Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I made no attempt to discredit Spencer.

bs you always do unless it fits your narrative for that particular post.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Or by continuing to rely on a flawed survey that completely distorts the extent of the consensus in support of AGW?

I do not rely on the studies by Cook et al, Anderegg et, Doran and Zimmerman, Powell, Stenhouse et al, Oreskes, Verheggen et al, etc.. for the support of AGW.

I rely on the peer-reviewed science that has established an correlation and mechanism between CO2 and increasing temperatures, while discounting, using evidence, other proposed theories. In the end Occam's Razor win's the day.

You have failed to provide any evidence that the Cook et al paper, or any of the others are flawed. Cook is clear in his methodology and conclusion 97% of climate scientists who took a position affirm AGW. I have already posted a link to the database and shown that Spencer was mistaken when he said he was included in the 97%. My analysis showed most of his papers have no stated position. One paper put him in the 3%.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I taught courses in environmental studies during my career; I retired 16 years ago with a plan to teach sailing. I do have graduate training in computer modelling and long range strategic planning.

I still prefer to use original sources and data.

Originally Posted by jackdale

I made no attempt to discredit Spencer.

Good. I guess you'll just have to find a more productive way to challenge Spencer's interpretation of the science then. But to be clear, while you have some aptitude for the subject area you're not a credentialed scientist with expertise in the relevant field which would enable you to render your own expert opinion. It seems to me, from the tenor of your posts, that you're not fully cognizant of this distinction.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Good. I guess you'll just have to find a more productive way to challenge Spencer's interpretation of the science then. But to be clear, while you have some aptitude for the subject area you're not a credentialed scientist with expertise in the relevant field which would enable you to render your own expert opinion. It seems to me, from the tenor of your posts, that you're not fully cognizant of this distinction.

I am not an expert, but I recognize expertise. That is why I have a dentist look after my teeth and a mechanic service my car. While they are both good at their jobs I would not reverse their roles.

I have not "challenge[d] Spencer's interpretation of the science" in this thread. I have posted nothing about his views about the role of PDO in climate change.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

When are you going to present some contrary scientific opinion, instead of rambles about how flawed 'science' is, accusations of groupthink, etc?

So you're saying you're not even aware of what underlies the contrary scientific opinions? That pretty much explains everything, including your jam-up over what "natural forces" mean. If you've become too phobic about Spencer, Spencer, Spencer to start with his website, then go back to the Wiki I cited at least 10x and click on the footnote link next to each of the skeptic scientist's names. No, no, not as their positions appear in Skeptical Science, but how the skeptic scientists' names are described in the Wiki links. No! NOT their rap sheets on DeSmogBlog! I know you can do it. Try Duc-Duc-Go if nothing turns up in the first 25 pages of your Google search.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

So you're saying you're not even aware of what underlies the contrary scientific opinions?

No, I'm saying you don't ever seem to present them here to discuss on their merits.


I do know what 'natural forces' are, enough at least to know that when significant they can usually be identified and measured.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

So you're saying you're not even aware of what underlies the contrary scientific opinions? That pretty much explains everything, including your jam-up over what "natural forces" mean. If you've become too phobic about Spencer, Spencer, Spencer to start with his website, then go back to the Wiki I cited at least 10x and click on the footnote link next to each of the skeptic scientist's names. No, no, not as their positions appear in Skeptical Science, but how the skeptic scientists' names are described in the Wiki links. No! NOT their rap sheets on DeSmogBlog! I know you can do it. Try Duc-Duc-Go if nothing turns up in the first 25 pages of your Google search.

Maybe you could help out by explaining your own views of the roles of natural forces in climate change.

It seems that you are asking the other boys and girls to do your homework.

You do not like it when I post links, now you are asking LE to follow links from some link you posted.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I do not rely on the studies by Cook et al, Anderegg et, Doran and Zimmerman, Powell, Stenhouse et al, Oreskes, Verheggen et al, etc.. for the support of AGW.

Oh please. You've been relying on and citing them since I started reading these threads, i.e. YEARS. Other posters tag you on how misleading they are again & again, yet you persist . . . and then of course deny when it suits.

I rely on the peer-reviewed science that has established an correlation and mechanism between CO2 and increasing temperatures, while discounting, using evidence, other proposed theories. In the end Occam's Razor win's the day.

In your own mind. For e.g., you've never discounted Spencer's interpretation of the same data that RSS uses. In your own words. Not with tangential cites to graphs. At this point you should be able to articulate a cogent analysis all on your own.

You have failed to provide any evidence that the Cook et al paper, or any of the others are flawed. Cook is clear in his methodology and conclusion 97% of climate scientists who took a position affirm AGW. I have already posted a link to the database and shown that Spencer was mistaken when he said he was included in the 97%. My analysis showed most of his papers have no stated position. One paper put him in the 3%.

That Spencer was included or would have been included? I see the deceptions continue.

I haven't failed to provide evidence that the Cook study was flawed because I never claimed that it was. What I claimed, and what is the truth, is that you and a whole host of other biased sources of patently unscientific information distorted the study's consensus findings from all scientists who submitted papers to all scientists. Do I need to quote from Skeptical Science again, or just go back and start cutting & pasting your own many posts which parrot it?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No, I'm saying you don't ever seem to present them here to discuss on their merits.


I do know what 'natural forces' are, enough at least to know that when significant they can usually be identified and measured.

Identified maybe, but not measured. That would fall on Reef and his coke bottle in the back shed. There's nothing that you allow to be discussed here on the merits except mainstream AGW theory. And even that has to include a belief in all the alarmism and the most extreme proposed remedies. You guys already have all the answers, so why not just close the thread down?

[newhaul]

Here ya all go the myth of 97% debunked. Again
https://www.heartland.org/news-opini...te-change-97-1

[SV THIRD DAY]

If the USA cut 100% of their CO2 Emissions today...and took them to ZERO.
What would happen?

Once you understand the answer to this question, you realize the what this is all about.
It ain't about CO2 folks, just like the Green New Deal has Social Justice and Non-Environmental issues in it...it's about the Progressive Push for Control. It's also why they get SO MAD and label us Deniers when we don't buy into their Religious Beliefs. Like China with the Hong Kong Freedom Protesters...we must be silenced. We must be quashed....WE are a THREAT to their world view of Total Governmental Control over our own Lives. They Fear Freedom...they Fear the Deniers of their Control.

Yep...Rich is back Baby!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Maybe you could help out by explaining your own views of the roles of natural forces in climate change.

It seems that you are asking the other boys and girls to do your homework.

You do not like it when I post links, now you are asking LE to follow links from some link you posted.

I don't have my "own" views. I only try and learn the views of "the" science, something which your posts ignore, obfuscate, and try to deceive people into believing are monolithic. I've done my homework, and make no effort to play scientist. Now do yours, and learn how to advocate your point of view forthrightly.

[model 10]

[QUOTE=SV THIRD DAY

Yep...Rich is back Baby![/QUOTE]


Not for long

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Ecos

Not for long

Maybe not, but every time Rich is silenced it only proves his point!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

It ain't about CO2 folks, just like the Green New Deal has Social Justice and Non-Environmental issues in it...it's about the Progressive Push for Control. It's also why they get SO MAD and label us Deniers when we don't buy into their Religious Beliefs. Like China with the Hong Kong Freedom Protesters...we must be silenced. We must be quashed....WE are a THREAT to their world view of Total Governmental Control over our own Lives. They Fear Freedom...they Fear the Deniers of their Control.

Damn. He's cracked it once again. It woulda worked too, if it wasn't for you meddling cruisers.

Originally Posted by Exile

You guys already have all the answers, so why not just close the thread down?

Why not, indeed.