Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You posted the ones on the right which look like the ones posted on Tony Heller's blog.

https://realclimatescience.com/rewri...ricas-history/

The links you posted are also identical to Tony's.

The ones on the left are from NASA.

Do you still stand by this claim?

give it up jack your just embarrassing yourself

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

give it up jack your just embarrassing yourself

^^^ this is not something that YOU should be saying. Just saying.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We can leave it to Exile to school you on "consensus".

I've tried pointing out some of the problems with over-reliance on the "consensus," but I haven't done so by simply ignoring diverse views within the science or refusing to recognize where the weight of scientific opinion lies. In fact, given the weight of the evidence, it amazes me you need to constantly devolve the discussion down to such an elementary level. It IS possible, after all, to have a thoughtful, reasonably objective, and perhaps even friendly discussion that doesn't misrepresent someone else's position, impugn motives, or refuse to recognize basic, otherwise agreed upon facts. It all comes to a disagreement over opinions, does it not? I can certainly understand where yours are coming from, but still struggle to understand the personal angst over others. See the difference yet?

If not, then kindly explain where I may have misled on the "consensus," or more generally how I've misrepresented the "state of the science." That's what honest debate is really for, is it not? Rather than the highly controversial "Cook studies" which never seem to go anywhere (it's like the "cooling" debate from the '70s), you can start with what even Jack has repeatedly said is agreed on, namely that climate science is not "settled" (whatever that exactly means). From there I would go to the list of skeptic scientists on the Wiki site which you (and SailOar) continue to ignore. But I warn you it may require going off-script, since the diversity of skeptical opinion amongst scientists is rather large, but maybe not as large as the diversity of lay opinion who run the gamut from mildly skeptic to wildly . . . errr . . . dismissive(?). But you always have the scripted fallback you can cite for the "official" positions of the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, etc. You'll get the usual (often scripted) retorts, but many of us feel that such opinions reflect the collective opinions of so many scientists that they are not so easily dismissed. Maybe if you & SailOar weren't so busy categorizing everyone you would have picked up on that a lot earlier.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

give it up jack your just embarrassing yourself

You are the embarrassment. You lied about the source of the graphics; they are Tony Heller's. You lied about the links; they are Tony Heller's.

BTW - You're in desperate need for a lesson on the difference between a possessive pronoun and a contraction. Your knowledge of such is lacking.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

^^^ this is not something that YOU should be saying. Just saying.

said the pot to the kettle .

Difference is I don't care I'm not vain

[Exile]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

You know, originally i was concerned about which anodes to use, if the ph was changing

Ha! And now look what you've done!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

here is the specifics I will post both versions of each graph jack can't seem to figure out .
It made sense to everyone else .

Well, not to me, at least not yet. I'm seeing the same data am I not? Except for different end dates. So is the only difference the highlights (red circles)? Aren't they only there as a way for Heller to make his point about the official adjustments/corrections that everyone likes to argue about? Yes, we already know they adjusted temps upwards, hence the controversy. What did I miss?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

What did I miss?

You missed this:

Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
jack the charts I posted are direct from NASA. I even provided the links to the NASA web pages for them.

Debunk NASA or debunk NASA your choice or just admit they changed the data .

Has nothing to do with tony Heller

Even though he is correct .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You are the embarrassment. You lied about the source of the graphics; they are Tony Heller's. You lied about the links; they are Tony Heller's.

BTW - You're in desperate need for a lesson on the difference between a possessive pronoun and a contraction. Your knowledge of such is lacking.

Yes, sometimes Newhaul's posts can be a bit hard to decipher. Occasionally frustrating but never ill-intended I don't think. Between trying to post from phones and (for some) to multiple sites, we're all guilty at times.

Maybe you can chill a bit on the accusations, and focus instead on the info being presented?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yes, sometimes Newhaul's posts can be a bit hard to decipher. Occasionally frustrating but never ill-intended I don't think. Between trying to post from phones and (for some) to multiple sites, we're all guilty at times.

Maybe you can chill a bit on the accusations, and focus instead on the info being presented?

I do not like being lied to. (I know I ended that sentence with a preposition.)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You missed this:

OK, I may be getting warmer. Or not. Let me ask it this way. Leaving aside the URL controversy for a moment, are the graphs represented as being from NASA accurate? How about the Heller charts? Are they accurate insofar as Heller disputes the adjustments that were made?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, I may be getting warmer. Or not. Let me ask it this way. Leaving aside the URL controversy for a moment, are the graphs represented as being from NASA accurate? How about the Heller charts? Are they accurate insofar as Heller disputes the adjustments that were made?

Heller's temperature adjustments missives have been refuted by none other than Judith Curry, Zeke Hausfather and Steve Mosher in a three part series on Curry's blog.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

kindly explain where I may have misled on the "consensus," or more generally how I've misrepresented the "state of the science."

Well, it's recently become apparent that you don't actually understand a fundamental part of the science - the carbon cycle. How can you be a credible skeptic of a position you don't fully understand?

And of course the over-reliance on so many non-scientific modifiers to give the small amount of actual scientific skepticism more heft.


Just my opinion, of course.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Heller's temperature adjustments missives have been refuted by none other than Judith Curry, Zeke Hausfather and Steve Mosher in a three part series on Curry's blog.

just answer the question directly stop with the redirect or is it not possible for you to admit the truth and facts.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I do not like being lied to. (I know I ended that sentence with a preposition.)

You're forgiven. Not quite clicking to the Newhaul lying part, but then I lost the plot early. But speaking of, I've watched the Heller youTube where he claims NASA(?) lied about a couple of the data points to make the trend line show more warming. If the change instead reflected the adjustments, then the dispute is over that and not NASA intentionally lying. There are some who claim that's what the adjustments amount to, but others characterize it as a legit scientific dispute (Spencer wasn't too happy about it, for e.g.). As I recall, all data gets adjusted (incl. Spencer's) as part of the process, but suspicions remain -- legit or not.