that to happen, there has to be another input. For the water vapor is created by a warmer atmosphere. So, during such periods, either the TSI was greater, or there were more GHGs in the atmosphere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> I spent three months in the Amazon basin living off of the land...how about you?  I've been on every continent how about you?  I have more real experience with the world than you ever will.  I remember watching the Day the World Stood Still and at the end when the filmaker has the wonderful end of electricity I was thinking to myself...ah yes utopia..no filthy electricity to ruin our lives...of course within 6 months 5 billion people would be dead but who cares!  Kill 'em all!  Those scenarios crack me up.  Most of you folks would be dead in the first three months because you havn't a clue how to do anything.  You would all either starve or be someone elses sandwich.
> 
> Oh and one more thing I wasn't bragging about hanging with Feynman.  I was stating that because of the talks I had the priviledge of having with him I can carry on a conversation with a narrow minded scientific Neanderthal and not lose my temper.  And never forget he said this and please note the emphasis on Nature!
> 
> ...



All of that, and you are still as dumb as a rock? 

Tell me, have you and Frank formed a hollow moon club yet?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Hmmm..........   Boy, have I done a good job there. I have all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world agreeing with me. I have created an overwhelming consensus among scientists. 

Or maybe I am just quoting what real scientists are stating?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Are you back to Mann's tree rings?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



So you're also ruling out That "Big Yellow Thing in the Sky"

Terrific

Can you describe the mechanism by which GHG's cause an increase in solar activity?  I'm all ears


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I spent three months in the Amazon basin living off of the land...how about you?  I've been on every continent how about you?  I have more real experience with the world than you ever will.  I remember watching the Day the World Stood Still and at the end when the filmaker has the wonderful end of electricity I was thinking to myself...ah yes utopia..no filthy electricity to ruin our lives...of course within 6 months 5 billion people would be dead but who cares!  Kill 'em all!  Those scenarios crack me up.  Most of you folks would be dead in the first three months because you havn't a clue how to do anything.  You would all either starve or be someone elses sandwich.
> ...



How embarrassing for you that there's more real science behind the possibility that the Moon is a hollow, constructed body than there is for the idea that our SUV have cause cataclysmic climate changes for the last 4 billion years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 30, 2010)

Frank;

So you're also ruling out That "Big Yellow Thing in the Sky"

Terrific

Can you describe the mechanism by which GHG's cause an increase in solar activity? I'm all ears 

*Frank, old boy, do look up what TSI represents. 

As pointed out in previous posts, at present we have been through a period of very quiet activity on the sun, but because of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere, it has been a period of continued warming. For the last three decades, each decade has been warmer than the last.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Frank;
> 
> So you're also ruling out That "Big Yellow Thing in the Sky"
> 
> ...



It always amuses me that you claim there are far too many variables for Warmers to demonstrate your "deminimus increases in CO2 cause instantaneous, cataclysmic and irrecoverable changes in the climate" hypothesis in a laboratory setting, yet you;re able to isolate CO2 as a culprit in some places on the planet getting warmer.

Maybe a weakening or changing magnetic field...

OK, I just got a message from the Universe, not sure what it means, the large CD changer in my office just turned itself on and started playing Blackmore's "Man on the Silver Mountain"  All the hair on my neck is standing up...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





???? Huhh?   Rule out H20 from what? We were talking about the present warming trend, not one that happened 100,000 years ago.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So you're also ruling out That "Big Yellow Thing in the Sky"



We call that the "Sun" and considering its been getting cooler while the Earth has been getting warmer, I'd say its safe to rule it out.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How embarrassing for you that there's more real science behind the possibility that the Moon is a hollow, constructed body than there is for the idea that our SUV have cause cataclysmic climate changes for the last 4 billion years.



How is that embarrassing? Its *your* theory because you're too stupid and dishonest to actually construct arguments against the actual theory of AGW.


----------



## gslack (Apr 30, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How embarrassing for you that there's more real science behind the possibility that the Moon is a hollow, constructed body than there is for the idea that our SUV have cause cataclysmic climate changes for the last 4 billion years.
> ...



So you have decided to resort to spamming the thread with already covered bullshit to both hide your embarrassment as a fake, and to try and salvage some measure of believability in this nonsense....

Atypical believer algorian behavior... You started with my old post trying to bullshit your way through it using half-witted lame arguments. The only bits that were coherent or logical were already dismissed and beaten. You didn't care it was already beaten. All you cared about was saving face....

You go right on ahead and spam the threads with your bullshit, the damage is done... Your side has failed time and again to stand up to scrutiny just as they are now. THey, like you with your fake (I'm a PHD candidate) nonsense are fakes, phonies, and hucksters.....


----------



## konradv (Apr 30, 2010)

_Atypical believer algorian behavior..._
-------------------------------

Proof positive that gslack doesn't care about the science.  Those that do, discuss it.  Those that don't, talk about Gore.  Do you need anymore proof that the deniers are making this a political football?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

konradv said:


> _Atypical believer algorian behavior..._
> -------------------------------
> 
> Proof positive that gslack doesn't care about the science.  Those that do, discuss it.  Those that don't, talk about Gore.  Do you need anymore proof that the deniers are making this a political football?



Its funny how they made fun of Gore for stating he helped passed legislation that created the internet by misquoting him as saying "I invented the internet"
- yet Al has never claimed to come up with the theory of AGW, but all the rightes seem to think he did.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 30, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So you're also ruling out That "Big Yellow Thing in the Sky"
> ...


Aaaaaaaand your argument self destructs into irrelevant noodledom.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 30, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Jeez but you have an amazingly thin skin don't you!  When I say you need to get out in the real world I mean exactly that.  In geology we have scientists (who we refer to as black box geologists because they are never in the field) who if they ever are in the field are lost.  They have no clue what the heck they are looking at.
> ...


ROFL!!!!  Yes, all us opponents of AGW must work for the oil companies.  ROFL.  What a dolt.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> ROFL!!!!  Yes, all us opponents of AGW must work for the oil companies.  ROFL.  What a dolt.



Who the fuck asked you?


----------



## gslack (Apr 30, 2010)

konradv said:


> _Atypical believer algorian behavior..._
> -------------------------------
> 
> Proof positive that gslack doesn't care about the science.  Those that do, discuss it.  Those that don't, talk about Gore.  Do you need anymore proof that the deniers are making this a political football?



What you think you got new messiah to follow junior? HHAHAHAHA! he is a fake and you are a juvenile....classic


----------



## gslack (Apr 30, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > _Atypical believer algorian behavior..._
> ...



LIAR! 

no one said any such thing here douchebag now stoip lying mr fake scientist...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

gslack said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...












Do you have anything better to do than go around calling everyone fakes and liars? Its getting around lunch time, soon the nice people in white coats will calling you for your lunch time meds and then to the cafeteria.


----------



## gslack (Apr 30, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > ROFL!!!!  Yes, all us opponents of AGW must work for the oil companies.  ROFL.  What a dolt.
> ...



So you claim you worked in the navy on their telescopes? Before you go any further, I have worked with the Dept. of the navy on a number of occasions..... So care to enlighten us as to which telescope and where you worked and what you did there exactly?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 30, 2010)

Spiderman Tuba,

Hey, I am having a time trying to find the source I was reading about the black hole creation at CERN.  I think it was a newsletter I received from Michigan State University which is now gone.  As I remember, the Big Bang test they ran earlier this year was supposed to produce black holes as a by product.  These had very short lives and thankfully left the planet intact. lol

I'll keep looking.  It was a legitimate request on your part.  Make a difference to someone today.


----------



## gslack (Apr 30, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



No not at this moment.... My work is caught up and I am on my own netbook having lunch matter of fact.... I have at least 20 minutes left to slap you for lying..... Then I can come back intermittently and slap you some more....

So answer my question...


----------



## gslack (Apr 30, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Spiderman Tuba,
> 
> Hey, I am having a time trying to find the source I was reading about the black hole creation at CERN.  I think it was a newsletter I received from Michigan State University which is now gone.  As I remember, the Big Bang test they ran earlier this year was supposed to produce black holes as a by product.  These had very short lives and thankfully left the planet intact. lol
> 
> I'll keep looking.  It was a legitimate request on your part.  Make a difference to someone today.



Google  Large hadron collider and select news related to... tons of stuff from last months two tests...


----------



## gslack (Apr 30, 2010)

Hmm, it seems sporktubby has decided to run an hide again.... Typical he does this every time he is nailed. he comes and spams nonsense to try and confound a thread and when called on his BS he runs away until people leave, then sneaks back to spam again. he never faces the points against him or his nonsense nor does he ever actually defend a point he makes.

In his latest BS, he now claims to be a PHD candidate.... Funny he didn't mention before when we debated, and only mentioned it after I showed his logic in error.... The idiot didn't even know the CO2 Ocean acidification theory is part of his own sides argument. he assumed it was mine... he also could not follow the logic and reasoning used by either side of this argument, and again tried to imply at different points both arguments were mine. THese things would be mere child's play to even a second year physical science student, yet the self-proclaimed PHD candidate couldn't grasp or follow it...

And now he worked for the Navy on their telescopes which when confronted on it he runs away again.... Well if the little twerp wanted to sound convincing he should have used an actual Base or name of a certain special telescope they use. A telescope like an interferometer.... or FERMI as it is often called. He did not do anything like this, all he did was once again make a wild claim and run away when confronted.

he is another DR.Douchebag, fake, internet google scientist, trying to get credibility through bullshit rather than substance.....


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 30, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > ROFL!!!!  Yes, all us opponents of AGW must work for the oil companies.  ROFL.  What a dolt.
> ...


Public forum.  Butch up, Sally Frillypants.

I know how weak your faith is, being based on political bullshit, but jeez, pop a Haldol or something fuckwit.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 30, 2010)

gslack said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


apparently you got noodles with irrelevancy sauce splashed on you too.


----------



## westwall (Apr 30, 2010)

Woowwww a whole 450 miles cool dude.  I hope you really did do that.  Which trail system did you use?  Now multiply times 50 and you will come close to what I've hiked on the various continents I've trekked over.  And no it's not a comparison about cool outdoor experiences it is about life experience...something you lack.  

You claim to be all about the science.  Fine.  Argue the science stop calling people names when you can't make your point.  Old Fossil claims I am not a scientist, fine...prove me wrong when I use the scientific method against him.  

NONE OF YOU EVER ARGUE THE SCIENCE.  INSTEAD YOU KEEP TROTTING OUT FRAUDULENT CHARTS AND FRAUDULENT DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR FRAUDULENT IDEAS.

IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE THE SCIENCE THEN DO SO. CURRENTLY YOUR HEAD IS SO FAR IN RECTAL DEFILADE I AM SURPRISED YOU CAN BREATH!  NO GRAD STUDENT OF MINE EVER WOULD MAKE THE RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS YOU MAKE AND EXPECT TO SUCCEED.
YOU ARE A PREVARICATOR OF THE FIRST ORDER AND I SINCERELY DOUBT YOUR CLAIMS TO ANYTHING OF AN ACADEMIC NATURE.

YOU ARE QUITE SIMPLY NOT BELIEVEABLE.  YOU ARE FAR TOO CAVALIER WITH SCIENCE IN GENERAL AND TOO UNINFORMED ABOUT AGW IN GENERAL TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A DILLETANTE OR AN AGENT PROVOCATEUR.

I MENTION AL GORE BECAUSE HE IS A PROFITEER.  I MENTION ALL OF THE OTHERS BECAUSE THEY ARE PROFITEERS.   SHOW ME ONE INSTANCE WHERE I AM WRONG.  PROVE MY EVIDENCE WRONG.

YOUR EVIDENCE HAS ALLREADY BEEN PROVEN FRAUDULENT SO PISS OFF TILL YOU COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER YOU IGNORANT GIT!

There, now I feel better!


SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I spent three months in the Amazon basin living off of the land...how about you?
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 30, 2010)

I am retired but I did work for BP in their minerals section for two years in the early 1980's but I left because I am simply not a corporate man.

You still havn't shown me the destruction we've caused BATMAN.  Where is it?  One volcano wreaks havoc for years and we've been "wreaking havoc" for 65 so how come we havn't succeeded in doing anything measurable?  Oh yes we "might" see a whole degree temp rise in a 100 years....BIG WHOOP!  ALL YOU MORONS HAVE IS WE MAY SEE THIS, WE MIGHT HAVE THIS HAPPEN, THIS IS A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY,  WELL GUESS WHAT SIMPLETON THE VOLCANO DID DO THAT.  EVERY MAJOR VOLCANIC ERUPTION THAT HAS OCCURED IN RECORDED HISTORY HAS HAD A VERIFIABLE MEASURABLE IMPACT ON THE CLIMATE...NOT SOME SPECIOUS "POSSIBLE" HORSECRAP!
THEY BLOODY WELL DID IT!


See, I can type just as big as you and whats more what I type is actually real.




SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Jeez but you have an amazingly thin skin don't you!  When I say you need to get out in the real world I mean exactly that.  In geology we have scientists (who we refer to as black box geologists because they are never in the field) who if they ever are in the field are lost.  They have no clue what the heck they are looking at.
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

gslack said:


> So you claim you worked in the navy on their telescopes? Before you go any further, I have worked with the Dept. of the navy on a number of occasions..... So care to enlighten us as to which telescope and where you worked and what you did there exactly?



I worked at the USNO Flagstaff Station on a sky survey. When the survey was done, my job ended. I tell you any more I compromise my anonymity.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

gslack said:


> Hmm, it seems sporktubby has decided to run an hide again....



Sorry, but those of us who don't live in institutions actually have lives outside of this message board.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> Woowwww a whole 450 miles cool dude.  I hope you really did do that.  Which trail system did you use?  Now multiply times 50 and you will come close to what I've hiked on the various continents I've trekked over.  And no it's not a comparison about cool outdoor experiences it is about life experience...something you lack.



You are just so much more infinitely cooler and more awesome than anyone in the world, aren't you? 

50 times, huh? So that's 22,500 miles you've hiked? Around the globe, essentially? At a brisk 30 miles a day that means you've spent over two years of your life sleeping in a fucking tent in the woods. And I'm the one who doesn't live in the real world! LOL!

And sorry bub, I don't need various continents, I'm content with the wide variety of natural beauty available for my enjoyment in my own country of the *U.S.A.*

Why did you do all that walking? So you could brag about it later and make everyone think you're so awesome and cool?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Apr 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> I am retired but I did work for BP...



Hey thanks for fucking up our coast!


----------



## Meister (Apr 30, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Woowwww a whole 450 miles cool dude.  I hope you really did do that.  Which trail system did you use?  Now multiply times 50 and you will come close to what I've hiked on the various continents I've trekked over.  And no it's not a comparison about cool outdoor experiences it is about life experience...something you lack.
> ...



That's the most humble post you have ever posted. 
I'm sure he is infinitely cooler than you, S.T.


----------



## westwall (Apr 30, 2010)

I am glad you finally realise what a worm you are compared to my greatness!


SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Woowwww a whole 450 miles cool dude.  I hope you really did do that.  Which trail system did you use?  Now multiply times 50 and you will come close to what I've hiked on the various continents I've trekked over.  And no it's not a comparison about cool outdoor experiences it is about life experience...something you lack.
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 30, 2010)

You are quite welcome


SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I am retired but I did work for BP...
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 30, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > So you claim you worked in the navy on their telescopes? Before you go any further, I have worked with the Dept. of the navy on a number of occasions..... So care to enlighten us as to which telescope and where you worked and what you did there exactly?
> ...



HAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAAHA!

Anonymity? What you think someone here can track you down because you claimed you worked at Flagstaff? HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Gimme a break douchebag.... A sky survey? LOL, what one? You realize thats as general a claim you can make on that? A telescope is in effect a survey of celestial bodies... Sorry google boy but I'm not buying it..... So you didn't work on the NPOI? Or is that too sensitive to talk about? HAHAHAHAAHA!

You freaking internet bigshots crack me up...... Every time it never fails; every time you assholes get into a debate you can't win in your usual ignorant way, you immediately turn into some kind of scientific expert in the field. it wouldn't matter what it is either.... I have seen douchebags like you in other forums as well, it seems all of you think its a new idea. Well its not moron. matter of fact its old and tired now....

First what in the hell would a PHD candidate in astrophysics hope to get out of trolling nonsense in a web forum? What is it the stimulating dialog that you can't get from your peers? HAHHAHA! For christs sake you would think one of you cheetoh junkie, momma's basement living, punks would look around and notice its pretty lame and ignorant to try and claim yourself better, smarter, more educated, or whatever in a place with anonymity.. Its pointless and means nothing. You can't prove it here, and we can definitely see its bullshit from the way you post and act...

Dude you couldn't even follow this thread...... Spare us the "I am educated so I win" crap.... Dr. Douchebag already showed its a lost cause......


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 30, 2010)

> CURRENTLY YOUR HEAD IS SO FAR IN *RECTAL DEFILADE *I AM SURPRISED YOU CAN BREATH!



Primitive animals have a Cloacae.  that's pronounced "[kloh-ey-kuh]"


----------



## gslack (May 1, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > CURRENTLY YOUR HEAD IS SO FAR IN *RECTAL DEFILADE *I AM SURPRISED YOU CAN BREATH!
> 
> 
> 
> Primitive animals have a Cloacae.  that's pronounced "[kloh-ey-kuh]"



Hey I have cocopuffs on top of my fridge!


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 1, 2010)

gslack said:


> Anonymity? What you think someone here can track you down because you claimed you worked at Flagstaff? HAHAHAHAHAHA!



It wouldn't be hard. There were only two people with my job and one was a woman and one was me.


> Gimme a break douchebag.... A sky survey? LOL, what one? You realize thats as general a claim you can make on that? A telescope is in effect a survey of celestial bodies... Sorry google boy but I'm not buying it..... So you didn't work on the NPOI? Or is that too sensitive to talk about? HAHAHAHAAHA!


I don't believe you understand what a sky survey is. You can read all about them on the internets. Google


> Every time it never fails; every time you assholes get into a debate you can't win in your usual ignorant way, you immediately turn into some kind of scientific expert in the field.


I had no idea this debate was over astrophysics!


----------



## westwall (May 1, 2010)

You know you are still ducking my question about the effects volcanoes have on our atmosphere.  So to reiterate, a single large volcanic eruption has measurable, verifiable effects on the Earths atmosphere.  And yet even though man is (according to you) pumping vastly more pollutants into the atmosphere there is no measurable effect.  Why is that?

And please don't trot out any of those fraudulent graphs that Old Fraud loves to pony out.
And don't bore us with "well we may see this" or "it is possible that..." or "computer models suggest".  No, I want to see something verifiable and I want to see it right now.  A volcanoes effects are nearly instantaneous.  You don't have to wait years or decades for the effects to be observed.

Please oh great "Astrophysicist" explain that to us poor mortals.





SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Anonymity? What you think someone here can track you down because you claimed you worked at Flagstaff? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 1, 2010)

westwall said:


> You know you are still ducking my question about the effects volcanoes have on our atmosphere.  So to reiterate, a single large volcanic eruption has measurable, verifiable effects on the Earths atmosphere.
> 
> 
> And yet even though man is (according to you) pumping vastly more pollutants into the atmosphere there is no measurable effect.  Why is that?



Please point out where on this graph you can find evidence that a single large volcanic eruption has a measurable affect on the atmospheric CO2 content.






> No, I want to see something verifiable and I want to see it right now.


 OK. Radiative Climate Forcing by the Mount Pinatubo Eruption -- Minnis et al. 259 (5100): 1411 -- Science



> A volcanoes effects are nearly instantaneous.  You don't have to wait years or decades for the effects to be observed.
> 
> Please oh great "Astrophysicist" explain that to us poor mortals.


 You want _me_ to explain to _you_ why the effects of a volcanic eruption on the atmosphere are nearly instantaneous?  Aren't you the supposed geologist?


----------



## westwall (May 1, 2010)

No Silly person,

What I am saying is when a volcano erupts there is an immediate effect (one example is in general the temperature falls for a year and sometimes longer) and yet the amount of pollutants is tiny compared to what man is doing...(once again according to you) so please explain this dichotomy.

If what we are doing is so damned dire then why the hell are there no effects visible or measurable?  Huh?

Simple question, should have a simple answer now don't you think?

Oh yes anything published by NOAA for the moment is suspect.  Their data has been proven as useless as the CRU's.
Hopefully when they get a non-agenda driven director things will revert to good science again.

And  Eyjafjallajokull by itself is pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as Belgium is all by itself....but oh yeah I forgot...it's natural CO2 and not man made so it doesn't count...oooops oh goofy meee...



SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You know you are still ducking my question about the effects volcanoes have on our atmosphere.  So to reiterate, a single large volcanic eruption has measurable, verifiable effects on the Earths atmosphere.
> ...


----------



## gslack (May 1, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Anonymity? What you think someone here can track you down because you claimed you worked at Flagstaff? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
> ...



On the *INTERNETS* okay buddy I will look on the internets I am sure one of them will have something on it...... 

Oh little man, I am well aware wait a sky survey is tard boy.... I also happen to know your claim to be only one of two doing such is utter and complete bullshit.

I also happen to know your little attempts to be a douchebag prove my point.... 

One more fake....


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 2, 2010)

westwall said:


> Oh yes anything published by NOAA for the moment is suspect.



According to who?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 2, 2010)

gslack said:


> Oh little man, I am well aware wait a sky survey is tard boy.... I also happen to know your claim to be only one of two doing such is utter and complete bullshit.





I love how you're the world's foremost expert on EVERYTHING!

I also didn't say I was only one of two on the project. I was only one of two telescope operators at the time. Operation of the telescope was a  one man operation. There are 12 hours of darkness a night. That's 84 hours of work per week. Two full time workers. Are you suggesting they should have hired 4 part time workers instead? Would that have resulted in a better survey? I ask you because you obviously know everything.


----------



## gslack (May 2, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Oh little man, I am well aware wait a sky survey is tard boy.... I also happen to know your claim to be only one of two doing such is utter and complete bullshit.
> ...



BULLSHIT!!!!!

You are full of it not just a little bit but epically full of shit!

THe navy would not allow that, all military operations are redundant upon redundant, and all technical/technological/scientific research and so on are even more so. you can claim it was a one man job all you want pal , but its just more proof you are talking out you're ass..


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 2, 2010)

gslack said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...





I'm not seeing what redundancy was needed here that wasn't used. We backed up our data in triplicate, that's pretty redundant I'd say. But I guess you're the expert on EVERYTHING so you'd know better. You should write the U.S. Naval Observatory and inform them that telescopes are two man operations and that they need to spend the extra cash to have someone sit on his ass all night long.


----------



## gslack (May 2, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Asshole, I know how the military and especially the DON works. I been working with them off an on as a contractor and regular gov employee for 21 years now. Redundancy involves more than backing up your data dumazz, and had you actually worked for the Dept. of the Navy you would know this. personnel are not left to their own devices. Not even douchebag internet fake astrophysicist like you....


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 2, 2010)

gslack said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I didn't know the Navy contracted out its janitorial duties. 

Please, by all means, tell me how I should have done my job. Obviously, since you've done contract work with the navy on and off, you must know everything about every job, military and civilian, within the Navy, even more than the people actually doing the job.


I have to ask though, since you're such an expert on everything having to do with the Navy, shouldn't you be busy helping out with this oil spill? Get the fuck outta here Mr. Expert on Everything, we need you to save the day!


----------



## gslack (May 2, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Aww going to resort to bullhsitting your way out of it now? how very telling there junior...

I am a data analyst, but then you wouldn't know about that would you fake boy...


----------



## westwall (May 2, 2010)

Legitimate scientists





SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes anything published by NOAA for the moment is suspect.
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (May 2, 2010)

All science based on the falsified data created by East Anglia University, Mann/Jansen/Hansen is hereby invalid because they had to MAKE SHIT UP and massage the numbers (do the trick) to get the results they wanted.

Huh... just wondering something out loud here.  When's the last time nature had such a sharp increase in temperature as the purported hockey stick fraud over as many years?  I don't think there ever has been that was not attached to a global  disaster of some sort, and then it would have been faster or slower.  Volcanoes and meteors happen instantly, and solar events usually take place over a much longer period of time, don't they?  If there is some non-massaged evidence in that, I'd love to see it.


----------



## saveliberty (May 2, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Oh little man, I am well aware wait a sky survey is tard boy.... I also happen to know your claim to be only one of two doing such is utter and complete bullshit.
> ...



Congratulations, the sky did not fall on your watch.  You did let some aliens sneak in however.


----------



## Flopper (May 2, 2010)

It's a silly pipe dream to think that people are going to make the kind of sacrifices needed to stop the buildup of greenhouse gases.  Our society is result orientated.  If we make sacrifices we expect a result within some specific time period.  Our time horizons are short.  Science's time horizons are long. For any massive project, if we don't get real positive results in 5 or 10 years, we are done with it.  

The other problem is we are so adaptable.  If the polar bears are extinct in 25 years, we will adapt by having lots of them in zoos.  If the oceans rise and flood the coasts, we will adapt by moving our cities.  If our deserts become uninhabitable, we will to north or south.  If the land and ocean can not provide us with food, we will adapt by seeing our numbers sharply reduced.  And then greenhouse gases will not be a problem.  Over time nature has a way correcting imbalances.


----------



## westwall (May 2, 2010)

Which instrument were you working with?  And at the time you were working there how many other scientists were working there?





SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Oh little man, I am well aware wait a sky survey is tard boy.... I also happen to know your claim to be only one of two doing such is utter and complete bullshit.
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


I wouldn't. I'm not a data analyst. So why should I? I'm not an expert on everything like you are.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> Legitimate scientists
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do any of them have names?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> All science based on the falsified data created by East Anglia University, Mann/Jansen/Hansen is hereby invalid because they had to MAKE SHIT UP and massage the numbers (do the trick) to get the results they wanted.



According to who?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 3, 2010)

Flopper said:


> If the oceans rise and flood the coasts, we will adapt by moving our cities.


It's a silly pipe dream to think that people are going to make the kind of sacrifices needed to move entire cities inland.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> Which instrument were you working with?



This one:








> And at the time you were working there how many other scientists were working there?



I really don't remember, maybe a couple dozen at most? Most of them worked during the day. In my building, there would be at most one other person at night, sometimes he would leave and ask me to shut down things for him in the morning. I was in the small satellite building up the hill. In the main building with the larger telescope there would be maybe one or two there at night but often no one at all. Although my title was "astronomer" I was functionally only a telescope operator. I showed up at 6 pm and left at 6 am and didn't see too many other people, except the two machinists that would show up right before I left.. My actual superiors were back in Washington, D.C. and we kept in touch by phone and email.


----------



## gslack (May 3, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



I just love the way you try and obfuscate getting called on your lies with this nonsense.... Truly funny to watch....

I tell you you're lying and tell you how and why this is so, and your defense is to call me a know-it-all... HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Well pal, I don't know everything. But I do know some things pretty well. Like how scientific research is conducted, how the Dept. of the Navy in particular handles research, data, and procedures involved in such. it kinda goes with my job idiot.... And after 21 years doing it, I think I have a good grasp on it. Now if you would like me to expand this with some hard info I can...

For instance, the largest naval telescope is at flagstaff and its a astrometric reflector. it recorded the moon they believed revolved around Pluto back in the late 70's. its used to measure distances and brightness/color of stars. It uses a combination of photographic and CCD technology.

BTW, I set you up earlier.... I mentioned FERMI being a naval telescope. you didn't even argue about whose satellite it was... A true astrophysics PHD candidate would know dam good and well FERMI is a NASA gamma ray orbiting telescope... Hell man it was in the news.....

You are fucking DONE!!!!!!
 Enough of your bullshit buddy, you are a fake and a known and proven liar!!!!!  

You are no more a scientist than DR.Douchebag(Dr.Greg) or any of the myriad of other internet fakes trying to win debates by bullshit credentials and education....

Now shut the fuck up you intolerable little moron!!!!


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> Well pal, I don't know everything. But I do know some things pretty well. Like how scientific research is conducted, how the Dept. of the Navy in particular handles research, data, and procedures involved in such. it kinda goes with my job idiot.... And after 21 years doing it, I think I have a good grasp on it. Now if you would like me to expand this with some hard info I can...



After 21 years of doing it, you've got a good grasp on how to operate a Navy telescope, too, apparently. In fact you're a better expert at it than people who've actually done it!


> For instance, the largest naval telescope is at flagstaff and its a astrometric reflector. it recorded the moon they believed revolved around Pluto back in the late 70's. its used to measure distances and brightness/color of stars. It uses a combination of photographic and CCD technology.



That's awesome. Who the fuck cares?



> BTW, I set you up earlier.... I mentioned FERMI being a naval telescope. you didn't even argue about whose satellite it was... A true astrophysics PHD candidate would know dam good and well FERMI is a NASA gamma ray orbiting telescope... Hell man it was in the news.....


lol! MOst everything you say is complete crap, didn't seem out of the ordinary to me!


----------



## gslack (May 3, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Well pal, I don't know everything. But I do know some things pretty well. Like how scientific research is conducted, how the Dept. of the Navy in particular handles research, data, and procedures involved in such. it kinda goes with my job idiot.... And after 21 years doing it, I think I have a good grasp on it. Now if you would like me to expand this with some hard info I can...
> ...





> After 21 years of doing it, you've got a good grasp on how to operate a Navy telescope, too, apparently. In fact you're a better expert at it than people who've actually done it!



Well no junior, but a known and proven fake like you??? Most assuredly I know more about it than you do....



> That's awesome. Who the fuck cares?



Well you should junior... After all you claimed you worked in the building beside it.... Remember? in this thread and the post linked to and quoted below..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2268706-post442.html



			
				spidermantuba said:
			
		

> I was in the small satellite building up the hill. *In the main building with the larger telescope* there would be maybe one or two there at night but often no one at all. Although my title was "astronomer" I was functionally only a telescope operator.




yeah you see that? You couldn't name the type of telescope... I did... Easy to do for me and I am not a astrophysics PHD candidate.... 



> lol! MOst everything you say is complete crap, didn't seem out of the ordinary to me!



Really? The fact a self-proclaimed Astrophysics PHD candidate didn't know the FERMI telescope didn't seem out of the ordinary to you? Well of course not its just one more lie for an internet phony isn't it...... yeah thanks for this confession junior its been fun....

PHONY!


----------



## westwall (May 3, 2010)

Try reading the NAS report on Manns arithmetic.  The REAL report not the cut and past one that Mann used to exonerate himself.





SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Legitimate scientists
> ...


----------



## westwall (May 3, 2010)

Nice file photo.





SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Which instrument were you working with?
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 3, 2010)

Thanks.



westwall said:


> Nice file photo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 3, 2010)

LOL! You mean the one that says



> "*The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes ...*





westwall said:


> Try reading the NAS report on Manns arithmetic.  The REAL report not the cut and past one that Mann used to exonerate himself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gslack (May 3, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



HAHHAHHAHAHAA!

SpidermanTuba says:

"I am a astrophysics PHD candidate, and therefore you cannot question me nor point out my ignorance... here is proof if you don't believe me."






"that was the telescope I worked on.. See? Now you have proof that I am science expert, super-smart, genius guy who does not pretend to be what he isn't to try and win a debate... Don't be so silly."

-SpidermanTuba - super-smart, smarter than you smarty pants smart guy who is an expert on this sciencey stuff so shut up!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 8, 2010)

Here's a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences to the US Congress on the ocean acidification crisis. The problem will just continue to get worse and more damaging to marine life and the ocean ecology as CO2 levels rise.

*CO2 Emissions Causing Ocean Acidification to Progress at Unprecedented Rate

National Academy of Sciences* 
Date:  April 22, 2010

WASHINGTON -- The changing chemistry of the world's oceans is a growing global problem, says the summary of a congressionally requested study by the National Research Council, which adds that unless man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are substantially curbed, or atmospheric CO2 is controlled by some other means, the ocean will continue to become more acidic.  The long-term consequences of ocean acidification on marine life are unknown, but many ecosystem changes are expected to result.  The federal government's National Ocean Acidification Program, currently in development, is a positive move toward coordinating efforts to understand and respond to the problem, said the study committee. 

The ocean absorbs approximately a third of man-made CO2 emissions, including those from fossil-fuel use, cement production, and deforestation, the summary says.  The CO2 taken up by the ocean decreases the pH of the water and leads to a combination of chemical changes collectively known as ocean acidification. 

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased approximately 0.1 unit -- from about 8.2 to 8.1 -- making them more acidic.  Models project an additional 0.2 to 0.3 drop by the end of the century.  This rate of change exceeds any known to have occurred in hundreds of thousands of years, the report says.  The ocean will become more acidic on average as surface waters continue to absorb atmospheric CO2, the committee said. 

Studies on a number of marine organisms have shown that lowering seawater pH with CO2 affects biological processes, such as photosynthesis, nutrient acquisition, growth, reproduction, and individual survival depending upon the amount of acidification and the species tested, the committee found.  For example, some of the strongest evidence of the potential effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems comes from experiments on organisms with calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.  The results showed decreases in shell and skeletal growth in a range of marine organisms, including reef-building corals, commercially important mollusks such as oysters and mussels, and several types of plankton at the base of marine food webs. 

The ability of various marine organisms to acclimate or adapt to ocean acidification is unknown, but existing data suggest that there will be ecological winners and losers, leading to shifts in the composition and functioning of many marine ecosystems, the committee said.  Such ecosystem changes could threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources. 

Although changes in ocean chemistry caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 can be determined, not enough information exists to assess the social or economic effects of ocean acidification, much less develop plans to mitigate or adapt to them, the committee noted. 

The federal government has taken initial steps to respond to the nation's long-term needs with the development of the National Ocean Acidification Program.  The committee found that legislation has laid the foundation for a program that will advance our understanding and improve our response to ocean acidification. 

The committee recommended six key elements of a successful National Ocean Acidification Program:

·         an integrated ocean acidification observation network that includes the development of new tools, methods, and techniques to improve measurements

·         research in eight broad areas to fulfill critical information gaps

·         assessments to identify stakeholder concerns and a process to provide relevant information for decision support

·         a data management office that would ensure data quality, access, and archiving, plus an information exchange that would provide research results, syntheses, and assessments to managers, policymakers, and the general public

·         facilities to support high-quality research and training of ocean acidification researchers

·         an effective 10-year strategic plan for the program that will identify key goals, set priorities, and allow for community input, in addition to a detailed implementation plan


The study is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation.  The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies.  They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter.  Committee members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academies' conflict-of-interest standards.  The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion.  For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.  A committee roster follows.

Copies of the summary for the report *Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean* are available from the National Academies Press

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## Big Fitz (May 8, 2010)

Why does this all smell like the silly ass theory of the ice melting, making the fresh water too heavy and killing the gulf stream conveyor by decreasing salinity?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 8, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Why does this all smell like the silly ass theory of the ice melting, making the fresh water too heavy and killing the gulf stream conveyor by decreasing salinity?



Because you are stupid.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 8, 2010)

Yeah, I'm gonna have to start your neg rep collection.


----------



## gslack (May 8, 2010)

I find it very odd that I just had a discussion in another thread were I had to remind oldrocks about the bullshit he tried in this thread.... And wouldn't ya one of his alter egos/pals tries to revive this thread citing a supposed report on ocean acidification....

Anyone else find this more than a little bit ridiculous now? oldrocks is a proxy punk, we already know konradv is.... nice try candyass wuss.... Why not debate me outright you useless POS propaganda pushing phony!!!!

If you want to play this way I will repost it here as well......

Okay going to play pretend and force me to embarrass you again douchebag? okay want to do this again in another thread no problem.....

Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2?

Not only did they evolve in times with 20x higher CO2 in the atmosphere, but the thrived and spread as well.... Just in the limited confirmed paleo study we can affirm this as fact..... IF the current theory pushed by your faithers and their agenda driven pseudo-science based theory is indeed accurate as stated and implied in their papers and claims in their pamphlets and through the media outlets, and politically oriented IPCC; How is that possible?

Its not and when you examine the theory itself you see the fact they take a theory and accepted current fact about CO2 in an enclosed water environment (not like an ocean but more like a pool), and try to make a case for ocean acidification based on that principle and concept.

Is a swimming pool like an ocean? Why no and why not? Well a pool is limited by a great many things that are not apart of the system. A short list of examples:

1. A pool does not have a soil or earth based system underneath it. There is no free and abundant source of alkali in a pool. Alkali inhibits acidification. 

2. A pool does not benefit from waves stirring the system recycling the deeper water with the upper water. Deeper water as in measured in 100's and thousands of feet or more in some areas. The deeper water will naturally be far less acidic than the upper levels and multiple times less acidic than the surface water. The constant mixing and circulating of this, forcing the older more acidic surface water to eventually make contact with the alkali laden sea bed and various other substances which lower the acidity. And we aren't even mentioning the fact temperature of water effects the level of absorption of atmospheric CO2... Colder water holds more CO2, warmer water releases more CO2.... Anyone see a problem yet? keep this point in mind...More on it in a little bit....  

3. A pool being a closed environment, and maintained in a timely basis only allows certain types of organisms to take hold. Most other organisms require the first organisms to set a groundwork for them to make a foothold. oceans are already set in this respect. This base and required structure already is established in an ocean. These things through life, waste, reproduction, and the cycle of life also inhibit acidification.

So when they take an example like PH in a pool or any closed environment and attempt to make a case regarding the oceans, it is a gross oversimplification. An oversimplification that gives a false scenario to an uneducated or already frightened over CO2 public.

All of this is a simplification as well, one made to give a more complete view of what any claims of ocean acidification really mean.....

Oldsocks will ask me for some scientific source for this..... Well all of this is easily found from actually reading the articles and information on this from even his own sources..... Don't go with the headlines or the pamphlets they give the AGW groups and major media. Actually read the stories or data summaries and FAQS.

All of this shows us categorically, we do not understand the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and ocean PH well enough to make any rash claims like those the propagandists and MSM, or their agenda driven scientists try to make....

I asked this simple question of oldrocks last time and he went into a fit...

I will ask it again....

Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2? IF CO2 ocean acidification theory is correct as stated and implied by your side and their proponents (be they scientific or any other) and coral and similar life are particularly susceptible to acidic conditions as claimed. How could they have possibly evolved and thrived in such times of vastly greater atmospheric CO2?

Using simple logic and sound reason we see that there is a marked conflict here... Either the theory is unsound in some way, overstated to generate fear, or our understanding of the bigger process isn't detailed enough. Because our own researchers give us data that is conflicting and counters each others claims.

In the meantime here is a new one for him to bake his little noodle trying to make an excuse for it....

Also the same so-called scientists from the pro-AGW agenda driven organizations out there tell us of a feedback loop regarding CO2 ocean acidification and Global Warming. As in the planet gets warmer from Atmospheric CO2, the oceans absorb more of it because the oceans are warmer, one feeds the other until we heat up land kill the planet. Well that would be fine if the fact the ocean warming did not actually slow down CO2 absorption.... What was that??? yep warmer oceans absorb *less* CO2. So that kinda puts a bit of a monkey wrench in the whole theory doesn't it....

IF warmer oceans absorb less CO2 the so-called feedback loop is broken. SO if atmospheric CO2 causes drastic warming as they claim, the oceans will warm absorbing less CO2, leaving more in the atmosphere... Which means? The whole premise of ocean acidification is again in question... if they absorb less as they warm the claims of massive ocean acidification getting worse as the planet warms is highly unlikely if not impossible given the nature of the system..

The way they sell this nonsense for grant money is simple.... They take a legitimate concept or theory like Ph balance and acidification in water. And ask questions like "does CO2 effect the oceans like it would my swimming pool?".. They first assume it must effect it somewhat because its water. Then they go about trying to prove this. They show some link and get a little grant money to further this study. Do a bit more research and show a bit more accurate a link, may get published in a science journal, and then make some bold statements of CO2 and Ph in the oceans. THey make the bold statements because they have a product to sell; their theory and themselves as researchers. Whom are they selling to? The governmental organizations, environmental organizations, the think tanks, the sierra club, the club of rome, etc. etc.. And BINGO! Grant money with a stipulation. That stipulation being; the study must show a link to AGW.... So now they are stuck... No tie in to AGW, no more grant money, no more inside track to the vast infrastructure perpetuating this AGW theory, no more big house, no more Benz in the driveway, and no more immediate publication in the major science journals......

Thats why they all but deny these simple and logical points. They either leave them out of their final publications, gloss over them and diminish them, or they try and hide this with charts, graphs, equations, and often wrong, misleading or irrelevant data to the claims they make in regards to the topic.

It's called BULLSHIT....

lets watch him dance around it and ask for sources for sound reason and logic again....... Douchebag can't even form a series of thoughts together well enough to think.. If its not on his green reading list or propaganda posting card he is dumbfounded....


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 8, 2010)

gslack said:


> Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2?


What difference would atmospheric CO2 make? Corals live underwater. The water is not the atmosphere. Duh.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 8, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2?
> ...



Do you read your own posts?  Did you read any of the other posts in here? 

What a fucking retard!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 8, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *An increasingly evident effect of the excess CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere.*
> 
> An Ominous Warning on the Effects of Ocean Acidification by Carl Zimmer: Yale Environment 360
> 
> ...






*nobody cares s0n*




really


----------



## skookerasbil (May 8, 2010)

ps...........anything to do with climate is not science. Lets just get that out of the way please. Its not any more "science" than any of the social sciences.

Science is chemistry..........physics. Thats it..........everything else is hardly hard science. There is zero consensus on any "science" that is environmentally related. Its all conjecture and depends upon which theory one wants to embrace.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 8, 2010)

> Also the same so-called scientists from the pro-AGW agenda driven organizations out there tell us of a feedback loop regarding CO2 ocean acidification and Global Warming. As in the planet gets warmer from Atmospheric CO2, the oceans absorb more of it because the oceans are warmer, one feeds the other until we heat up land kill the planet. Well that would be fine if the fact the ocean warming did not actually slow down CO2 absorption.... What was that??? yep warmer oceans absorb less  CO2. So that kinda puts a bit of a monkey wrench in the whole theory doesn't it....
> 
> IF warmer oceans absorb less CO2 the so-called feedback loop is broken. SO if atmospheric CO2 causes drastic warming as they claim, the oceans will warm absorbing less CO2, leaving more in the atmosphere... Which means? The whole premise of ocean acidification is again in question... if they absorb less as they warm the claims of massive ocean acidification getting worse as the planet warms is highly unlikely if not impossible given the nature of the system..



Wow, how nice to learn.  Assidification bites the dust again.  Forgetting to scale for the size of the pool and other factors that mix the water... yeah.  Another attempt fails from the fascist delivery system.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 8, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2?
> ...


AAAAAAHHHHHH HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!  HOO HOO HEE HEE HAH HAH HAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!

BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAA>SNORK-GASP-CHOKE<  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

The trouble with lying all the time is that you have to continually remember who you lied to and what that lie was.  I think you just forgot who you were talking to spuddytuber.


----------



## saveliberty (May 8, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2?
> ...



Did he just say what I think he said?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 8, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


Ohhhhh yes he did!  ROFLMAO


----------



## gslack (May 8, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2?
> ...



Okay junior tell us again how you are a PHD candidate again?????

Fucking idiot!!!!


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 8, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



They do live underwater.


----------



## saveliberty (May 8, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Okay science whiz, what do real scientists say happens to coral (even the underwater ones) when the CO2 level in the atomosphere goes higher?  We've only gone over that two or three times here since you showed up.  *knock* *knock*  Hello, you retaining anything in that brain?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 8, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I thought the problem was ocean CO2 content, not atmospheric.


----------



## saveliberty (May 8, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Unhook him guys, no brain function.  I call it at 11:42pm.


----------



## gslack (May 8, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



So you are denying the theory of CO2 leading to ocean acidification you and your side have spent threads and days arguing? 

yeah you really ARE that completely ignorant....

This thread is about the theory that atmospheric CO2 causes ocean to turn acidic killing coral and similar life forms.... YOUR SIDE makes the claim as CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the oceans absorb more CO2 lowering their PH and turning them acidic. This acidification according to their theory kills coral and various other life forms that are especially sensitive to lowered PH and acidification.

NOW PLAY TIME IS OVER DIPSHIT!!!!!

I am fucking DONE tolerating you, your socks or proxies and all of your insanely ignorant ramblings... You do not understand even the basics of the crap you come in here and argue for, you do not read the thread well enough to make a valid point, and all the while you try and claim you are a graduate student PHD candidate in Astrophysics......

If you do not have anything more to offer than your idiotic trolling and bullshit, then do us and yourself a favor and shut the fuck up now....

MORON!!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (May 9, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


Here's a little remembered fact by those who never took college level earth sciences.  Oceans are technically a level of atmosphere, called a hydrosphere.  There is great levels of interchange between it and the atmosphere.  Far more than with the atmosphere and land.

Thank you for debunking your claims of college level intelligence and doctoral dissertations.  You're done here.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 9, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


So what's the pH of the rest of the atmosphere?

I always thought pH of a liquid was influenced by more than just the CO2 content of the air above it. Am I wrong?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 9, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


Nope, you flunked out.  I'm not wasting my time on you anymore, child.  Try again somewhere else at a different school


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 9, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



So the pH of a fluid is a measure of the CO2 in the air above it? I had no idea.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2010)

skookerasbil said:


> ps...........anything to do with climate is not science. Lets just get that out of the way please. Its not any more "science" than any of the social sciences.
> 
> Science is chemistry..........physics. Thats it..........everything else is hardly hard science. There is zero consensus on any "science" that is environmentally related. Its all conjecture and depends upon which theory one wants to embrace.



You say that only because you're an ignorant retard with his head jammed firmly up his ass. Sane, rational, intelligent adults know better than to believe your denier cult brand of anti-science bullshit.


----------



## gslack (May 9, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > ps...........anything to do with climate is not science. Lets just get that out of the way please. Its not any more "science" than any of the social sciences.
> ...



Yes we do.....


----------



## konradv (May 10, 2010)

_This thread is about the theory that atmospheric CO2 causes ocean to turn acidic killing coral and similar life forms.... YOUR SIDE makes the claim as CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the oceans absorb more CO2 lowering their PH and turning them acidic. This acidification according to their theory kills coral and various other life forms that are especially sensitive to lowered PH and acidification.

NOW PLAY TIME IS OVER DIPSHIT!!!!!_
------------------------------------------------

What don't you understand about that?   It's a good thing playtime  is over, because you apparently need to hit the books.  More CO2 in the atmosphere means more CO2 dissolved into the ocean.  More CO2 in water means lower pH.  That's simple basic science.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 10, 2010)

Is it just me or has recess run amok?






U no lissin to me!  U poopiehed!
Gimme!
No!
Me in charge!
U no be bossy! Me rite me boss!

Chilluns, get thee back to nickjr.


----------



## saveliberty (May 10, 2010)

​


konradv said:


> _This thread is about the theory that atmospheric CO2 causes ocean to turn acidic killing coral and similar life forms.... YOUR SIDE makes the claim as CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the oceans absorb more CO2 lowering their PH and turning them acidic. This acidification according to their theory kills coral and various other life forms that are especially sensitive to lowered PH and acidification.
> 
> NOW PLAY TIME IS OVER DIPSHIT!!!!!_
> ------------------------------------------------
> ...



Why don't you and spiderman tube have a little aside on that then.  He seems confused.  Then you two can come back here and counter how we have experienced much higher levels of CO2 in the water and the undersea creatures adapted.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



What you mean "we", trolltard? There is no universe anywhere where anyone would ever consider you 'sane', 'rational' or 'intelligent'. You are a retarded ignorant troll with your head jammed even farther up your ass than 'skookerassbite' has his head up his ass. Neither of you know anything about science and you're both totally ignorant about climate science.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> ​
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> ...



Like most of the scientifically ignorant denier cultists, you fasten onto theoretical arguments that you don't have the background to understand and ignore the measured physical reality that the scientists are talking about. Ancient corals had hundreds of thousands of years to adapt to changing ocean pH. It is quite possible that there was some massive die offs of coral at the times when CO2 levels were higher but the surviving coral adapted over long time frames. Modern corals are being subjected to a rapid acidification process that will probably cause a massive die off. 

The important point is that the changes in pH levels and CO2 levels in the oceans and the changes that are happening are not theoretical. These are scientifically observed facts.

Here's an excerpt from *an article from last year on this topic*:

"_The ocean absorbs a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from human activities. *Observations from the last 25 years show increasing acidity in surface seawater, following trends in increasing atmospheric CO2.

Measured recent increases in ocean acidity follow exactly what is expected from basic chemistry; meanwhile, key ocean regions reveal decreases in shell weights and corals that are less able to build skeletal material, explains Dr. James Orr, of the Marine Environment Laboratories (MEL-IAEA), Monaco and Chairman of the symposiums International Scientific Committee.*

The Monaco Declaration is a clear statement from this expert group of marine scientists that ocean acidification is happening fast and highlights the critical importance of documenting associated changes to marine life , says Professor Sybil Seitzinger, Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), one of the sponsors of the Symposium.

*According to the experts, ocean acidification may render most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase. It could lead to substantial changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening food security for millions of people as well as the multi-billion dollar fishing industry.*_"


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2010)

Here's another good, very recent article on this topic that highlights the danger the world faces as we continue to burn massive amounts of fossil CO2 and pump it into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than these ancient volcanoes did.

*Scientists link ocean acidification to prehistoric mass extinction*

By Gwyneth Dickey
PhysOrg.com
April 27th, 2010 in Space & Earth / Earth Sciences

*New evidence gleaned by analyzing calcium embedded in Chinese limestone suggests that volcanoes, which spewed massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for a million years, caused the biggest mass extinction on Earth.*

In a paper published April 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of researchers led by a Stanford geologist said that as carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the oceans, it raised the acidity of seawater.

The research team said it was a deadly combination - carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and higher acidity in the oceans - that eventually wiped out 90 percent of marine species and about three-quarters of land species, in a cataclysmic event 250 million years ago known as the "end-Permian extinction."

Back then, the ocean teemed with corals, algae, clams and snails. Soon after, however, there was an abrupt change to a thick layer of bacteria and limestone, a "slime-world," dominated by bacteria.

Lead author Jonathan Payne, an assistant professor of geological and environmental sciences at Stanford, said the calcium found in limestone from Guizhou Province in southeast China helps answer a question scientists have been debating for decades: What caused the mass extinction?

Scientists have proposed many possible reasons for the extinction, including asteroids, volcanoes, and low levels of oxygen in seawater. Payne and his colleagues earlier thought that carbon isotope evidence pointed to volcanoes, but they couldn't definitively distinguish between that and the other possibilities.

Two years ago, they realized that the calcium in limestone could hold the answer, because the types of calcium present in the ancient rocks would be different for each extinction scenario.

By looking at changes in the ratio of heavy to light calcium isotopes in fossils from different time periods and determining their "calcium signature," the team could infer the chemical changes - and their origin - that occurred in the environment.

The scientists ground up the limestone deposits, which spanned the pre- and post-extinction periods, and analyzed them to determine the relative presence of calcium isotopes. They found that the changes in the ratio matched the calcium signature predicted for ocean acidification, and the matching carbon dioxide signature pointed to carbon release from volcanic eruptions.

"Our best geologically supported idea is that the carbon dioxide release is related to the Siberian Traps volcanoes," Payne said.

Payne calculated that the eruptions, which lasted upwards of a million years, released 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons (1 gigaton equals 1 billion tons) of carbon in the atmosphere. By comparison, scientists estimate we would release an estimated 5,000 gigatons of carbon if we used up all the fossil fuels in the Earth.

During the eruptions, huge amounts of carbon dioxide and molten rock burst through the earth's crust, burning through coal and limestone, and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That made oceans and rainwater more acidic, and dissolved more calcium from rocks into the ocean.

Payne said humans may not ultimately release as much carbon dioxide as the Siberian traps, but we may be doing it at a faster rate. The end-Permian extinction could be viewed as a "worst case scenario" for what we could be facing as we burn more fossil fuels and increase ocean acidity, he said.

"We won't necessarily end up with a world that looks as bad as it did after the end-Permian extinction, but that event highlights the fact that things can go very, very wrong," Payne said.

The National Resource Council recently reported that the ocean's chemistry is changing faster than it has in hundreds of thousands of years, because carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere and absorbed into the oceans, making them more acidic. Studies have shown increased ocean acidity decreases photosynthesis, nutrient absorption, growth and reproduction of marine organisms.

He said the next step as his research continues is to look at rock deposits in other locations from the same time period to make sure the samples they used represent a global event, as opposed to a local event. The team has already started analyzing rock deposits in south central Turkey, southern Japan, and eastern China.

More information: 'Calcium isotope constraints on the end-Permian mass extinction,' April 26, 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences Calcium isotope constraints on the end-Permian mass extinction ? PNAS

Provided by Stanford University

"Scientists link ocean acidification to prehistoric mass extinction." April 27th, 2010. Scientists link ocean acidification to prehistoric mass extinction

© PhysOrg.com 2003-2009

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## saveliberty (May 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's another good, very recent article on this topic that highlights the danger the world faces as we continue to burn massive amounts of fossil CO2 and pump it into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than these ancient volcanoes did.



I think this fails on its face.  We are pumping more into the atomsphere than the volcaneos is simply a false statement, as the results are not even close to what is described in the article.  Further, no definitive volcaneo theory has been proven.  I believe asteroids are still in contention for that honor.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another good, very recent article on this topic that highlights the danger the world faces as we continue to burn massive amounts of fossil CO2 and pump it into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than these ancient volcanoes did.
> ...



The only thing that falls on its face is your lame ignorant attempt to argue science that you don't understand. You're a brainwashed denier cultist and so you obviously have no way to distinguish between true and false statements. The article is talking about a million year long period of massive volcanic eruptions (google 'Siberian Traps') that released as much as 43,000 billion tons of CO2. 1 million years of eruptions and 43,000 gt total carbon release is an average RATE of 0.043 gt per year. We humans are now adding about 28 billion tons (gigatons or gt) of CO2 every year to the atmosphere. Taking the ratio of these rates shows that we are releasing carbon at 650 times the rate of the Permian-ending volcanoes!!!

The article was about some recent research that points to a probable volcanic CO2 release cause for the end-Permian extinction but it does not claim to be definitive. An asteroid strike is still a possibility as a part of the mix that caused this event but your "beliefs" are just uninformed guesses and not at all significant. Save your 'beliefs' for your denier cult meetings where any wild ass nonsense will be accepted without question or need for evidence.


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2010)

konradv said:


> _This thread is about the theory that atmospheric CO2 causes ocean to turn acidic killing coral and similar life forms.... YOUR SIDE makes the claim as CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the oceans absorb more CO2 lowering their PH and turning them acidic. This acidification according to their theory kills coral and various other life forms that are especially sensitive to lowered PH and acidification.
> 
> NOW PLAY TIME IS OVER DIPSHIT!!!!!_
> ------------------------------------------------
> ...



Read much? Might want to try that BEFORE running your mouth and looking idiotic again...

BTW, you, sparkytuba, oldsocks, and your or their proxy rollingblunder need to grow up already...  None of you follow threads, none of you read them well enough to understand them, and continue to re-post already covered material..... Whats more NONE of you show any level of logic, reason or understanding in any of this.

Is this all you are about? Seriously all of you try and claim some higher knowledge and thinking, yet none of can ever show any of it...

All of you look idiotic and immature.... Now please if all you want to do is troll, then stop trying to pretend....


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's another good, very recent article on this topic that highlights the danger the world faces as we continue to burn massive amounts of fossil CO2 and pump it into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than these ancient volcanoes did.
> 
> *Scientists link ocean acidification to prehistoric mass extinction*
> 
> ...



What you think re-posting oldsocks crap changes the fact it was already covered before?

nice try socko, but we already dispatched this story..... Re-posting only makes you look retarded...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another good, very recent article on this topic that highlights the danger the world faces as we continue to burn massive amounts of fossil CO2 and pump it into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than these ancient volcanoes did.
> ...



LOLOLOLOL....more classic slack-jawed-idiot delusions. You couldn't "dispatch" a fly with one wing, you utterly clueless retard, let alone refute actual scientific research. Moreover this article is dated April 27th. It just came out and it has not been posted earlier on this forum. Your claim that it was just demonstrates again how retarded and confused you are, slack-jawed. As usual you're just blowing smoke out your ass and pretending to know what is going on.


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Hi oldsocks...... Nice way to use the same insults you use as oldsocks on me..... So are you a sock? Or some butt buddy? Don't play dumb dipshit, you are definitely someones little tool...

BTW I fixed some points in that article that needed clarification.. notice the bold type...


----------



## saveliberty (May 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Yet we are not experiencing the dire consequences of that Permian era.  You fail.  You even had to admit that my alternate theory has credibility.  Your just another alarmist faither.


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's another good, very recent article on this topic that highlights the danger the world faces as we continue to burn massive amounts of fossil CO2 and pump it into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than these ancient volcanoes did.
> 
> Oh NO!!!!! Scare tactics! AHHHHHHH!!!!
> 
> ...



Please read the large blue type in that re work above.... its priceless....


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Are you really that stupid? Do you really think it would all happen instantly? We are not experiencing the dire consequences of the Permian extinction - *YET*. 

You're just another clueless and very ignorant denier cultist pushing the lies, misinformation and propaganda that you've been spoon fed by the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign. I post scientific information, evidence and research, like the last article, and you post your 'opinions' and 'beliefs' which aren't even really yours but just stuff you believe because your ideological puppet masters told you to 'believe' it. You are a duped tool of people with an economic self interest in the current fossil fuel energy sources.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2010)

gslack said:


> Please read the large blue type in that re work above.... its priceless....



No, it's worthless bullshit, just like you and all your posts, slackjawedretard. You never post anything but pure drivel and dreck but you're far too idiotic to realize it.


----------



## saveliberty (May 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



What do you consider instantly?  The global warming crew has this as a problem for the last twelve years at least.  The Industrial Revolution happened over one hundred years ago.  CO2 has a cycle just like most things in nature.  You sound like this is an immediate problem, yet claim we have a long time before this threat is realized.  Just a tad contradictory.  Your the one reciting talking points rollingturd.  I have done some study and find you and your group to be cheaters, liars and distorters of the worst sort.


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



AND WE WON"T FROM FOSSIL FUEL USE!!!

We don't have enough of them to burn to cause it period, your own article said as much.... but then you didn't read it did you..... Yeah as usual....


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Please read the large blue type in that re work above.... its priceless....
> ...



Busted aren't ya douchebag.... Yeah it happened the same to oldoscks several times the same way... He got caught not reading and understanding what he posted as well. Matter of fact the idiot used the same story you tried to use.... Reading is a good thing moron, it saves you embarrassment....

That reply you just gave was an admission and surrender.... Thank you for trying, but as I said before its already been busted....


----------



## Big Fitz (May 10, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


Gslack, don't bother.  Arguing to this guy is like having a fist fight with a revolving door.

He's too dumb to get it, and all you do is waste time and energy on something that's pointless.

Save your reason and facts for something that's sentient.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



It took the Siberian Traps volcanoes a million years to produce the "dire effects" so your incredibly silly claim that we don't have a problem if there are no immediate "dire effects" is really retarded. This is an immediate problem even though the full effects haven't been seen yet because whether or not we keep on raising CO2 levels will determine how bad the situation gets later, in a few decades or a few centuries. 

You haven't "studied" shit, dillwad. You're an ignorant, stupid, anti-science denier cultist who gets all his 'opinions' and 'beliefs' from Rush or FauxNews or some denier cult blog.


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Oh I know, but the truth is there in the post I showed the errors in.... He and his bullshit has a flaw they cannot bullshit enough to hide it.

A lie, no matter how technical or how complex the web of deceit is still ultimately bound by the fact it took a lie to create it. And that is how all bullshit is defeated.

I think he is one of oldoscks, konradv's, spitballtuba's proxies or socks.. The idiot didn't even try to use a different insult than oldoscks tired ones..... A good proxy server can hide a sock... 

Either way, his bullshit on this is done... His article told the tale.... He outed his own bullshit and the asshole knows it... All he is doing now is trying to cover it under more BS.


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



How much Carbon was spewed into the atmosphere to cause that catastrophe according to your article?

13,000 to 43,000 gigatons...

how much can man produce if he burns up all the fossil fuels on the planet according to your article?

5,000 gigatons.....

Your claim is busted flat on its face, by its own source..... Nice work genius.. Learn to read before trying the scare tactic......


----------



## saveliberty (May 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



So tell us what and when we should expect results from your alarmist views.  You should have some type of model that predictions can be made from.  Your studies and careful reviews must yield smoething, anything?  We have all heard the sky is falling, the sky is falling!

I have a science degree dillwad.  That is why it is easy to see past your ignorance.


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Hes off right now looking for a knew article to cloud this point... it's now the standard tactic from the warmers handbook.... Watch.. He will either run away, start another thread, or come in with another article either saying the same thing as the last one or something subtly different but essentially the same things.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 11, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



You are such a simple minded retard. Just because they estimate the Siberian Traps produced a certain amount of CO2, you jump to the idiotic conclusion that anything less than that amount is nothing to worry about. LOL. Retard.


----------



## gslack (May 11, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Well then asshole why don't you correct the numbers..... Can't can you moron....

yeah thats what happens when your agenda is fear and bullshit driven. The facts come out sooner or later....

YOUR article YOU posted made the claim that over a million years and 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere the oceans then became acidic....

That same article YOU POSTED, then told us if we burn up all of our fossil fuels we have on the planet, we would put only 5000 gigatons into the atmosphere......

IF the theories they are pushing in that article are correct, this entire eruption process took over a million years and 8-9 times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere than we could ever possibly put up using fossil fuels. And whats worse we will be out of fossil fuels somewhere before the century ends. 

Want me to make it simpler for you?


*Then and natural *(not man made)

over a million years

13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere


*Now and Anthropogenic* (man made)

A little over 220 to 260 or so years

5,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere if we burn up all the fossil fuels on the planet.

Understand yet slow boy???? its simple we cannot reproduce that catastrophe using fossil fuels, its not possible. We do not have the fossil fuels to do it period....

Now go and get some more crap you don't read or understand so we can show the rest of the forum your bullshit....


----------



## saveliberty (May 11, 2010)

The faither seems to need a rest.  He's tried every form of math possible to get the numbers to work in his favor.  Sad part is you used his own article to disprove his point. alarmist are like that.  Read the sensational headline and they run around like chickens thinking the sky is falling.

Can we stop the hydrologic cycle?  CO2 cycle?  Oxygen cycle?  Plate movement?  The tides?  Our influence on this planet is not nearly as great as we would think.  You can see the Great Wall from space.  Of course you can see a giant beaver dam too.


----------



## gslack (May 11, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> The faither seems to need a rest.  He's tried every form of math possible to get the numbers to work in his favor.  Sad part is you used his own article to disprove his point. alarmist are like that.  Read the sensational headline and they run around like chickens thinking the sky is falling.
> 
> Can we stop the hydrologic cycle?  CO2 cycle?  Oxygen cycle?  Plate movement?  The tides?  Our influence on this planet is not nearly as great as we would think.  You can see the Great Wall from space.  Of course you can see a giant beaver dam too.



The truly idiotic part in it? I don't think he or any of his brethren would have noticed the problem even if they actually HAD read it. They are blinded to anything other than what their perceived betters tell them. And as long as they view themselves and their party or its candidates that way, they will not see anything other than what they are told.

They do not see the problems like the ones I pointed out in the theory itself, nor even in the articles they use as evidence. They do not see it because the idea of it goes against what they are told by their perceived betters. They still live under the false assumption political party ideologies claimed by their representatives, are what they will get from them. And no matter how many times this is shown false, they will refuse to see it any other way..... 

This in my opinion is the most dangerous problem we have ever faced in this country. People who are that blind are the same types who allowed Hitler, Napoleon, and all the other tyrants to do what they did.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 11, 2010)

> I have a science degree dillwad. That is why it is easy to see past your ignorance.



Must make it easier.  I can figure it out pretty easy WITHOUT one.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 12, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


No it didn't. You're just too retarded to understand what you read, gsock. The article did not say that it *took* a million years or that it *took* the release of over 13,000 gt of CO2 to create oceans acidic enough to drive marine species into extinction. The marine biologists are currently saying that even a little more CO2 dissolved in our oceans will be a disaster for many parts of the marine ecology. The article I posted is pointing out the fact that this process can, at some point, cause mass extinctions.





gslack said:


> That same article YOU POSTED, then told us if we burn up all of our fossil fuels we have on the planet, we would put only 5000 gigatons into the atmosphere......
> 
> IF the theories they are pushing in that article are correct, this entire eruption process took over a million years and 8-9 times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere than we could ever possibly put up using fossil fuels. And whats worse we will be out of fossil fuels somewhere before the century ends.


Your whole rant here is based on your moronic inability to grasp reality. If someone tells you that eating a pound of cyanide will kill you, I'm sure you would conclude that eating a spoonful must therefore be safe. LOL. You are such a retard, gslack-jawed-idiot.


----------



## saveliberty (May 12, 2010)

Of course rolling in turds ignores that an increase in CO2 can benefit plant life in the oceans.  Plants are an important part of the planet too.  Can't even spell planets without a plant.

That plant life might lead to an important positive change in our environment.  Seriously, unless man completely stopped producing electricity, using gas engines burning trees and a few other necessary items we can't drop the CO2 man-made levels enough to make any real difference.


----------



## gslack (May 12, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



You really want to try again scoko? Okay....



> No it didn't. You're just too retarded to understand what you read, gsock. *The article did not say that it took a million years or that it took the release of over 13,000 gt of CO2 to create oceans acidic enough to drive marine species into extinction. The marine biologists are currently saying that even a little more CO2 dissolved in our oceans will be a disaster for many parts of the marine ecology. The article I posted is pointing out the fact that this process can, at some point, cause mass extinctions.*



Sure you want to try and lie now after all your other displays of ignorance? okay its your funeral....

Your article link... Scientists link ocean acidification to prehistoric mass extinction
One brief part backing my point.....


> Payne calculated that the e*ruptions, which lasted upwards of a million years, released 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons (1 gigaton equals 1 billion tons) of carbon in the atmosphere. By comparison, scientists estimate we would release an estimated 5,000 gigatons of carbon if we used up all the fossil fuels in the Earth.*



Now right there what does it say? WHy it says exactly what I claimed it said.... Even with the lowest estimate of the previous amounts from the past we are not even able to produce half that amount burning all the fossil fuels on the planet. Pardon me if I do not panic yet..... 

Then they say these things.....



> *Payne said humans may not ultimately release as much carbon dioxide as the Siberian traps, but we may be doing it at a faster rate.* The end-Permian extinction could be viewed as a "worst case scenario" for what we could be facing as we burn more fossil fuels and increase ocean acidity, he said.
> 
> *"We won't necessarily end up with a world that looks as bad as it did after the end-Permian extinction, but that event highlights the fact that things can go very, very wrong," Payne said.*



Dude they tell you the reality, but you see what the media and your side wants you to see. They say it plain as day, but all you see or hear is "the oceans are going to turn acidic and kill the planet".... Grow up man....

Oh I think I have a far better understanding of this than you do bullshiter. If not, you would be able to come up with some kind evidence or argument better than this semantical nonsense you are trying now...

Face it you and your faithful got caught again taking headlines and drawing conclusions. You fuckheads don't read any of it, you don't understand anything about it beyond the spin the media puts on it, and whats worse you try and claim its science... No shit for brains, the actual science is in the simple math and data in it. We can't duplicate this event burning fossil fuels get over it.... 

Now as usual you try and say this kind of crap... "it might not take as much CO2" or any other number of excuses you weasels pull out of your asses... BULLSHIT! You are wrong, and your so-called experts are on the take. You and your psuedo-science based nonsense have had your day to con people, that day is over....

BTW, what does "at some point" mean exactly??? Sounds like you don't fucking know....


----------



## westwall (May 12, 2010)

I think the best description of the "science" of climatology was uttered in the book "Volcano Weather" by Henry Stommel who started his scientific career in 1944 at Woods Hole.  From 1960 to 1978 he was Professor of Oceanography at MIT and Harvard with a specialty of the general circulation of the ocean with a special emphasis on th Gulf Stream, the Kuroshio, Somali and Brazil currents.

On page 123 of his book while describing the origins of how the temperature records were originated (in very great detail I might add) he states, "It is therefore difficult to judge how meaningful estimates of "average world temperature" before the 1880's really are.  Monitoring of changing deep ocean temperatures is very sparse even today.  It is a rash oceanographer who will announce any statement as to whether the ocean is warming or cooling as a whole.  It would be nice to know, because the ocean stores a great reservoir of heat that could affect climate.

     "We can scarcely dispute the notion that the primary task of those interested in climate is to discover new kinds of data, new techniques of analyisis and to assemble measurements with the greatest geographical coverage, at all altitudes in the air and depths in the ocean, as frequently as possible.  Every hopeful lead, be it tree rings, glaciers, ice cores or the ocean bottom, needs exploration.  

  "In contrast to the unifying role that theory plays in the *exact sciences*, theory in climatology is a _gloss_ that keeps the task intersting."

I highlighted the exact sciences part and he italicized the gloss in his original.  The book was published in 1983 so even back then climatology was not considered any more of a hard science than it is now.







RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > ps...........anything to do with climate is not science. Lets just get that out of the way please. Its not any more "science" than any of the social sciences.
> ...


----------



## westwall (May 12, 2010)

Whoooooooopss.....I trump your BS study with a report from a noted IPCC scientist.  Read on McDuff.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16





RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > ​
> ...


----------



## westwall (May 12, 2010)

Trolling Blunder,

I defy anyone to tell us (and more importantly prove it) that ocean acidification led or will lead to mass extinctions.  It is an instant doctoral degree for anyone who can read the fossil record and determine what caused the three major mass extinctions.  So far the most likely explanation is a asteroid strike, however what most non-scientists don't know is that it took about 5 million years for the dinosaurs to actually go extinct so that lends more credence to the theory that it was a one two punch between the asteroid and the little reported Deccan Plateau flood basalt eruptions in India 65 million years ago that caused the extinctions.

Nowhere does the climatology "science" deal with actual hard numbers.  It is all bluff, and as we see with climategate, fraud.  These imbeciles have set real science back decades because they want to make a whole pile of money.  Yet another example of the real reason for all of the fraud going on.  The fact that you can't or won't acknowledge the fact that these guys and their theory are wrong only proves that you are indeed a useful idiot or are set to profit from this crap as well.

IPCC?s Chairman Pachauri Conflicted, Says SPPI




RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (May 12, 2010)

When mankind has been polluting for a few million years then you can begin to admonish us Blunder old boy.  The article says it took millions of years for the CO2 to build up to the point that the oceans became unliveable.  OK, we as the entire human race for all of our history of polluting this fine planet of ours has produced around....

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the amount of CO2 that that would have produced.  And yes I was very careful with the amount of zero's I placed.  In fact I was very conservative.  In all probability you could probably add at least another 100 or so zero's.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that comparison is?  Let me see volcanic eruptions around the world pumping around 1000 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, for oh heck lets be conservative,  5 million years as opposed to man creating a fraction of that amount for what 200 years?  Yeah sure we are going to cause a mass extinction....yeah right!



RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (May 12, 2010)

As Scooby Doo would say Ruh Roh!!!!  Astrophysicist you are not.  Basic high school science dropout....give the man a ceeeeegar!





SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2?
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 12, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you and spiderman tube have a little aside on that then.  He seems confused.  Then you two can come back here and counter how we have experienced much higher levels of CO2 in the water and the undersea creatures adapted.
> ...





westwall said:


> Whoooooooopss.....I trump your BS study with a report from a noted IPCC scientist.  Read on McDuff.
> 
> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16



LOL. You couldn't "trump" your way out of a wet paper bag, dufus. Dr. Everett worked for the IPCC a decade ago. His oddball opinions do not refute the current research. You fail again.


----------



## Oddball (May 12, 2010)

> &#8220;Ocean acidification is the new climate scare,&#8221; writes Dennis Ambler in a recent paper for the Science and Public Policy Institute, a Washington D.C. non-profit research and education organization.
> 
> Ambler&#8217;s paper, Dying Shell Fish Larvae: The Story of a Scam, expands on the following points:
> 
> ...


 
Ocean Acidification is New Climate Scare, Says SPPI


----------



## RollingThunder (May 12, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Yet we are not experiencing the dire consequences of that Permian era.  You fail.  You even had to admit that my alternate theory has credibility.  Your just another alarmist faither.
> ...





westwall said:


> When mankind has been polluting for a few million years then you can begin to admonish us Blunder old boy.  The article says it took millions of years for the CO2 to build up to the point that the oceans became unliveable.


Wrong again, retard. The article did not say that at all. You're just too stupid to understand what you read.




westwall said:


> OK, we as the entire human race for all of our history of polluting this fine planet of ours has produced around....
> 
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the amount of CO2 that that would have produced.  And yes I was very careful with the amount of zero's I placed.  In fact I was very conservative.  In all probability you could probably add at least another 100 or so zero's.


You're always wrong. It's your one talent, I would guess.

Mankind's burning of fossil fuels has increased the atmospheric CO2 levels by almost 40%, you ignorant dupe.





westwall said:


> Do you have any idea how ridiculous that comparison is?  Let me see volcanic eruptions around the world pumping around 1000 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, for oh heck lets be conservative,  5 million years as opposed to man creating a fraction of that amount for what 200 years?  Yeah sure we are going to cause a mass extinction....yeah right!


I do have a really good idea of just how ridiculous you and your posts are, numbnuts. As usual you just pull figures out of your ass that you don't understand to begin with. The article I posted talked about the Siberian Traps volcanoes producing about 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 over a million year period. It did not say that ocean acidification occurred only after all that time and that many gigatons. The scientists are noticing negative effects on the marine life just from the moderate amount of excess CO2 that mankind has added to the mix so far and we are continuing to add more so the problem is just going to get worse. There is a strong possibility of mass extinctions as we continued to stress the ecosystem with our idiotic practices of burning fossil carbon and deforestation.


----------



## westwall (May 12, 2010)

Oh Blunder you old coot!

Once again resorting to felgercarb and personal insults because your "science" is a fraud.  Ohhhhh (as my three year old would say) don't let it get you down.....you guys are probably going to get the BS Cap and Tax passed...till the next election gets rid of the idiots who put it in place.


I particularly like this site for the CO2/ocean question

http://www.nov55.com/glody.html

And I particularly like this quote from it...."A turning point for some scientists occurred decades ago when some jackass said the oceans are in layers, and the surface layer is too thin to absorb much carbon dioxide. The claim is absurd, because the ocean surface is alkaline with no detectable increase in acidity, which means it is going to absorb carbon dioxide regardless of how thick the surface layer is said to be. 

Propagandists are claiming that 33-50% of the CO2 which humans put into the air is absorbed by the oceans. There is no method of measuring the amount. Since the amount is contrived, it changes with convenience." 


Have a better one old boy (or should I say young boy?)





RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (May 12, 2010)

I suggest you reduce your carbon footprint then rolling turd.  Your use of the computer belies your commitment to the cause.  Do you use anything in a plastic container?  Mow your lawn?  Eat shell fish?  Tell us all about the sacrifices you make to keep the planet safe from CO2.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 13, 2010)

westwall said:


> Oh Blunder you old coot!


Oh Wastedwhelp, you timeless retard!





westwall said:


> Once again resorting to felgercarb and personal insults because your "science" is a fraud.


Wrong again, like always, wurstwellkin. I don't "resort" to insulting you. I insult you because I *like* insulting pompous, ignorant retards who distort science for ideological reasons and this forum is an excellent place to do it. 'My' science, as you call it, is backed by the entire world scientific community so it is your pathetic pseudo-science that you copy off of denier cult blogs that is the "fraud" here but you are far too stupid to see that.





westwall said:


> I particularly like this site for the CO2/ocean question
> 
> Global Dynamic of Carbon Dioxide Production.


Well of course you do.....because it is as idiotic as you are. An AGW denier cult climate blog done by a guy with no education or experience in climate science, just a MS in microbiology. Very typical denier cult pseudo-science set up to fool people as ignorant of science as you dimwitted deniers. I've been citing reports from the National Academy of Sciences and published papers from the foremost peer-reviewed science journals and you imagine in your cult-addled excuse for a mind that some random denier cult blog refutes the real science. LOLOL. You are very deluded as well as retarded.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2010)

Oooooohhh, Ow yet more insults?  

Now Blunder you should know that were we to compare actual science your side would be declared the cult.  The only evidence you have is that which has been created out of whole cloth, or manufactured by altering data to reflect the pre-decided upon result.  That stopped being science when the Catholic Church abandoned that particular methodology...but you wouldn't know that as you probably have never cracked a real book.
But you can go on with your juvenile insults if it amuses you, simple people have simple tastes you know.

Timeless....I quite like that appelation!  Thank you!



RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Oh Blunder you old coot!
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 13, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I particularly like this site for the CO2/ocean question
> ...






westwall said:


> Oooooohhh, Ow yet more insults?


Stop wimpering, you pussy. I'm just getting started on insulting you and your ignorant idiotic posts





westwall said:


> Now Blunder you should know that were we to compare actual science your side would be declared the cult.


LOL. I'm sure you denier cultists tell each other that all the time (it's called 'projection') but it is as delusional as the rest of your myths. So no, walleyed, there *is* no comparison. I cite real science from actual working and publishing climate scientists and you have nothing going for you but drivel and tripe. All of the science academies of all the industrialized nations recognize the reality and danger of anthropogenic global warming/climate change. That is a fact. Virtually every working climate scientist supports that conclusion. Another fact. All you've got, you pathetic dupe, is half-assed pseudo-science you lift off of denier cult blogs. You know nothing about the science, you're just arguing for political/ideological reasons. 

I notice that for all of your claims of having better science on your side, you are unable to actually produce any actual published science. Your delusion that your denier cult blogs trump the real science from the science journals is so pathetically hilarious that I can't stop laughing.





westwall said:


> The only evidence you have is that which has been created out of whole cloth, or manufactured by altering data to reflect the pre-decided upon result.  That stopped being science when the Catholic Church abandoned that particular methodology...but you wouldn't know that as you probably have never cracked a real book.
> But you can go on with your juvenile insults if it amuses you, simple people have simple tastes you know.


Yeah, that's your denier cult myth, all right. Don't give up, cult-boy, hang on to those delusions as long as you can.






westwall said:


> Timeless....I quite like that appelation(sic)!  Thank you!


LOL. You like it but you can't spell it. LOL. I didn't call you 'timeless', BTW, I called you a 'timeless retard'. Big difference.


----------



## saveliberty (May 13, 2010)

Excuse me rolling turd, which side had a policy of supressing opinions in published papers, falsifing data and using weather stations with heat sources within 10 meters?

That is pretty worthless science your following there.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2010)

Dude said:


> > Ocean acidification is the new climate scare, writes Dennis Ambler in a recent paper for the Science and Public Policy Institute, a Washington D.C. non-profit research and education organization.
> >
> > Amblers paper, Dying Shell Fish Larvae: The Story of a Scam, expands on the following points:
> >
> ...



*Another false front for the corperations that profit from the continueing degradation of our environment.

Note that they primarily draw on the work of the known fraud, Monkton.*

Science and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch

This is not the earlier, pro-public-health Science and Public Policy Institute founded by George Carlo; see Science and Public Policy Institute (disambiguation) for the distinction.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

SPPI describes itself as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science." It also proclaims that it is "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Excuse me rolling turd, which side had a policy of supressing opinions in published papers, falsifing data and using weather stations with heat sources within 10 meters?
> 
> That is pretty worthless science your following there.



It is pretty worthless lies that you are stating there. Jones, Mann, and the University of East Anglia have been exonerated on all counts, save being human are reacting angrily to the lies of the deniars.

This is what really should happen now;

Univ. of East Anglia climate unit exonerated: Time for skeptics to address their intellectual dishonesty? - Yahoo! Answers

It is unlikely that "skeptics" will address their dishonesty, but they can be made financially accountable. Generally, a party that brings a frivolous case to court is responsible for the costs. Since CRU is exonerated, the costs of the proceedings falls on the "skeptics". I am sure the bill for the inquiry was in the millions and there will be additional administrative costs associated with collecting the debt. In addition, I think that Jones should now seek damages for lost productivity plus substantial punitive damages. The costs can be split among the newspapers and other media that published dishonest articles about Jones and the CRU. In response to future requests for information, Jones should send a copy of the most recent IPCC report and all scientific publications referenced therein. There will of course be a per page printing charge $1 for the IPCC report plus copyright fees of $30 to $40 payable for each of the 8000 plus papers referenced by the IPCC report. The approximately 200,000 pages of information (1000 kg) should be couriered on same day service to the "skeptic" requesting information. The "skeptic" will be responsible for the courier charges.


----------



## saveliberty (May 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me rolling turd, which side had a policy of supressing opinions in published papers, falsifing data and using weather stations with heat sources within 10 meters?
> ...



You just take the lies and move them to a different level huh Old Rocks?  Exonerated?  By groups with vested interests in the CRU being innocent.  That is why you will never get your "damages".   A real court would slap that suit down in a minute.  It would also reveal more of the lies by the CRU.


----------



## Oddball (May 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > > Ocean acidification is the new climate scare, writes Dennis Ambler in a recent paper for the Science and Public Policy Institute, a Washington D.C. non-profit research and education organization.
> ...


_*Argumentum ad hominem *_(argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid. 

_*FAIL!*_


----------



## Oddball (May 13, 2010)

IPCC member rejects ocean acidification scaremongering claims:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16


----------



## gslack (May 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > > Ocean acidification is the new climate scare, writes Dennis Ambler in a recent paper for the Science and Public Policy Institute, a Washington D.C. non-profit research and education organization.
> ...



Hey what happened to you? After smacking you rather embarrassingly you hid behind socks and proxies for a few days. Then you decide your religious batteries are recharged enough to try it again?

Well hate to burst your little religious fervor bubble but..... The point still remains... Your CO2 ocean acidification fear mongering is busted flat.

1. YOU have yet to explain how in times of 20x more atmospheric CO2, the very life forms that would be hit the hardest and wiped out first by the lowered PH (claimed by your side) caused by increasing CO2, not only thrived but evolved.

2. YOU haven't explained how at most if man burns all the fossil fuels on the planet, he will produce 5,000 gigatons of CO2. yet it took 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere and over a million years to create the level of CO2 induced ocean acidification....

Dude your theory and all your bullshit is done.... its busted and shown for the fraudulent pseudo-science it really is.... You ran from this shit for long enough now douchebag.....


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2010)

Trolling Blunder,

Yes, sadly it is a well known fact that geologists don't spell particularly well.  But I can say that having been shot at by real bandits in Pakistan, barbs from a slackjawed halfwit such as yourself are a walk in the park!  And I have to say a tad amusing as well!  So keep it up I can use the laugh!!!

As far as the science you choose to post, for the most part you pick and choose that which suits you (kind of like how I chose "timeless" and left off the retard as a example) so when you are guilty of that you have zero credibility I am afraid.  I can argue real science with you any day of the week and will happily do so, but if you choose to just toss mindless insults around instead....well have at it......simple folk are easilly amused. 






RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2010)

Did you win that war too, as you did in Vietnam? 

Was that before or after you lived off the land for three months in the Amazon jungle?

Damn, you must be at least 120 years old to have done all the things that you claim. And still you don't seem to know a thing.


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Did you win that war too, as you did in Vietnam?
> 
> Was that before or after you lived off the land for three months in the Amazon jungle?
> 
> Damn, you must be at least 120 years old to have done all the things that you claim. And still you don't seem to know a thing.



Still running from my post? LOL, whats wrong little fella? Got caught showing your level of understanding again?


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2010)

You know my wife didn't believe it either till it was all verified by others who were also there.  So yes I've had a exciting and fun life and unlike you I can back it up with pictures!

As far as Vietnam goes I lost an uncle there and my father was also there in 1968-69 and I thank every veteran I meet for allowing us here in the US to live the life we lead.








Old Rocks said:


> Did you win that war too, as you did in Vietnam?
> 
> Was that before or after you lived off the land for three months in the Amazon jungle?
> 
> Damn, you must be at least 120 years old to have done all the things that you claim. And still you don't seem to know a thing.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 14, 2010)

westwall said:


> You know my wife didn't believe it either till it was all verified by others who were also there.  So yes I've had a exciting and fun life and unlike you I can back it up with pictures!
> 
> As far as Vietnam goes I lost an uncle there and my father was also there in 1968-69 and I thank every veteran I meet for allowing us here in the US to live the life we lead.
> 
> ...





How does the Vietnam war allow us to lead the life we lead? Didn't we lose that one?


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You know my wife didn't believe it either till it was all verified by others who were also there.  So yes I've had a exciting and fun life and unlike you I can back it up with pictures!
> ...



Exhibit A.... Want to know why I slap you so much? Look at your ignorant and nonsensical post..... IDIOT!


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 14, 2010)

gslack said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





That doesn't answer the question.


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Are you really this ignorant or is this another act?

okay I will try once more.... When he said he thanked every vet he saw, it is for the simple fact without soldiers to protect us we would be vulnerable and then lose what we have...

Now remedial common sense for dummies is over negrep punk... 

_"That's what you get for cancelling my neg rep to amanda"_-spidermantuba

What a juvenile.....


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2010)

gslack you are of course correct and don't mind poor toober...I fear he has the attention span of a gnat.





gslack said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 14, 2010)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



LOL. It was obvious, Dufus, that you have no ability to distinguish rotten, biased, lying sources from reputable, trustworthy, verifiable sources but thanks anyway for confirming that fact. 

The fact that is obvious to most everybody with more than two brain cells to rub together is that the lame-brained, pseudo-science "arguments", advanced by non-climate scientists on denier cult blogs because their crap wouldn't pass the first sniff test at any reputable science journal, are not valid. You half-witted, scientifically ignorant denier cultists can't see that because your position is based on ideology and not science so you buy into any old Bullshit that agrees with your politically determined preconceptions.

If you can't understand that the obvious economic/political bias of your sources means you can't trust them to not try to manipulate you head with propaganda, misinformation, spin, hype and outright lies, then there is little hope of you ever waking up to the facts.

*The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)* is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.
Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.
*Ferguson* was previously the initial Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSSP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FOF).[3] Exxon had provided $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic) as well as a further $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[4] In subsequent years Exxon continued it support for the project including $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center" in 2003[5], $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change" in 2004;[6] $140,000 to the organization in 2005 but without a specific amount for CSPP identified, $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center" in 2006[7] and $90,000 for "energy literacy" in 2007.[8]


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



kill the messenger? nice way to use the science pal....

Oh and look who you used... Sourcewatch a known and proven left agenda and propaganda site.... Way to go all out for the reliable sources there smart guy.....

From sourcewatch's  "contributing" page..http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Contributing



> This site is built by ordinary wise people, like you. You don't need any special credentials to participate, and the Center for Media and Democracy which publishes SourceWatch has a long-standing tradition of skepticism about "experts" and whose interests they really represent. The fact that SourceWatch is open to everyone is what makes these articles ever-improving, as we review and build on each other's work.
> Dive in. You can just dive right in and create or work on any article you like! You can edit any article directly, or if you want to add your thoughts, questions or comments about an article, you can go to the article's talk page (click on the 'Discuss the page' link in the sidebar or at the bottom of the article). You don't even need to be logged in to edit articles, although it is still a good idea to log in as this gives you access to more of the site's features and makes it easier to communicate with other users.



So they are like wikkipedia then..... uh-huh..... So anyone can contribute? Be they ditch digger or whatever? Well not really, it seems they only like your contributions if they are left leaning.... Here is how to see this all too clearly...

go to their "about sourcewatch page.... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatchurpose



> The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) publishes SourceWatch, this collaborative, specialized encyclopedia of the people, organizations, and issues shaping the public agenda. SourceWatch profiles the activities of front groups, PR spinners, industry-friendly experts, industry-funded organizations, and think tanks trying to manipulate public opinion on behalf of corporations or government. We also highlight key public policies they are trying to affect and provide ways to get involved.



okay so who is THe center for media and democracy? lets follow the link...... what? there is no link to CMD only to their front called PRwatch. So lets go there then....http://www.prwatch.org/

Going there we quickly and easily see they are a PR agency.... I mean really look at their list of projects.... They attack everything the liberal agenda opposes... Seriously.... Here is one way to look at them...

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/12-center-for-media--democracy



> Center for Media & Democracy
> 520 University Avenue, Suite 310, Madison, WI 53703
> Phone 608-260-9713 | Fax 608-260-9714 | Email editor@prwatch.org
> 
> ...



Nice.... Care to tell us about reliable sources again rollingblunder?


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





And all of those amounts of money are a pittance compared to the BILLIONS that has allready been squandered by the AGW fraud perpetrators.  Mann received 500K from the Obama stimulous package which the last time I checked was reserved for shovel ready construction programs.........I don't see Mann holding a shovel, nor do I see him hiring anyone to build something....other than maybe a new house.  Jones and the CRU have received at last count 47 MILLION dollars from the US taxpayers to promulgate their drivel.

Should I go on?  You post a site that castigates large corporations for spending a few hundred thousand dollars while blissfully ignoring the BILLIONS that are being pissed away by your pseudo scientists.....all I can say is that is priceless.  You must look a lot like an ostrich.


----------



## saveliberty (May 14, 2010)

It isn't the thunder that kills you.  Its the lightning.  Roll that around for a moment.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 14, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> It isn't the thunder that kills you.  Its the lightning.  Roll that around for a moment.


They say if you're going to get hit by lightning, you should stick your ass in the air.  It's the safest orifice to be hit.  I guess The Chicken Little Crew has taken to grounding out by their face though.


----------



## Oddball (May 14, 2010)

Lee Trevino sez to grab your one iron, hold it over your head and run for cover...Because not even God can hit a one iron.


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2010)

Dude said:


> Lee Trevino sez to grab your one iron, hold it over your head and run for cover...Because not even God can hit a one iron.


----------



## webdev007 (May 19, 2010)

Is that true?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 19, 2010)

Ocean Acidification?  no.

God can't hit a 1 iron.  no.  He can.  He just doesn't need to.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 2, 2010)

Here's the latest warning from scientists on the dangers we're facing due to the still growing ocean acidification problem. 

*EUROPE: Scientists urge action on ocean acidity*

30 May 2010
University World News
Issue: 126

The European Science Foundation has highlighted the need for more effort to monitor and attempt to reduce ocean acidity. Oceans have absorbed almost a third of the carbon dioxide emitted from human use of fossil fuels; but the gas turns into carbonic acid, raising the acidity of seawater.

That has negative effects on marine life. For example, shellfish and corals find it more difficult to form their shells and external skeletons because the concentration of calcium carbonate in seawater drops as it becomes more acidic.

Earlier this month, the European Science Foundation delivered an overview of the impact of ocean acidification for European Maritime Day.

Prepared by leading scientists from Europe and the US, it highlights the need for a concerted, integrated effort internationally to research and monitor the effects of ocean acidification on marine environments and human communities.

"Ocean acidification is already occurring and will get worse. And it's happening on top of global warming so we are in double trouble," said Professor Jelle Bijma, lead author of the report and a bio-geochemist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany.

"The combination of the two may be the most critical environmental and economic challenge of the century," he said.

"Under a business-as-usual scenario, predictions for the end of the century are that the surface oceans will become 150% more acidic - and this is a hell of a lot."

But integrated research on the impacts of ocean acidification is still a very new field - the full implications of rising acidity is unclear for marine ecosystems and fisheries resources, including fish stocks, shellfish and coral reefs.

Current European and national research programmes are relatively small compared to the combined challenges posed by ocean acidification and global warming. Existing research has mainly been initiated by individual researchers or teams, with limited overall coordination.

Two years ago, the European Project on Ocean Acidification was funded by the EU and within the last year Germany and the UK have funded national ocean acidification programmes - Bioacid and the UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme respectively.

The European Science Foundation says that as others emerge they need to be brought together through a large-scale research initiative taking full advantage of the combined scientific expertise across the European countries and internationally. One of the first steps toward integration is to develop a specific database building on the national research activities in ocean acidification.

Copyright University World News 2007-2010

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## gslack (Jun 2, 2010)

Already busted ya on that one tool try again....

Want me to dig up the thread and repost it for ya?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2010)

The power of Christ compels this thread to stay dead!

Damn stupid thread necromancy.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> Already busted ya on that one tool try again....
> 
> Want me to dig up the thread and repost it for ya?



LOLOLOL....oh, poor little slack-jawed-idiot, the only thing you've ever "busted" is your own pitiful excuse for a brain. Ocean acidification is a reality that is recognized and studied by scientists all around the world.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> The power of Christ compels this thread to stay dead!
> 
> Damn stupid thread necromancy.



LOL. Can't handle reality so you deny it. No wonder you belong to a cult of reality denial. Too bad nobody can raise your brain from the dead.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Already busted ya on that one tool try again....
> ...



You asked for it....

the first page where I showed the OP's flaws...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2199920-post3.html

I have much more in this thread alone tool.....

Your BS is busted...


----------



## konradv (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...




The problem is that the article you're citing is irrelevant to the current situation.  Tell me about our own era; the time when humans evolved.  That's what we're studying and trying to preserve, NOT an artificial return to those earlier times.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2010)

http://iod.ucsd.edu/courses/sio278/documents/veron_08_coral_reefs.pdf

Abstract The five mass extinction events that the earth
has so far experienced have impacted coral reefs as much
or more than any other major ecosystem. Each has left the
Earth without living reefs for at least four million years,
intervals so great that they are commonly referred to as
&#8216;reef gaps&#8217; (geological intervals where there are no remnants
of what might have been living reefs). The causes
attributed to each mass extinction are reviewed and summarised.
When these causes and the reef gaps that follow
them are examined in the light of the biology of extant
corals and their Pleistocene history, most can be discarded.
Causes are divided into (1) those which are independent of
the carbon cycle: direct physical destruction from bolides,
&#8216;nuclear winters&#8217; induced by dust clouds, sea-level changes,
loss of area during sea-level regressions, loss of
biodiversity, low and high temperatures, salinity, diseases
and toxins and extraterrestrial events and (2) those linked
to the carbon cycle: acid rain, hydrogen sulphide, oxygen
and anoxia, methane, carbon dioxide, changes in ocean
chemistry and pH. By process of elimination, primary
causes of mass extinctions are linked in various ways to the
carbon cycle in general and ocean chemistry in particular
with clear association with atmospheric carbon dioxide
levels. The prospect of ocean acidification is potentially the
most serious of all predicted outcomes of anthropogenic
carbon dioxide increase. This study concludes that acidification
has the potential to trigger a sixth mass extinction
event and to do so independently of anthropogenic
extinctions that are currently taking place.
Keywords Ocean acidification  Mass extinctions 
Climate change  Coral reefs  Corals
Introduction


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2010)

http://www.solas-int.org/resources/ESF__Impacts-OA.pdf

There is growing scientific evidence that, as a result of
increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
absorption of CO2 by the oceans has already noticeably
increased the average oceanic acidity from pre-industrial
levels. This global threat requires a global response.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), continuing CO2 emissions in line with current trends
could make the oceans up to 150% more acidic by 2100 than
they were at the beginning of the Anthropocene.
Acidification decreases the ability of the ocean to absorb
additional atmospheric CO2, which implies that future CO2
emissions are likely to lead to more rapid global warming.
Ocean acidification is also problematic because of its
negative effects on marine ecosystems, especially marine
calcifying organisms, and marine resources and services
upon which human societies largely depend such as energy,
water, and fisheries. For example, it is predicted that by
2100 around 70% of all cold-water corals, especially those
in the higher latitudes, will live in waters undersaturated
in carbonate due to ocean acidification. Recent research
indicates that ocean acidification might also result in
increasing levels of jellyfish in some marine ecosystems.
Aside from direct effects, ocean acidification together
with other global change-induced impacts such as marine
and coastal pollution and the introduction of invasive alien
species are likely to result in more fragile marine ecosystems,
making them more vulnerable to other environmental impacts
resulting from, for example, coastal deforestation and widescale
fisheries.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2010)

Long-term ocean oxygen depletion in response to carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

Long-term ocean oxygen depletion in response to carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels
Gary Shaffer1,2,3, Steffen Malskær Olsen3,4 & Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen3,5


Top of pageOngoing global warming could persist far into the future, because natural processes require decades to hundreds of thousands of years to remove carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning from the atmosphere1, 2, 3. Future warming may have large global impacts including ocean oxygen depletion and associated adverse effects on marine life, such as more frequent mortality events4, 5, 6, 7, 8, but long, comprehensive simulations of these impacts are currently not available. Here we project global change over the next 100,000 years using a low-resolution Earth system model9, and find severe, long-term ocean oxygen depletion, as well as a great expansion of ocean oxygen-minimum zones for scenarios with high emissions or high climate sensitivity. We find that climate feedbacks within the Earth system amplify the strength and duration of global warming, ocean heating and oxygen depletion. Decreased oxygen solubility from surface-layer warming accounts for most of the enhanced oxygen depletion in the upper 500 m of the ocean. Possible weakening of ocean overturning and convection lead to further oxygen depletion, also in the deep ocean. We conclude that substantial reductions in fossil-fuel use over the next few generations are needed if extensive ocean oxygen depletion for thousands of years is to be avoided.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2010)

Interesting how these fruitcakes have all these unsupported opinions, claiming they know and understand the science, yet never post any articles from peer reviewed scientific journals in support of their wingnut ideas.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

konradv said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Why look its socko... Already busted you on this line of crap in this thread socko, best not make me bring it back too... Article im citing? Dumazz learn to read, its a link to my post in this thread... LOL big time scientist HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2010)

Yup, completely unsupported opinion. But then, that is all ol' Suckee... has.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > _So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane...._
> ...



Re-post for socko konradv.... Busted that little argument weeks ago tool....


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Another re-post for the tools...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2010)

Only in your feeble mind, Suckee.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



And another one..... i can do this all day.... As long as you and your troll army try and bring back old threads with some bullshit to try and hid the truth I will repost the truth in those threads....


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Still going....


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Credentials not held
> ...



Heres one where oldsocks was caught lying....


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> Come on socks you little coward......
> 
> While i wait on your latest song and dance, I will inform the forum about source watch ....
> 
> ...




More on oldsocks ethics ...


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Untitled
> ...



LOL okay that one was me being mean....LOL love twisting the knife....


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...




See a pattern yet?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Just more of your usual brain-dead ignorant crap, slack-jawed.  The actual observed reality is that the ocean's pH levels are dropping so your theoretical objections are based on your own ignorance of the real world physical phenomenon at play here.

*USF Study Shows First Direct Evidence of Ocean Acidification*

January 20, 2010 

(PhysOrg.com) -- Seawater in a vast and deep section of the northeastern Pacific Ocean shows signs of increased acidity brought on by manmade carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- a phenomenon that carries with it far-reaching ecological effects -- reports a team of researchers led by a University of South Florida College of Marine Science chemist.

The scientists, whose results are published in the American Geophysical Unions journal Geophysical Research Letters, analyzed Pacific seawater between Oahu, Hawaii, and Kodiak, Alaska by comparing pH readings from 1991 and from 2006. This study provides the first direct measurements of basin-wide pH changes in the oceans depths and at its surface and has produced the first direct evidence of acidification across an entire ocean basin, the investigators said.

Principal investigator Robert Byrne, a USF seawater physical chemistry professor, said the study leaves no doubt that growing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are exerting major impacts on the worlds oceans.

If this happens in a piece of ocean as big as a whole ocean basin, then this is a global phenomenon, Byrne said.

Adding carbon dioxide to seawater makes it more acidic, and each year the worlds oceans absorb about one-third of the atmospheric CO2 produced by human activities.

Using pH-sensitive dyes that turn from purple to yellow in more acidic waters, the scientists were able to track changes produced by 15 years of CO2 uptake near the ocean's surface, Byrne said. In deeper waters, down to about half a mile, both anthropogenic and naturally occurring changes in CO2 and pH were seen. In the very deepest waters, no significant pH changes were seen.

The results verify earlier model projections that the oceans are becoming more acidic because of the uptake of carbon dioxide released as a result of fossil fuel burning, said Richard Feely, a member of the research team and chief scientist of the cruise and NOAA researcher from the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle.

Byrne and colleagues at USFs College of Marine Science developed the methods for precise pH measurements and the project was the first time a team of researchers employed those methods in the field.

Byrne led a team of scientists that made pH measurements aboard the NOAA-National Science Foundation-sponsored cruise R/V Thomas G. Thompson in the spring of 2006 using state-of-the-art techniques developed at USFs College of Marine Science. The researchers found that upper-ocean pH had, over the preceding one-and-a-half decades, decreased by approximately 0.026 units, equivalent to an average annual pH change of &#8209;0.0017, over a large section of the northeastern Pacific. Similar recent pH trends have been found at isolated time-series stations in the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and corroborating observations have also been reported by scientists who study other CO2-related substances in seawater.

"The pH decrease is direct evidence for ocean acidification of a large portion of the North Pacific Ocean," said Richard Feely. "These dramatic changes can be attributed, in most part, to anthropogenic CO2 uptake by the ocean over a 15-year period.

The implications for sea life and the worlds food web are serious, Byrne said. When seawater becomes more acidic, lower concentrations of carbonate result. Because the protective shells of sea organisms are made of calcium and carbonate, more acidic waters make it more difficult for many organisms to make their shells and thrive.

That affects not only the food web, but also many important processes essential for healthy marine ecosystems, such as coral reef formation, Byrne said.

The cruise was part of a decade-long series of repeat hydrographic sections jointly funded by NOAA-Office of Global Programs (now the Climate Program Office) and NSF-Division of Ocean Sciences as part of the Climate Variability and Predictability/CO2 Repeat Hydrography Program.

The program focuses on the need to monitor inventories of CO2 and heat in the ocean. Earlier programs under the World Ocean Circulation Experiment and U.S. Joint Ocean Global Flux Study have provided baseline observational fields.

Scientists from 11 academic institutions and two NOAA research laboratories participated in the expedition, whose goal was to determine how the release of huge amounts of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning, land-use practices, and cement production will affect the chemistry and biology of the ocean.

Over the next millennium, the global oceans are expected to absorb approximately 90 percent of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere, says Christopher Sabine, chief scientist for the first leg of the cruise.

"It is now established from models that there is a strong possibility that dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean surface will double over its pre-industrial value by the middle of this century, with accompanying surface ocean pH decreases that are greater than those experienced during the transition from ice ages to warm ages," Sabine said. "The uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide by the ocean changes the chemistry of the oceans and can potentially have significant impacts on the biological systems in the upper oceans."

Estimates of future atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenarios and general circulation models, indicate that by the middle of this century atmospheric CO2 levels could reach more than 500 ppm, and near the end of the century they could be over 800 ppm. Current levels are near 390 ppm, and preindustrial levels were near 280 ppm," Feely said.

Corresponding models for the oceans indicate that surface water pH would drop approximately 0.4 pH units, and the carbonate ion concentration would decrease almost 50 percent by the end of the century. This surface ocean pH would be lower than it has been for more than 20 million years.

Byrne and many other scientists expect that even if substantial reductions are made in the pace at which humans produce carbon dioxide, ocean acidification will continue for hundreds of years to come.

The bad news is it takes many hundreds of years for self-correcting factors to occur, he said. That leaves many centuries of ugly consequences.

Provided by University of South Florida

© PhysOrg.com 2003-2010

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > The power of Christ compels this thread to stay dead!
> ...


No, just can't believe you keep saying the same things and expecting a different result.

Stubborn consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Give it up, reality has whupped your skinny dumb ass.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Interesting how these fruitcakes have all these unsupported opinions, claiming they know and understand the science, yet never post any articles from peer reviewed scientific journals in support of their wingnut ideas.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.solas-int.org/resources/ESF__Impacts-OA.pdf
> 
> There is growing scientific evidence that, as a result of
> increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
> ...







Old Fraud,

I am going to give you a free lesson in the difference between science and propaganda.  In propaganda (as practiced by all of you AGW frauds) the operative words are "maybe",
"suggests", "possibly", "might", "could" and other adjectives of the same variety.  In science I can tell you that if you add a to b you WILL get c.  If you do this particular thing...this other thing WILL occur.  

There is no maybe in real science beyond a few years of research.  All you clowns have is maybes.  You have not had a significant discovery in over 12 years in the "science" of climatology because they are so busy trying to hide the falsification of data that they have no time to do real research....nor are they inclined to do real research because so far it has all proven their theories wrong.

AGW theory is a failure and has now extended into active fraud.  You are a fraud.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2010)

I can predict with absolute certainty that the Warmers will NEVER subject their theory to laboratory testing


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2010)

CO2 might have increased by 1 part in 10,000 over the last 100 years of which some small faction is the fault of mankind and that means we're turning the oceans into gastric juices?


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I can predict with absolute certainty that the Warmers will NEVER subject their theory to laboratory testing






CrusaderFrank,  No I am allmost certain they have tried it.  What they will never do is demonstrate their lack of success PUBLICLY.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded. 

The current ocean acidification is an established, scientifically observed reality. Your denial of the facts is a symptom of your derangement and stupidity.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I can predict with absolute certainty that the Warmers will NEVER subject their theory to laboratory testing
> ...



I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CO2 might have increased by 1 part in 10,000 over the last 100 years of which some small faction is the fault of mankind and that means we're turning the oceans into gastric juices?



Actually atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 40% over the last hundred years or so due to mankind's burning of fossil fuels. Too bad you're so ignorant and clueless, CrusaderRabbit.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Blunder/old fraud,


You're wrong again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 might have increased by 1 part in 10,000 over the last 100 years of which some small faction is the fault of mankind and that means we're turning the oceans into gastric juices?
> ...



Once again, 100 years ago we measured out to parts per 10,000 so assuming any margin of error there may in fact be NO INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 over that time span.

Your "40% increase" sounds oh so scary until you look at the baseline and how even at a 40% increase" CO2 is still an atmospheric trace element


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 3, 2010)

> No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded.
> 
> The current ocean acidification is an established, scientifically observed reality. Your denial of the facts is a symptom of your derangement and stupidity.



No EdtheCynic, Your 'science' and 'proven theory' have been debunked by 4 different people here.  Your own logic has spun you in small circles.  But once again I will ask.  Do you have ANY solutions that does not mandate or ultimately lead to government control or global governance?

I thought not.

Just another political hack pretending to have a scientific basis.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Walleyed/retard,

You're always wrong.

I cite hard science and you just spew drivel that you can't support with any evidence.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Blunder/old fraud,

Once again for the learning impaired, any study that ends with the words MIGHT, POSSIBLY, SUGGESTS, COULD, etc. etc. etc.  IS NOT HARD SCIENCE.  It is propaganda wrapped in scientific terminology (kind of like a science fiction movie) put out by political hacks who want to steal our money.

Hard science uses terms like WILL, WON'T, CAN'T, GENERATE THESE RESULTS etc.  Do you see the difference?  No, I didn't think you could.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Once again, dumbshit, scientists can measure the CO2 levels of previous centuries using modern analytic equipment on the trapped gas in bubbles in ice cores.

Saying that CO2 is just "an atmospheric trace element" just reveals your own ignorance and lack of any scientific knowledge of this subject. Carbon Dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas and that is an observed, measured scientific fact.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






CO2 IS a trace element and it is the weakest GHG that exists, H2S is around 21 times more efficient, Methane is around 22 times more efficient, I don't remember what water vapour is efficiency wise but it is both significantly more efficient and is roughly 2,777 times more plentiful than CO2.

And just to make it as obvious to you learning impaired types I just whipped up a little graph showing the relative gas content of a kilometer of atmosphere.  As you can see the CO2 takes up a mere 36 centimeters of that kilometer and of that 14 centimeters is attributable to man.  So yes it IS a trace element.
Get real.


----------



## Meister (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Please give the percentage of CO2 that is in our atmosphere.  Is it more than .038%?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded.
> >
> > The current ocean acidification is an established, scientifically observed reality. Your denial of the facts is a symptom of your derangement and stupidity.
> 
> ...


Only in the deluded imaginations of you denier cultists. In reality, none of you are smart enough to 'debunk' your way out of a wet paper bag. Ocean acidification is an observed, measured reality. Another part of reality that you are in denial of.... 'cause you're a deluded fruitcake.





Big Fitz said:


> Just another political hack pretending to have a scientific basis.


That is a good description of you denier cultists, all right. Too bad you're all such pinheads.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded.
> ...





In case you missed it here is the graph of a kilometer of atmosphere, please show me how CO2 is NOT A TRACE element.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Walleyed/retard

You are such a fraud and a science poseur, it is very hilarious watching you make such a fool out of yourself. Your little rant here just reveals that you are totally ignorant about how science actually works, something that has been obvious from your posts for a long time. You want language indicating absolute certainty but modern science acknowledges that there is seldom any absolute certainty and so it uses language based on probabilities based on the best evidence to date. I know this will be over your head but here is a good explanation of this from the scientists at the UCS.

*Certainty vs. Uncertainty

Understanding Scientific Terms About Climate Change*

Uncertainty is ubiquitous in our daily lives. We are uncertain about where to go to college, when and if to get married, who will play in the World Series, and so on.

To most of us, uncertainty means not knowing. To scientists, however, uncertainty is how well something is known. And, therein lies an important difference, especially when trying to understand what is known about climate change.

In science, there's often not absolute certainty. But, research reduces uncertainty. In many cases, theories have been tested and analyzed and examined so thoroughly that their chance of being wrong is infinitesimal. Other times, uncertainties linger despite lengthy research. In those cases, scientists make it their job to explain how well something is known. When gaps in knowledge exist, scientists qualify the evidence to ensure others don't form conclusions that go beyond what is known.

Even though it may seem counterintuitive, scientists like to point out the level of uncertainty. Why? Because they want to be as transparent as possible and it shows how well certain phenomena are understood.

Decision makers in our society use scientific input all the time. But they could make a critically wrong choice if the unknowns aren't taken into account. For instance, city planners could build a levee too low or not evacuate enough coastal communities along an expected landfall zone of a hurricane if uncertainty is understated. For these reasons, uncertainty plays a key role in informing public policy.

Taking into account the many sources of scientific understanding, climate scientists have sought to provide decision-makers with careful language regarding uncertainty. A "very likely" outcome, for example, is one that has a greater than 90 percent chance of occurring. Climate data or model projections in which we have "very high confidence" have at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct.

However, in this culture of transparency where climate scientists describe degrees of certainty and confidence in their findings, climate change deniers have linked less than complete certainty with not knowing anything. The truth is, scientists know a great deal about climate change. We have learned, for example, that the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. There is no uncertainty about this. We have learned that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat through the greenhouse effect. Again, there is no uncertainty about this. Earth is warming because these gasses are being released faster than they can be absorbed by natural processes. It is very likely (greater than 90 percent probability) that human activities are the main reason for the world's temperature increase in the past 50 years.

Scientists know with very high confidence, or even greater certainty, that:

    * Human-induced warming influences physical and biological systems throughout the world
    * Sea levels are rising
    * Glaciers and permafrost are shrinking
    * Oceans are becoming more acidic
    * Ranges of plants and animals are shifting

Scientists are uncertain, however, about how much global warming will occur in the future (between 2.1 degrees and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100). They are also uncertain how soon the summer sea ice habitat where the ringed seal lives will disappear. Curiously, much of this uncertainty has to do withare you ready?humans. The choices we make in the next decade, or so, to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gasses could prevent catastrophic climate change.

So, what's the bottom line? Science has learned much about climate change. Science tells us what is more or less likely to be true.  We know that acting now to deeply reduce heat-trapping emissions will limit the scope and severity of further impacts  and that is virtually certain.

Learn more about how scientists define certainty and uncertainty.

©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded.
> ...


Dude, you're so beyond the edge you're no longer cogent.  I see why you lost your previous screen name, psycho.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Blunder/old fraud

These propagandists are unsure of where to wipe their asses.  I don't think they qualify to give an opinion on ANYTHING.  There is no such thing as a different scientific vocabulary for global warming as opposed to any other type of science.  Get real you fool.  Science is the seeking of truth.  These assholes seek our money and nothing else.  Your degree of blind obeyance is truly remarkable.  Are you sure you're not related to Reinhard Heydrich?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

Meister said:


> Please give the percentage of CO2 that is in our atmosphere.  Is it more than .038%?





westwall said:


> In case you missed it here is the graph of a kilometer of atmosphere, please show me how CO2 is NOT A TRACE element.



LOLOL. You dingbats are soooooo clueless about all this. Your heads are so full of propaganda and lies, the shit dribbles out your ears.

I didn't say CO2 was not a trace gas compared to the main components of the atmosphere. I said that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and its effect has been scientifically detected and measured. 

From *Scientific American*

Denier Cult Myth - "Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 are irrelevant.

Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warmingan answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations.

Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annuallymore than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus. Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppma remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years.

Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.

Nevertheless, within this dynamic, the CO2 remains the main driver (what climatologists call a "forcing") of the greenhouse effect. As NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt has explained, water vapor enters and leaves the atmosphere much more quickly than CO2, and tends to preserve a fairly constant level of relative humidity, which caps off its greenhouse effect. Climatologists therefore categorize water vapor as a feedback rather than a forcing factor. (Contrarians who don't see water vapor in climate models are looking for it in the wrong place.)

Because of CO2's inescapable greenhouse effect, contrarians holding out for a natural explanation for current global warming need to explain why, in their scenarios, CO2 is not compounding the problem.

© 2010 Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



LOLOLOL....such a typical response from moronic denier cultists when they get their asses handed to them in a debate.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Walleyed/retard!

One thing they can be sure of wiping their asses on is your pretensions to any scientific knowledge or competence. You are an anti-science cultist on a par with a 'flat earther'.

Nobody said there was a "different scientific vocabulary for global warming", nitwit. All the scientists talk that way, but of course you wouldn't know that because you're a science ignoramus who's never met any real scientists. The closest you've probably ever come to meeting someone approximately like a real scientist would be your visits with the doctors at the mental hospital where they've got you locked up.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

konradv said:
			
		

> _So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane...._
> ------------------------------------
> 
> This is an example of "false choice" and a reason why taking examples from millions of years ago, isn't always the logical thing to do.  The corals of the past evolved during a time of high CO2 and therefore would be able to tolerate lower pH levels.  Modern corals evolved during a time of lower CO2 and don't seem to tolerate an acidic environment as well.  You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.



LOL and this is an example of dancing even after the music has stopped.....

Well if I can't use the past as a a template than neither can your side if we use your own logic....

Perhaps our modern planet has evolved and adapted to absorb more CO2? Perhaps the entire theory of GHG's and their effects are overstated? Perhaps the CO2 millions of years ago was actually a bunch of magic beans which grew into killer spores that killed all the dinosaurs?

Freaking asinine argument man... Seriously, the very word calcite should have been a clue... Clacite and aragonite are both forms of calcium carbonite. Ca CO3 ...

Here is some info on them...



> ARAGONITE (Calcium Carbonate)
> Aragonite is technically unstable at normal surface temperatures and pressures. It is stable at higher pressures, but not at higher temperatures such that in order to keep aragonite stable with increasing temperature, the pressure must also increase. If aragonite is heated to 400 degrees C, it will spontaneously convert to calcite if the pressure is not also increased. Since calcite is the more stable mineral, why does aragonite even form? Well under certain conditions of formation, the crystallization of calcite is somehow discouraged and aragonite will form instead. The magnesium and salt content of the crystallizing fluid, the turbidity of the fluid and the time of crystallization are decidedly important factors, but there are perhaps others. Such areas as sabkhas and oolitic shoals tend to allow significant amounts of aragonite to form. Also metamorphism that includes high pressures and low temperatures (relatively) can form aragonite. After burial, given enough time, the aragonite will almost certainly alter to calcite. Sedimentologists are very interested in aragonite and calcite stability fields because the conversion of aragonite to calcite after deposition has a distinct effect on the character of the sedimentary rocks.





> Calcite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Calcite, like most carbonates, will dissolve with most forms of acid. Calcite can be either dissolved by groundwater or precipitated by groundwater, depending on several factors including the water temperature, pH, and dissolved ion concentrations. Although calcite is fairly insoluble in cold water, acidity can cause dissolution of calcite and release of carbon dioxide gas.



LOL I love that last part especially..... lets repeat that oh so embarrassing bit of science shall we? LOL



> Calcite, like most carbonates, will dissolve with most forms of acid. Calcite can be either dissolved by groundwater or precipitated by groundwater, depending on several factors including the water temperature, pH, and dissolved ion concentrations. Although calcite is fairly insoluble in cold water, acidity can cause dissolution of calcite and release of carbon dioxide gas.



Dam that was a severe smackdown now wasn't it.......

SOOOOO, calcite is especially susceptible to acidity and PH factors? LOL so the whole claim you just made about them evolving in such conditions and resistant to CO2 induced acidification is one more example of BS posing as science..... Wow what an embarrassment... 

REpost


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

konradv said:


> _So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane...._
> ------------------------------------
> 
> This is an example of "false choice" and a reason why taking examples from millions of years ago, isn't always the logical thing to do.  The corals of the past evolved during a time of high CO2 and therefore would be able to tolerate lower pH levels.  Modern corals evolved during a time of lower CO2 and don't seem to tolerate an acidic environment as well.  You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.



LOL and this is an example of dancing even after the music has stopped.....

Well if I can't use the past as a a template than neither can your side if we use your own logic....

Perhaps our modern planet has evolved and adapted to absorb more CO2? Perhaps the entire theory of GHG's and their effects are overstated? Perhaps the CO2 millions of years ago was actually a bunch of magic beans which grew into killer spores that killed all the dinosaurs?

Freaking asinine argument man... Seriously, the very word calcite should have been a clue... Clacite and aragonite are both forms of calcium carbonite. Ca CO3 ...

Here is some info on them...





LOL I love that last part especially..... lets repeat that oh so embarrassing bit of science shall we? LOL



> Calcite, like most carbonates, will dissolve with most forms of acid. Calcite can be either dissolved by groundwater or precipitated by groundwater, depending on several factors including the water temperature, pH, and dissolved ion concentrations. Although calcite is fairly insoluble in cold water, acidity can cause dissolution of calcite and release of carbon dioxide gas.



Dam that was a severe smackdown now wasn't it.......

SOOOOO, calcite is especially susceptible to acidity and PH factors? LOL so the whole claim you just made about them evolving in such conditions and resistant to CO2 induced acidification is one more example of BS posing as science..... Wow what an embarrassment... [/QUOTE]

As soon as I posted this response above in here all 4 of the warmers came in like a platoon and did everything they could to confound, divert, and derail this topic.... Coincidence? Nah they knew dam good and well what it all meant. And they knew it was factual and true, and indefensible...

The above shows categorically and undeniably that despite 20x the amount of CO2 coral life forms formed and flourished. Which blows the entire claim that CO2 will cause the oceans to turn acidic.

Fact: the above evidence verifiable in the supplied links tells us that the two prime elements in coral are extremely unstable in acidic conditions.

Fact: If they are unstable in acidic conditions, then they could not have survived in the PH factors and acidification levels they claim that CO2 would have caused back then. But despite that the corals did thrive and even develop. Showing that either the theory of CO2 causing ocean acidification is incorrect, the levels of effect of CO2 on the oceans is incorrect, or corals somehow despite the very structure making it an impossibility developed magic powers and lived through an acid bath for hundreds of years....

SO which is it now warmers? Come on we know you have a ridiculous hypothesis to excuse this you always do.... Once more your BS is shown for the nonsense it is...

Another re-post for the tools...


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > No you didnt address the point you came in with your pals to try and disrupt the thread and derail the topic to cover the flaw in your sides claims about ocean acidification.... Proof? You still avoided my re-posting of it....
> ...



The topic was ocean acidification and your pals used coral as an example I showed the flaw in this. Your link talks about acidic effects on other sea life correct? Of course... Moving on...

Now if you read my post or any of the two repostings of it you would see the theory behind ocean acidification is in question. The post stated using accepted and known facts about calcium carbonites like argonite and calcite. Two primary compounds in coral. Follow me so far? Good...

The theory claims that rising CO2 makes the ocean waters more acidic. And acidic conditions do not allow for coral to thrive because their very compounds dissolve in acidic water. Even a small change in PH overall can have drastic effects on coral due to their clacium carbonite makeup. Got it so far? Calcium carbonites+acidic water= dead coral. Clear?

So, the fact we had 20x the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago and coral thrived and even evolved at that time, puts the entire hypothesis in question. How could they have thrived and evolved in such acidic conditions if the theory on CO2 and ocean acidification were correct as they present it? Well they couldn't have, plain and simple.

So either the theory is incorrect altogether, or the claimed level of impact on the oceans is incorrect. So then in some way or another the contentions are inaccurate or the theory itself is inaccurate.

And this my dear watson is deductive reasoning 101. Which brings us back to your post and its irrelevance to it all. If the theory or the contentions made based on that theory are incorrect, as the evidence would lead us to believe, than the article you posted is meaningless in reality.

Your article runs on the assumption the theory of CO2 ocean acidification is sound. Well its got some real holes in it that cannot be excused or dismissed, making it suspect to say the least. So in the end your article is as useless as lips on a chicken...

Got it DR? LOL, doctor of what? Freaking idiot!

And another one..... i can do this all day.... As long as you and your troll army try and bring back old threads with some bullshit to try and hid the truth I will repost the truth in those threads....


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > The topic was ocean acidification and your pals used coral as an example I showed the flaw in this. Your link talks about acidic effects on other sea life correct? Of course... Moving on...
> ...



Oh so now you going to try and lie about what your other links were about? 

Good lets address that now shall we?

Your other links.. One was to an article on a site with the word "blog" in the title.... Yeah, blog... LOL, okay okay moving on.... 3 others were to sciencedaily so lets just stick with the sciencedaily links and forgo the blog one....

All 3 of them rely on the theory of CO2 ocean acidification to be correct and accurate as currently claimed by your side. And once again we see that the very theory they rely on is in question.

"knock,knock"  Is this thing on? What part of any of this didn't you get DR.dumazz? Is my type too small or hard to read?

I could have swore I just pointed this all out in the last post... Yep there it is, I see it plain as day. It says basically that the coral thrived in the times where CO2 was 20 times greater than today, which given their weakness to acidification in the oceans they could not have survived if the theory you support is accurate in essence or their claimed reaction levels of that theory are indeed accurate.

So which is it? Is the theory wrong altogether or is the effect levels they claim it has on the oceans inaccurate?

LOL, you can't even keep up with the point I make here... And you claim I am out of my league? LOL please, I walk over better posters than you just to take a beating... You are nothing special azzhole. You came in here with 3 friends to shout down something you couldn't defend logically. So if there is any troll in this thread its you and or your 3 amigos. 


Still going....


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

So the forum resident retard, the slack-jawed-idiot, pops up again and, like always, demonstrates that he is completely unable to understand basic science. It doesn't matter how much evidence you show him, he will deny anything that doesn't agree with his politically determined delusions. 

The pH of the oceans is dropping - observed reality.

Skeletal structures and shells of ocean lifeforms are already being affected - observed reality.

But ol' slack-jawed imagines that his theoretical constructs based on a woefully inadequate knowledge of science somehow trump observed reality. LOL. He is a true retard.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


What's to debate? 

You post articles.  Gslack, Westwall and Crusader Frank consistantly hand you your ass and you post an article you had debunked 4 threads before.  

Lather Rinse Repeat.

You are the definition of insane, and there is nothing more for me to do but mock the shit out of you.  

You still haven't proven there is a threat to life on this planet.

All your solutions are global fascism.

You refuse to denounce the liars who got you stuck in the bad science loop instead of trying again and getting clean data in which to prove your case.

What's to debate?  

And you've even begun to wear out your entertainment value EdtheCynic.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


I would sort of expect someone like you, bigfritz, who never adds anything of substance to any debate, to say something like that when your pathetic nonsense is repeatedly debunked. You obviously have little idea what the debate is even about.





Big Fitz said:


> You post articles.  Gslack, Westwall and Crusader Frank consistantly


fail to post anything but worthless drivel without any scientific backing or evidence.





Big Fitz said:


> You are the definition of insane, and there is nothing more for me to do but mock the shit out of you.


That's funny, that's just what I say about you and your pathetic posts.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 3, 2010)

You know what?  I've had better conversations with my cat.  You're not even worth the time to deride your insanity anymore.  So congrats, you made it to the ignore list faster than Crocks.  At least he makes a cogent point on occasion instead of reposting the same bullshit thread after thread after thread.  If it weren't for the occasional change in insult I'd swear you were a bot.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> So the forum resident retard, the slack-jawed-idiot, pops up again and, like always, demonstrates that he is completely unable to understand basic science. It doesn't matter how much evidence you show him, he will deny anything that doesn't agree with his politically determined delusions.
> 
> The pH of the oceans is dropping - observed reality.
> 
> ...



Only a placating liar tries to speak to everyone else when his argument is with a person... Quick lesson I learned years ago when i was trained for my job... A truthful person will address a PERSON because he is open and all laid out. There is no corner to hide in or veil to pull and he knows this... A dishonest or lying person will try and appeal to PEOPLE or a mass rather than the person because it leaves a lot of wiggle room and interpretive speculation. He needs that place to hide or veil to pull still...

So no more placating and begging people to believe you oldsocks or chris, or whoever sock you may be. Address me, im right here coward.....

Shall I re-post your lies as well tool? Busted this sock lying as well.....


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> You know what?  I've had better conversations with my cat.


LOL. After you finished, your cat was probably thinking that he has had better conversations with his catbox. I'm sure your cat regularly beats you at debate too.





Big Fitz said:


> You're not even worth the time to deride your insanity anymore.  So congrats, you made it to the ignore list faster than Crocks.


So, in troll-speak, that translates to you being unable to handle having your pathetic drivel debunked every time you post some new nonsense.

I've had trolls like you promise to leave before but you little shits never actually stop posting.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > You know what?  I've had better conversations with my cat.
> ...



dont talk about me and then post around me to everyone else you little coward im right here.....


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > You know what?  I've had better conversations with my cat.
> ...



Game over Rolling Turd.  You have been here quite a little while now and you have yet to demonstrate any scientific understanding.  Trottting out the old and tired talking points of the faithers doesn't make you anything but a mindless follower.

You get fooled by simplistic experiments and have your life ruled by fear pedaled by crooked science whores.  Your a broken record that has the potential to do real harm to others.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


You're another brainless troll, savelunacy. You have yet to post any actual evidence to support your idiotic denial of reality.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



hey trolling blunder.... you know that little white spec on the top of chicken shit? Well thats chicken shit too.....


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Troll,

You don't seem to understand (no surprise there) WE don't have to do ANYTHING.  You made the statements and all we had to do was blow holes in your tripe (quite easily done because as has been mentioned before you are a mindless troll) we did that, you were proven a moron.  End of story, now hit the road.  Old Fraud is more fun to play with as he at least has a little iota of brainpower (he can insult just slightly better than you) so you're done.  C'ya later boyo you bother us.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 4, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


_*
Insulting of family members is off limits.

~Dude*_


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 4, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Oh I understand just fine, walleyedtroll. It's a good thing you feel that you don't have to "do anything" because you don't do ANYTHING but recite debunked denier cult pseudo-science and myths. You have all proved yourselves unable to legitimately dispute anything I've posted with any real evidence or science. You and the other deniers are stupid enough to believe each other's nonsense but no one with any intelligence or knowledge is fooled by your tripe.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 4, 2010)

The author of this thread is such a nut its unreal.........................

He never heard of volcano's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



My mom is dead now douchebag..... She grew up in the great depression, raised 13 kids, and did it all with more poise and grace than you could ever hope to see, so you haven't earned the right to speak of my mother...

Next time you want to troll, stick with me... My mother is not an option for you shithead....

You fucked up socko.... now everyone just saw what a true POS you are.... THX for playing, but when im done letting people around here know what a useless waste of breath you are with this, you will have to go back to your other sock....


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 4, 2010)

*"Duuuh!!!!"*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 4, 2010)

Look............make no mistake..................


These environmental k00ks??? Ever notice that there is a tone of misery in their presentation???!!!


These people embrace hysteria and its no accident. It provides meaning to their lives, but is a glimpse into the level of misery in these people. You got some damage going on. These people have made hideous personal decisions in their lives and want to blame it on somebody. The target is the capitalist, thus, they embrace this green ecomomy which is nothing more than a fcukking hoax!! Its the perfect scheme..........take a highly inexact "science" and try to make it a science...........a FCUKK the capitalist in the process!!! Its the green guy's vengence and has nothing to do with "science".!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2010)

*Hmmm......   Interesting site that you posted. Did you even bother to read it?*

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

What the science says...
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.


Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", refering to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002).

In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo have little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *Hmmm......   Interesting site that you posted. Did you even bother to read it?*
> 
> Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?
> 
> ...



BLAH BLAH BLAH....Be afraid!!!!! Then end is near.....

Take your sock with ya on your way out...


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2010)

skookerasbil said:


> Look............make no mistake..................
> 
> 
> These environmental k00ks??? Ever notice that there is a tone of misery in their presentation???!!!
> ...






So true.  This particular individual is a prime example of a useless individual with a worthless life all of which is most likely self inflicted.   Sad.


----------



## Meister (Jun 4, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



The board has regulations on posting about others family members, idiot.


----------



## konradv (Jun 4, 2010)

gslack sez:
_LOL and this is an example of dancing even after the music has stopped.....

Well if I can't use the past as a a template than neither can your side if we use your own logic...._

I don't use the past as a template for the future.  I use present day knowledge and facts.  Where do I go past "the advent of the Industrial Revolution" in my logic?  THAT'S the important time range, NOT millions of years before humans even walked the earth.  Sometime in the future, due to plate tectonics, it may be possible to walk from NYC to London.  It hardly bears considering it as a viable transportation mode today, however, and talking about it would be as silly as comparing today's climate to the Cambrian.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2010)

konradv said:


> gslack sez:
> _LOL and this is an example of dancing even after the music has stopped.....
> 
> Well if I can't use the past as a a template than neither can your side if we use your own logic...._
> ...






konrad,

You might want to take a geology course my friend....London is moving FARTHER away from New York at between 1 and 5 inches per year.


----------



## konradv (Jun 4, 2010)

For now.  Isn't that the problem with the deniers?  They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2010)

konradv said:


> For now.  Isn't that the problem with the deniers?  They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.



Why look its oldsocks adoring fan.....


----------



## Meister (Jun 4, 2010)

konradv said:


> For now.  Isn't that the problem with the deniers?  They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.



I sure would like to see your sources on this one.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2010)

konradv said:


> For now.  Isn't that the problem with the deniers?  They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.






No konradv,

We don't know it all and we are quite happy to admit it.  The warmers are the only group to have had the temerity to say "the science is settled" so who is claiming to know it all?  Certainly not us.  What we demand is an unpolluted scientific process that is not contaminated by people who have a massive financial interest in their brand of science being the only brand of science.  Can you not see that?


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2010)

konradv said:


> For now.  Isn't that the problem with the deniers?  They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.



Ya know I have read that over like 4-5 times now, and I cannot for the life me get where the little idiot got that crap from or what the hell he is talking about.......

he talks in circles and says nothing.... i think he is high 90% of the time on here I really do....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Hmmm......   Interesting site that you posted. Did you even bother to read it?*
> ...



It was the site that you posted, you dumb peice of shit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2010)

gslack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > For now.  Isn't that the problem with the deniers?  They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.
> ...



*Oh my, ol' Suckeee..... has once more demonstrated the depth and width of his abysmal ignorance.*

Continents in Collision: Pangea Ultima - NASA Science

Continents in Collision: Pangea Ultima
Creeping more slowly than a human fingernail grows, Earth's massive continents are nonetheless on the move. 

Listen to this story (requires RealPlayer)

October 6, 2000 -- The Earth is going to be a very different place 250 million years from now.

Africa is going to smash into Europe as Australia migrates north to merge with Asia. Meanwhile the Atlantic Ocean will probably widen for a spell before it reverses course and later disappears.

Two hundred and fifty million years ago the landmasses of Earth were clustered into one supercontinent dubbed Pangea. As Yogi Berra might say, it looks like "deja vu all over again" as the present-day continents slowly converge during the next 250 million years to form another mega-continent: Pangea Ultima.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2010)

Meister said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > For now.  Isn't that the problem with the deniers?  They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.
> ...




Dumb ass. A quick google would have answered that question.


----------



## Meister (Jun 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



If he makes a statement like that HE should back it up ya dumb fuck.  250 million years we have no idea where the land masses will be, too many intangibles. So shove it up your ass ya fucking communist.


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I posted????? Please refresh my memory and show the link to my posting it.... I honestly don't remember it but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.. So link to my posting of it please...

And besides that.... I didn't respond about your article or link, for christs sake all of yours say pretty much the same thing... I was making fun of you doomsayer..


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Oh tool... I understand the idea just fine... I'm talking about the way he put it and his choice to use it here.. The topic is ocean acidification, plate tectonics and continents moving aren't helping you guys make your case....Got it?

Oh thats right.... yall don't think, you just post....


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > For now.  Isn't that the problem with the deniers?  They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.
> ...


LOLOLOLOL. You're entitled to your own delusions, walleyedclown, but you can't have your own facts or your own "brand of science", you flaming retard. Science is science and the observed evidence is the observed evidence. The only "polluted science" here is the pseudo-science of denial pumped out by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign and they are the ones who have a "massive financial interest" in confusing people about the real science. They certainly duped you rightwingretard denier cultists but that is because you're all anti-science, 'faith-based', uneducated, simple-minded cretins who couldn't find your own asses with a road map and a GPS.


----------



## gslack (Jun 5, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Why look its the tool back...

Got something else to say about my mother today douchebag? You gonna throw another fit???

LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You had a mother, g'tard?  I thought you were raised by wolves. Retarded wolves.


----------



## gslack (Jun 5, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Only a tool would be proud of insulting someones dead mother.... I didn't go to the mods on that because I know the damage you will do to yourself in here is far greater.... We see how you respond when your called on your bullshit tool...

I have had some really heated debates on here with all kinds of people, you are the very first who went and sunk that low.... Attacking a persons family over a political debate no matter how heated is the kind of thing I would expect from a total POS coward with no game... Glad you didn't disappoint.. And the fact you can remain so smug after doing it shows your moral and ethical code. Or lack there of....

So from now on, you can expect no rest from me on this... I will make it my business to make sure everyone knows what kind of person they are dealing with on here.... Going to be fun being you from now on...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

Here's some of the latest research on ocean acidification showing some of biologically destructive effects. A decline in natural Dimethylsulfide may have an effect on cloud formation and thus cause an increase in global warming.

*Ecosystems Under Threat from Ocean Acidification*

ScienceDaily (Mar. 31, 2010)  Acidification of the oceans as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide could have significant effects on marine ecosystems, according to Michael Maguire presenting at the Society for General Microbiology's spring meeting in Edinburgh.

Postgraduate researcher Mr Maguire, together with colleagues at Newcastle University, performed experiments in which they simulated ocean acidification as predicted by current trends of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The group found that the decrease in ocean pH (increased acidity) resulted in a sharp decline of a biogeochemically important group of bacteria known as the Marine Roseobacter clade. "This is the first time that a highly important bacterial group has been observed to decline in significant numbers with only a modest decrease in pH," said Mr Maguire.

The Marine Roseobacter clade is responsible for breaking down a sulphur compound called dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) that is produced by photosynthesising plankton. This end product is taken up and used by numerous bacteria as an important source of sulphur. A fraction of DMSP is turned into Dimethylsulfide (DMS) -- a naturally occurring gas that influences the Earth's climate. DMS encourages the formation of clouds which reflect solar radiation back into space leading to a cooling of the earth's surface.

Mr Maguire's group hypothesizes that the decline of the Marine Roseobacter clade through ocean acidification may alter the release of DMS into the atmosphere and affect the amount of available sulphur. He believes this will have a significant impact on the ocean's productivity and the overall global climate system. "Ocean acidification will not only have large scale consequences for marine ecosystems but also socio-economical consequences due to changes in fish stocks and erosion of coral reefs," he explained.


Story Source:

    The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Society for General Microbiology, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Copyright © 1995-2010 ScienceDaily LLC    All rights reserved 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's some of the latest research on ocean acidification showing some of biologically destructive effects. A decline in natural Dimethylsulfide may have an effect on cloud formation and thus cause an increase in global warming.
> 
> *Ecosystems Under Threat from Ocean Acidification*
> 
> ...






Hate to tell you trolling blunder but this is a warmist centric site so you may not use it.  And I have to agree with gslack, you are probably the lowest form of life I've ever seen on a forum.  You owe gslack a heartfelt apology for sinking that low.  You won't give it because of the type of creature you are, but you owe it nonetheless.


----------



## gslack (Jun 5, 2010)

Like my new sig? Nice huh..... Yeah its a link too so click and see it for yourself people.....Best to know aht kind pf person you're dealing with before you bother being decent....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2010)

*OK, dingleberries, peer reviewed journals.*

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms : Abstract : Nature

Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms&#8212;such as corals and some plankton&#8212;will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean&#8211;carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2010)

Pacific Science Association - Ocean Acidification Task Force

PSA Task Force on Ocean Acidification 

The Pacific Science Association is facilitating international scientific collaboration on ocean acidification, an emerging issue of critical regional and global significance. PSA has formed a Task Force on Ocean Acidification led by acting co-chairs Dr. Yoshihisa Shirayama and Dr. Peter Brewer. The Task Force convened sessions at the 21st Pacific Science Congress in Okinawa, Japan in June 2007, as well as the 11th Pacific Science Inter-Congress in Tahiti in March 2009, which combined expertise in biogeochemistry, ocean ecology, and socio-economics. 

Scientific data collected over many years are conclusive that oceanic absorption of atmospheric CO2 is causing chemical changes in seawater, making them more acidic (i.e. lowering pH). Increasing levels of anthropogenic CO2 are causing this process to accelerate. The average pH of the world&#8217;s oceans has dropped by about 0.1 pH units since the beginning of the industrial age. Without deep and early reductions in global carbon emissions, oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon will cause a further drop of 0.3 to 0.7 pH units by the year 2100. The degree and rapidity of these changes in ocean chemistry have not occurred in millions of years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2010)

Ocean Acidification - Climate Lab

Today, the overwhelming cause of ocean acidification is the absorption of human produced carbon dioxide, although in some coastal regions, nitrogen and sulfur also contribute to this process.1 The uptake of CO2 by the oceans has lowered the average pH of the oceans by about 0.1 units since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  This change represents about a 30 percent increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions, which is a considerable acidification of the oceans.  Estimates of future atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide concentrations, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) CO2 emission scenarios and coupled ocean-atmosphere models, suggest that by the middle of this century atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could reach more than 500 ppm, and near the end of the century they could be over 800 ppm. This would result in an additional surface water pH decrease of approximately 0.3 pH units by 2100.2 

Anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide is largely due to combustion of fossil fuels, cement production, agriculture, and deforestation. The concentration of the gas in the atmosphere has been increasing from its recent pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm to about 380 ppm today. The rate of this increase is unprecedented since the peak of the last ice age &#8211; for at least 20,000 years. A 2005 report estimates that, over the past 200 years, the oceans have absorbed roughly half of the CO2 emissions produced from fossil fuel use and cement manufacture. Some projects should that is CO2 from human activities is allowed to continue on present trends, this will lead to a decrease in pH of up to 0.5 unites by 2100 in the surface oceans. This is a three fold increase in concentration of hydrogen ions [H+] from pre-industrial times and results in an increase in pH outside the range of natural variation and probably to a level not experience for a least hundreds of thousands of years.3


----------



## gslack (Jun 5, 2010)

Give me a break oldsocks do you really want to be embarrassed by more of your half-assed assertions based on incomplete and inaccurate accounts of what scientists actually say again.... Come on tool you're not fooling anyone anymore.

Every single time you post this nonsense, I or one of any number of posters here go and take a look at your links and we find you either misrepresent what they say, the headline does not match the claims, OR you just assume what they mean or say.....

Frankly its old and tired. We know you don't have memberships to the Journals you cite and link to. We also know you grab these links from a  pro-AGW source and blindly post them. Your source gives you a list of them or sends you to those links where you grab a brief or synapse of only one paragraph, and then you or they make some wild or unfounded ridiculous claim based on that or the headline.

Too many times we have gone through this with you now. And every time you are made a fool of for it. Do you even have any thoughts on this of your own? Seriously its as if you post from a script or something. We have never actually seen your thoughts on any of this, just whatever the script tells you. Dude if your script says post this you do so, even if its been proven false and no matter how easily beaten down it is; you post it and then defend it like its gospel.

One minute you tell us Al Gore is not a scientist so you don't follow him, and then the next you are defending him to the death. You say we are cultists then you act like a cultist. You say its about science yet you deny real science at every turn....

Come on, you are not fooling me... You know its bullshit by now... You know it in your heart, we see it in your manner these past few weeks. You do not have the conviction you had, and it shows in your posts. Before you had fire in it and showed you had a vested personal interest beyond a paycheck. Lately you just follow the script or list like an automaton...

They lied to you man... And you should be pissed... I know I was, and still am...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2010)

Suckeeee.......    All that blather and not a single referance to back it up.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *OK, dingleberries, peer reviewed journals.*
> 
> Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms : Abstract : Nature
> 
> Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organismssuch as corals and some planktonwill have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the oceancarbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.






This thread is exactly akin to a bunch of people sitting in a circle contemplating on their navels. Really..........anybody THAT concerned about "ocean acidification" has some serious fcukking issues, OK!!!! Its like somoebody waking up one morning and deciding that "You know what...........Im going to sit on this beach and count every grain of sand!!!!!!"

The point being.................."WHO FCUKKING CARES???".

Perhaps 100 years from now it might..............MIGHT be a relevant discussion. In 2010 its noting more than comical. We are decades from developing any technoology that might have a significant impact on any of this sh!t. Wind power?? Solar power?? Bio-fuels?? There is NOTHING feasible out there as an alternative..............this is something the k00ks never consider. NEVER consider. We are a world that runs on fossil fuels............you can rant and rave about it until the cows come home but its not going to change anytime soon. Modern civilization depends on it and if you think somoebody is going to fcukk with that over the next..........minimum.............100 years, well then you're a fcukking bonafide k0o0k!!!! Our entire economy depends on it. The country is already broke and these dumbasses want to talk about "ocean acidification", as if were a finger snap away from doing something about it ( assumming its impact is at all provable). Its fcukking hysterical!!!


So...........you see...........this might as well be an exercise in navel contemplation!!!


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 6, 2010)

Problem is these morons will petition the government for grant monies.  The government seeing an opportunity to control the oceans more will gladly hand over the money.  Mean while, people will be poisoned by dioxins in LA and the EPA will do nothing.


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Suckeeee.......    All that blather and not a single referance to back it up.



I need a reference to tell the truth that we all know???

Is there a reference to your ignorance? 

READING..... Its something you should do once in a while tool...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2010)

Suckee......  You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.

Really humorous that you think you are so much smarter than all the scientists that are members of all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Sciences, and major Universities that are now stating that AGW is a confirmed fact.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 6, 2010)

To be a theory it has to be able to be proven false. At least what I've learned in my science classes. Fact=law. So you think Global warming should be respected like Kepler's laws or Newtons gravity?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Suckee......  You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.
> 
> Really humorous that you think you are so much smarter than all the scientists that are members of all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Sciences, and major Universities that are now stating that AGW is a confirmed fact.



I don't know who I am smarter than, nor do I pretend to be... You on the other hand? Well I don't think you're an idiot, I think you are a soulless POS deliberately peddling bullshit to people because you lack the moral, ethical core and courage to stop it....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2010)

Matthew said:


> To be a theory it has to be able to be proven false. At least what I've learned in my science classes. Fact=law. So you think Global warming should be respected like Kepler's laws or Newtons gravity?
> 
> 
> 
> Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



There is far more evidence for AGW than there is for gravity. For one thing, Newton's laws are mathematical observations with no causitive agent. Unlike evolution, no one has yet to posit a valed hypothesis for what causes gravity. 

With AGW, we know the absorbtion spectra of the GHGs, we have have evidence going back a couple of a billion years for the reaction of our planet to the variations in GHGs. The following is a video at the Fall, 2009 AGU conferance.

A23A


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > To be a theory it has to be able to be proven false. At least what I've learned in my science classes. Fact=law. So you think Global warming should be respected like Kepler's laws or Newtons gravity?
> ...



...and they are perfectly willing to switch data sources to get the model results to conform.  Also they can ignore that man wasn't even aroundmost of the times this happened before, yet, this event of the last 12 years is clearly without any doubt our fault.  Even Tipper can't handle the lies any more, and she was getting great dividends off of the scam.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 6, 2010)

Here comes lots and lots of sun spot activity s0ns...........gonna wreak havoc and of course, you know the k00ks will still be blaimg sh!t like "ocean acidification" yada.........yada..............


From NASA today.............As the Sun Awakens, NASA Keeps a Wary Eye on Space Weather - NASA Science


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > To be a theory it has to be able to be proven false. At least what I've learned in my science classes. Fact=law. So you think Global warming should be respected like Kepler's laws or Newtons gravity?
> ...



Thats your logic?

There is more evidence for AGW than gravity? LOL...

So what holds you to the planet surface and keeps the atmosphere close? I really want your take on it...

Nice bit of science, oldsocks LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 6, 2010)

Here's some more info on the continuing research into the ocean acidification problem. The particular consequence of mankind's fossil fuel carbon emissions threatens to alter or destroy the marine food chain and perhaps ultimately destroy the fish that provide a protein source for much of the world's human population.
*
Ocean Acidification in the Arctic: What Are the Consequences of Carbon Dioxide Increase on Marine Ecosystems?*

ScienceDaily (June 4, 2010)  Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions not only lead to global warming, but also cause another, less well-known but equally disconcerting environmental change: ocean acidification. A group of 35 researchers of the EU-funded EPOCA project have just started the first major CO2 perturbation experiment in the Arctic Ocean. Their goal is to determine the response of Arctic marine life to the rapid change in ocean chemistry.

*Ocean acidity has increased by 30% since preindustrial times due to the uptake of anthropogenic CO2. It is projected to rise by another 100% before 2100 if CO2 emissions continue at current rates.* Polar seas are considered particularly vulnerable to ocean acidification because the high solubility of CO2 in cold waters results in naturally low carbonate saturation states. CO2 induced acidification will easily render these waters sub-saturated, where seawater becomes corrosive for calcareous organisms. By the time atmospheric CO2 exceeds 490 parts per million (2040 to 2050, depending on the scenario considered), more than half of the Arctic Ocean is projected to be corrosive to aragonite. Arctic waters are home to a wide range of calcifying organisms, both in benthic and pelagic habitats, including shell fish, seas urchins, coralline algae, and calcareous plankton. Many of these are key species providing crucial links in the Arctic food web, such as the planktonic pteropods, which serve as food for fishes, seabirds and whales.

To study the impacts of ocean acidification on plankton communities, the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR) has deployed nine mesocosms in the Kongsfjord off the north-western coast of Spitsbergen (Svalbard) supported by the Greenpeace vessel Esperanza. Each of the giant, 17 m long 'test tubes' holds about 50 cubic metres of seawater. The enclosed plankton community is exposed to a range of different CO2 levels as expected to develop between now and the middle of the next century and is closely monitored over a 6-week period. The EPOCA scientists, who are stationed at the Ny Ålesund research station, are sampling the mesocosms daily from zodiacs with plankton nets, water samplers and pumps, and conduct measurements with profiling sensors and in situ probes. The multidisciplinary experiment, which will last until mid July, involves molecular and cell biologists, marine ecologists and biogeochemists, ocean and atmospheric chemists. The scientists expect new results about the sensitivities of Arctic plankton communities to ocean acidification and their impacts on the Arctic food web and biodiversity, the cycling of carbon, nutrients and other elements, the production of climate relevant gases and their exchange with the atmosphere.


Story Source:

    The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR).

Copyright © 1995-2010 ScienceDaily LLC    All rights reserved

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old socks, you post crap like this and you know I am going to call you on it....
> 
> First its nonsense.... And here is the real science on it....
> 
> ...



Re-post to keep from having to go over already beaten pseudo-science...


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

gslack said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Just to keep things in proper perspective, and to show simply making the same claims over and again does not make it true..... Trollingblunder's claim have already been shown in error in this thread. he and the sock army are now trying to change the outcome with spamming already beaten material....


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > To be a theory it has to be able to be proven false. At least what I've learned in my science classes. Fact=law. So you think Global warming should be respected like Kepler's laws or Newtons gravity?
> ...






Actually there isn't.  The effects of gravity are well known and calculable to a degree of accuracy the AGW folks would kill for.  What is not known is what exactly gravity is or how it is created.  It's an instant PhD to the person who accurately describes gravity.

AGW theory on the other hand is rife with errors, mistatement of facts, manufactured data,
destruction of data that didn't conform to desired results and outright fraud. Don't take it personally Old Rocks, but there is very little of the AGW theory that is calculable.

That's the problem.


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's some more info on the continuing research into the ocean acidification problem. The particular consequence of mankind's fossil fuel carbon emissions threatens to alter or destroy the marine food chain and perhaps ultimately destroy the fish that provide a protein source for much of the world's human population.
> *
> Ocean Acidification in the Arctic: What Are the Consequences of Carbon Dioxide Increase on Marine Ecosystems?*
> 
> ...






Blunder,

Until you make a public apology to gslack for your incredibly boorish behavior you're not welcome among the adults.


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Here's some more info on the continuing research into the ocean acidification problem. The particular consequence of mankind's fossil fuel carbon emissions threatens to alter or destroy the marine food chain and perhaps ultimately destroy the fish that provide a protein source for much of the world's human population.
> ...



Thanks west, he's a scumbag and he showed it... I do not expect an apology from him simply because he would need a sense of ethics to do so. He has none; he deliberately posts garbage that has already been beaten weeks before, just to deceive people... Anyone who does that has no moral or ethical center...

I hope he continues to do this like nothing happened and avoid me. Then the quote I have of his will be even more damaging. Soon no one will take him seriously enough to give him any play.. Then he will return under a new proxy and start all over again...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 6, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Here's some more info on the continuing research into the ocean acidification problem. The particular consequence of mankind's fossil fuel carbon emissions threatens to alter or destroy the marine food chain and perhaps ultimately destroy the fish that provide a protein source for much of the world's human population.
> ...



Walleyedretard

I don't see any adults here among you denier cultists. Just brain damaged children who are all "incredibly boorish". So fuck you, asswipe. You are still unable to respond intelligently to the scientific evidence supporting the reality of this developing ocean acidification problem.


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



excuse me but weren't you the one who insulted my mother??

yeah thought so.... Tell us again about brain damaged children???


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






As I said before boorish children are not allowed.


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

gslack said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



More for the spamming tool to fight off..


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

gslack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > _Distilled water's ph is between 5.6 and 7. It is going to move toward 7 or above with the introduction of any acid. I guess my question is this, you finding much distilled water in the oceans, lakes and rivers of the world?_
> ...



More....


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 7, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 7, 2010)

This thread needs a big fork.  The Chicken Little morons aren't going to change their mind.  They want to be right... for once.  Truth has nothing to do with this anymore.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 7, 2010)

Stomach acidity is a major factor in several gastrointestinal dieases.  Why don't you morons go and organize a world wide effort to stop the production of carbonated beverages?


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Little boy,

I have had the displeasure of dealing with twerps far more intelligent than you ever will be. You are a cretin, a bufoon, someone of no account. You have demonstrated that you are no better than the pimple on a mosquito's bum.

Until you apologise to gslack for your incredibly inafantile behavior you are not welcome in the adult world. Until you apologise to gslack I am ostracizing you and I suggest the other adults do likewise.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 7, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


already done.


----------

