Ocean acidifcation .

[Marc1]

The No-Surrender Approach:
Confronted with facts that don’t fit his view of the world, the deniers’ strategy is simply this:
Deny, deny, deny. Then deny, deceive, obfuscate, , fudge, pervert, distort, falsify, and lie.


The misuse of uncertainty, as a justification for inaction, has a long history.
Whenever there is any scientific finding, that impacts vested interests, first denial, then uncertainty will be trotted out as the reason for opposing the science.

Funny how the same logic can be applied to the global warming cultist approach.
30 years of no warming has only produced a change in name to climate change.
Not to mention the zero sea level change that is counteracted with falsification of data.

But of course you have a better answer to that.

Reminds me of the adepts that could see the virgin mary in a stain on the wall that appeared overnight due to mould growth in a public place.Each to their own.

Of course the difference is that those folks are harmless, you guys are promoting a cult that is stealing our tax money to make a few people rich and the rest worst off, and you do it from deep conviction from the bottom of your heart. That is the saddest part.

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Puddleduck;2949579]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Check out Ridds peer reviewed publications (JCU), you’ll soon get an idea of his field of expertise...not coral or reef health, more mining funded science or dredging hydrology!

His broad assumptions on coral reef health rely on data from Porites sp. which is about the most robust and adaptable coral species and best adapted to rapidly changing environmental conditions. Porites does not make a reef, less the GBR! Sympatric species associated with Porites is F all compared to branching corals
But apparently branching corals are weeds!

just follow the money!

Bring in back to pH and ocean acidification, corals can internally regulate pH for calcification 8.2 - 7.8. Generally, the thicker the cell wall, the more robust to internal regulation. Guess which coral win?

If you want specifics, pm me. I’ll rip him a new A hole!

I am confused. This was the post to which I refered.

[QUOTE=Puddleduck;2949484]

Originally Posted by jackdale

No need just play the ball. His science (not opinion) conforms to the mainstream view. Winners and losers, loss of biodiversity and complex reef habitat. It’s all just spun differently under a GBR umbrella... cha cha cha change!

Now you are saying his area of expertise in not corals. And I am inferring from your post his "science" on corals is based on a non-representative sample. Which seems to contradict this:

His science (not opinion) conforms to the mainstream view.

Help. Are we discussing two different people?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Here is a classic example:

CO2 science claims



CO2 Science

The author says that misrepresents his paper.



Syracuse University scientist seeks to set the record straight on climate research

gotta protect his income

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How goes the sale of tin-foil headwear?

I know who needs to invest in stocks of Alcan, and it aint the skeptics.

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Check out Ridds peer reviewed publications (JCU), you’ll soon get an idea of his field of expertise...not coral or reef health, more mining funded science or dredging hydrology!

His broad assumptions on coral reef health rely on data from Porites sp. which is about the most robust and adaptable coral species and best adapted to rapidly changing environmental conditions. Porites does not make a reef, less the GBR! Sympatric species associated with Porites is F all compared to branching corals
But apparently branching corals are weeds!

just follow the money!

Bring in back to pH and ocean acidification, corals can internally regulate pH for calcification 8.2 - 7.8. Generally, the thicker the cell wall, the more robust to internal regulation. Guess which coral win?

If you want specifics, pm me. I’ll rip him a new A hole!

How lucky was he then that he's prediction the reef would begin to recover quickly after the 2016 bleaching event has turned out to be correct when experts, like yourself apparently, claimed it was a goner and this turned out to be incorrect?



And more so since bleaching mostly affects branching weed corals.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Marc1

Steven, if the desired outcome is that the masses keep on paying higher and higher prices for energy due to the use of so called renewables, and accept to pay more and more subsidies and higher and higher taxes as offering at the altar of the environment's religion, you must produce dire consequences for not compliance, just like there is a hell you will be condemned to if you do not comply with what your particular church dictates.

Contradictions between churches don't particularly matter and the masses comply to whatever, according to their personal set of values.
So don't look for logic. There is no logic in religion, and those who write the dogma script for the global warming cult, figured this out long ago.

There are too many people whose livelihood depends of this cult dogma to be true, and all the signs of the prediction to be at the doors of imminent catastrophe. Just like the ancient religions that offered human sacrifices to appease the gods, or the modern church, burning witches alive to please god, we the populace, must pay penitence money for our sins.

And the mercenary scientist paid to write the apocalipsis, keep on writing, and the masses repeat their rubbish in awe ... and rebuke the unbeliever with all they have at hand.

Religious wars have always been about market share and never about truth, a war over acolytes, not research or knowledge. This was true in 1600 and it is true today, so ... you heretic, better accept and comply or be doomed.

here ya go

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I would suggest that "ignore" and "not consider" are rather synonymous.

Not if it's explicit. I would say none of your examples thus far refute that skeptic scientists are having a hard time publishing and getting their work peer-reviewed, and that's not consistent with good science. I don't think Curry and others are making this up. Distorting the record is not the same as refuting it. Debate Class 101.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Marc1

Funny how the same logic can be applied to the global warming cultist approach.
30 years of no warming has only produced a change in name to climate change.

30 years of no warming from UAH

1989 7 -0.18

2019 7 0.38

Increase = .56

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Ha ha, why? You seemed to denigrate the study without even understanding it or the implications. What’s wrong with calling your comments bs? Do your own homework, then we can discuss. Why do you think this study isn’t important or it’s a waste of money? What even qualifies you to comment, apart from being a cf member? Maybe you can share?

I don’t really expect you too

I called into question the utility of the study, and whether this sort of research is worth 100,000 of taxpayer money. Ditto for lots of other studies that seem useless in their own right, but are used to promote a very one-sided agenda. Other studies about our planet are certainly worthwhile. It's an opinion you and others disagree with, but not one that's BS.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not if it's explicit. I would say none of your examples thus far refute that skeptic scientists are having a hard time publishing and getting their work peer-reviewed, and that's not consistent with good science. I don't think Curry and others are making this up. Distorting the record is not the same as refuting it. Debate Class 101.

Curry did not have many issues getting published.

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...=en&as_sdt=1,5

Neither did Lindzen

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...e+change&btnG=

BTW - both were receptants of NAtional Science Foundation Awards. Lindzen got $3,000,000 trying to prove his Iris Theory.

[JC Reefer]

Originally Posted by Exile

Others differ, but I don't really see how "conspiracy" fits. Besides, it's all too often used by partisans & diehards to attack legitimate skepticism. Any rhetoric that distorts the actual state of the science is a disservice to the science and to the public. The weight of scientific opinion certainly lies with MMGW being a significant threat, but legitimate skepticism remains. But that skepticism is not getting out to the public through anything but highly partisan mechanisms, so it's exacerbating political polarization. Whichever way it ultimately gets decided (or not), I think science itself has already been the main casualty.

I can only speak for myself, so there’s a lot of I’s in here.

I agree that the political polarization of the topic creates talking points that distract from the from the actual science. But that does not remove the validity of the science.

I can also see how more funding would be directed toward believers versus skeptics as that seems to be the popular belief. But again that does not remove the validity of science done. It would only slow the science being done by the skeptics.

I guess I have more faith in that data driven science will eventually prevail as theory’s are tested and re-tested by believers and skeptics alike. Eventually the data will prove regardless of what side of the theory you’re on.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

30 years of no warming from UAH

1989 7 -0.18

2019 7 0.38

Increase = .56

did you do the proper adding all 30 datasets and decide by 30 to get the corrected average?

Or did you just do as I suspect just subtract 1989 from 2019 ?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

here ya go

The Chicago Carbon Exchange closed in 2011 due to inactivity in the U.S. carbon markets.

CORE: Chicago Climate Exchange

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

did you do the proper adding all 30 datasets and decide by 30 to get the corrected average?

Or did you just do as I suspect just subtract 1989 from 2019 ?

I am showing an absolute increase as suggested by Marc1.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I am showing an absolute increase as suggested by Marc1.

you know that is not proper procedure . Figured a high school teacher would know better

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Since you sit on advisory panels, I guess you, as the expert here, don't really need me to point out that the "LC" threatened species designation doesn't refer to farmed fish. You also appear be considering a broad range of species. Would you care to include Australian Bass in your assessment or is that outside your panel's scope? Of course we don't really know how well these other guys smell or not because they weren't subjects of the study.

Ha ha, yes. Hence my comment! Non farmed bass are ‘F’ed in the UK. Does IUCN differentiate? Insert comment here.... !

I have no experience of OZ Bass but assume “she’ll be R-ite”!

Remove from the iucn listening spec and we can have locally extinct (or near) but LC for European D. labrax geographically within uk waters. Suggest you read up on ‘clades’ and re-introduction guidelines. I know geography isn’t your strong point re your previous GBR ..,errr THE reef (the reef) comments but we do know how D. labrax reacts to pH increases thanks to science....sniff. I suggest you spend more time on the research and less on air b&b/trip advisor