Ocean acidifcation .

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Exile

Never believed in any conspiracy, only a lack of credibility from your side. Not the scientists, but the partisans. This manipulation of evidence supports my concerns. After all this time it’s hard to believe you blindly followed Skeptical Science rather than reading it for yourself, but I have to confess I didn’t fully understand it either until now. This is where unchecked bias leads, and you were warned. Plenty of other stuff to agree on as Allen has initiated. Look for common ground.

Isn't my phrase MMGWC starting to make more sense now? It's Religious Dogma....not science.

It's like tying to convince someone who really believed in the Russian Collusion Hoax that it wasn't real...even after the Muller Report SAID it wasn't real...they still can't let go. Why? Because they have based WAY to much of their world view on something being True. To change course now would be to admit living a lie. It's much easier to continue living a lie than to admit a lie. Why do you think there are so many self help books? The hardest thing to change is your own mind. Yes you can quote me on that without even citing me....it's the least I can do to help.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Never believed in any conspiracy, only a lack of credibility from your side. Not the scientists, but the partisans. This manipulation of evidence supports my concerns. After all this time it’s hard to believe you blindly followed Skeptical Science rather than reading it for yourself, but I have to confess I didn’t fully understand it either until now. This is where unchecked bias leads, and you were warned. Plenty of other stuff to agree on as Allen has initiated. Look for common ground.

Ah. pardon me.


btw, much as you'd like it to be, I am not a devotee or frequent visitor to sites like Skeptical Science. The fact that I often state things that are in agreement with their positions has more to do with the obvious merits of the AGW case that you are struggling against.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ah. pardon me.


btw, much as you'd like it to be, I am not a devotee or frequent visitor to sites like Skeptical Science. .

I believe that considering you are about the only one on the pro and I mean hardcore pro the agw that actually posts on other threads on here . The majority of the rest seem to just be members here for the sole purpose of posting on these type of threads.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Isn't my phrase MMGWC starting to make more sense now? It's Religious Dogma....not science.

It's like tying to convince someone who really believed in the Russian Collusion Hoax that it wasn't real...even after the Muller Report SAID it wasn't real...they still can't let go. Why? Because they have based WAY to much of their world view on something being True. To change course now would be to admit living a lie. It's much easier to continue living a lie than to admit a lie. Why do you think there are so many self help books? The hardest thing to change is your own mind. Yes you can quote me on that without even citing me....it's the least I can do to help.

change of subject I'm thinking of going with purely refer in my conversion and a portable refer freezer for when I need a freezer.
Talk me off this ledge before I pull the trigger

[Lake-Effect]

Thanks for dropping by. It's tamped down the heat for a bit, like when the teacher crosses the threshold of an unruly home-room.

On the other hand, Rich is baaaack! and historically, his usual comments on this topic have had all the nuance, appropriateness and informational content of a loud f4rt at a funeral service. So we shall see...

Originally Posted by Singularity

On the subject of CC, I reckon 97%+ of the interlocutors are ultimately 'loculating for the betterment of the whole.

So about or between all the falsehoods, strawmen, irrelevances, ad hominems, etc....there is a perspective that's trying to be conveyed to the receiver to help the receiver. It could be considered that the jabs are intended to rile the audiences' hormones to invoke a different thought stream--these techniques are in fact part of ordinary every day effective communication. Same with the bedazzlements, diversions, distractions.

You're providing some useful perspective, thanks. But with respect, i don't think that really applies as much here.

Obvious reason first: why would someone head to a cruising forum for meaningful discussion on climate change?

From my long involvement ( ) I see the following motivations here:

• chatty people looking to continue their favourite bar conversation online
• knights of either realm engaging the enemy wherever they find them
• people enjoying the anticipation and endorphin rush of a sustained debate
• sh!t-disturbers and trolls
• bored cruisers (... seem to be a lot on CF ) seeking diversion and entertainment

Usually these are in some combination.

I see relatively few people with a genuine intent to learn from or to 'better' the others. And those few soon realize that you can't teach a pig to sing, and they usually move on.

So, truly effective communication here might actually run counter to many people's reasons for participating...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not arguing they were included. Only that they met the criteria the Cook study established for inclusion, which explains why Spencer testified the way he did. Is this inanity deliberate or are you just unable to think in more than one dimension at a time? What is your argument here? Try and articulate it — I’ll do my best to respond.

If they met the criteria, they would have been included. They did not; they were not included. Period.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

If they met the criteria, they would have been included. They did not; they were not included. Period.

And that criteria was a definite agreement with the intergovernmental panel on climate change . A purely political body .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Tell us you’re not denying that you’ve ever stated that 97% of climate scientists support the AGW position.

I have not said that. You are putting words in my mouth.

I have said the science supporting AGW is overwhelming. I have said that no academy of sciences disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. I have said that nearly 200 of those academies have policy statements support the conclusions of the IPCC

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I’m en route to my boat right now but will search for your old posts later if I must. Again, are you really disputing that you ever misrepresented the Cook study or any other consensus study, whether willfully or not?

Yes I am disputing that.

You are willfully misrepresenting what I say.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

This thread could be much more interesting to others if it didn’t rehash or try to debunk basic physics.

Climate science is based on physics.

A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change

Abstract: In this paper, we have used several basic atmospheric–physics models to show that additional carbon dioxide will warm the surface of Earth. We also show that observed solar variations cannot account for observed global temperature increase.

https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsle...afemeister.cfm

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

If they met the criteria, they would have been included. They did not; they were not included. Period.

Bingo....
Sounds like the Chinese Internet where only officially sanctioned "Science" and "News" is allowed to be presented. When you make the rules of the game...you control the outcome, which is exactly what the Man Made Global Warming Industrial Hoax Complex is attempting to do. Sorry Lake...when the truth is on your side yo don't need to suppress the other side's argument.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have not said that. You are putting words in my mouth.

I have said the science supporting AGW is overwhelming. I have said that no academy of sciences disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. I have said that nearly 200 of those academies have policy statements support the conclusions of the IPCC

Jack save us all a lot of trouble and just admit it you did link to the cook study in threads past . We both know it . So just admit it .we won't think less of you .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Jack save us all a lot of trouble and just admit it you did link to the cook study in threads past . We both know it . So just admit it .we won't think less of you .

I'm pretty sure Jack has not deliberately misused that '97%'; nobody here (besides Gord) can touch JD for the quality and appropriateness of the data he puts up. I don't know where he gets the patience.

I've thrown out the 97% number on occasion, and admittedly not fully qualifying the usage. But so far it's the only formal published metric we have for assessing the size of consensus, and an honest understanding of its methodology shows that it's not a dishonest method for making this assessment.

The real crime is zealous overuse without qualifications, and giving it more weight than it deserves. This is a user fault, and not that of the survey itself. It does not mean that this survey was intentionally distorted or faked, or that there is a serious flaw in the methodology. Of course, there is nothing of comparable or better quality to show that the consensus is other than 97%; the arguments against there being such a big consensus are mainly intense speculation and non-scientific hypothesizing about groupthink, confirmation bias and whatnot.

Gord provided some counterpoint, and a historical reminder that not having a known 97% agreement rate has no strong bearing on the validity of a particular hypothesis, but as I've already found out, some are simply not ready to let go of this shiny thing just yet.


(If every instance here of careless usage or hyperbole were similarly prosecuted as this 97% thing...whew. Be careful what you ask for.)

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically, but I certainly agree that the entire tone & substance of the discussion -- and therefore its educational value -- could certainly be elevated into a much more constructive discourse. I just read the two Spencer articles "debunking" some of the skeptic science and this seems like a great place to start. I've always known that Spencer agrees with more of the mainstream positions than people like to pigeonhole him with. This will help clarify.

Specifically on this thread we have had the following arguments which Spencer and others would say are giving the skeptics a bad name because they ignore basic physics.

1. My favorite.. co2 can't matter because it is only .04% if the atmosphere.

2. More CO2 doesn't matter because it is already saturated in the atmosphere.

3. Co2 doesn't matter because water vapor absorbs more.

4. Co2 levels are not rising.

5. The rapid increase in co2 isn't due to fossil fuels.

6. It is all the sun... Of course that where all the energy in the atmosphere comes.

These arguments have all been raised on this thread. They are all disputed in the science and specifically denied by Spencer and others in the skeptic community.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you state that half of the co2 from fossil fuel use is going into the oceans .
Please provide proof of that assertion .

The planets greening says otherwise.

And no that's my opinion will not be an acceptable reply.

You apparently didn't read Spencer's post about it, or do you disagree on his statement?