Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It's Miami like!

Exactly what I was thinking, namely the flooded pothole photos that accompanied SailOar's article.

Still haven't been able to do any better than the methane/propane pics on CC evidence around my 'hood. By all accounts, all seems within accepted variability in my corner of the world, but I'm not skeptical about the local thermometers trending higher. Heck, I wouldn't even deny it. Slightly above avg. snowpack this past (colder) winter, seasonal rains came right on time, somewhat of a heat wave awhile back along with much of the rest of the country but back to "average" temps, plenty of water in the regional reservoirs . . . . There does seem to be a lot of people driving large pickup trucks around, so I'm sure that'll produce evidence of CC on its own. (I'll keep you posted ).

It's further than 1km so maybe doesn't count, but the county has significantly raised the taxes fees courtesy charges at the local dump landfill recycling convenience center, and so I'm thinking that's gotta be conclusive evidence of CC right there. But with all the good feelings that go hand-in-hand with the large increase in recyclable trash being dropped off, I heard the costs of transporting the stuff to an actual processing center are increasing. You know, those costs incurred as a result of all the additional diesel fuel that's being burned to make everyone feel so good about their recycling. Come to think of it, I might enjoy trips to my local convenience center -- in my oversized pickup of course -- even more than I enjoy these threads.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Please provide the evidence that I misrepresent science. For example I provide clear of example of how CO2Science misrepresented one study. Years ago I found other examples and have no faith in that web site.

BTW -I like the data at UAH, I like some of Spencers conclusions on the Sky Dragon Slayers at PSI, his views on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the inability of pressure to explain global warming. I do not subscribe to his views on Creation or natural climate change. Unlike Spencer I would not be a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance Declaration on Global Warming.

Likewise I like Curry's take on the role of sea ice in extreme weather, the need for temperature adjustment, and her take on PSI. I have not yet made up my mind on climate sensitivity.

Like I said I do not consider myself an expert, but I can rely on expertise. I taught courses ij environmental studies throughout much of may career. In my Studies of the Future grad program at the University of Houston Clear Lake I worked with both qualitative and quantitative forecasting and the assessment of forecasts. Later in my career I started using the Internet (before the Web) and quickly realized that a lot of disinformation and misinformation was out there, so I used media literacy skills in a quest for crap detection (a term I learned from Neil Postman). My second grad program was in Educational Technology.

I have not published in the area of climate science; but I follow it, partly because in my close to 50,000 miles at sea, I have seen some of the visible havoc we have foisted on our planet.

BTW -As a debate coach and judge I prepared my students for both sides the question. As I am no longer in the teaching world I feel free to speak and act on my convictions. I do read WUWT, Curry, Spencer, Heller, the Friends of Science, NTZ, etc.. None of it is convincing.

Now, please provide some hard evidence for the multiplicity of assertions you have made.

Funny, but one of the reasons I'm attracted to these threads is it's a somewhat interesting way to acquire a better layman's understanding of some of the science (maybe ). No disrespect . . . but . . . how is this relevant to what part of the science -- including its data, organizations, scientists, or other entities -- a non-expert anonymous poster on CF personally happens to "like"??

Your background is most interesting, respectable, and no doubt accomplished, but only renders the misleading nature of your posts that much more incredulous. But mine is not a critique of your general competence, credentials & experience, but of your extreme and largely unmanaged bias. If we were discussing an area of science that is indeed more certain, then your zeal in the face of challenges would be understandable if not justifiable. But we're not. Whether it's the relationship between CO2 and warming, future impacts, adaptation, energy alternatives, or the countless other dilemmas & nuances this overall issue entails, many aspects are most uncertain. Yet rather than simply advocating for the merits of one side, your posts misrepresent the science as entirely one-sided, and resort to pettiness & superficiality to try and bully those who disagree.

I think I've already provided more than enough "hard evidence" of your misrepresentations, especially since they are mostly self-evident in your own posts. I'm happy to hear you're engaged with some of the skeptics within the science itself, but I can't imagine your debate strategy is taken seriously if it amounts to polling counts and the cryptic presentation of "evidence" which fails to make some of the basic connections between CO2, warming, and its actual & future impacts. Simply repeating that you are merely a follower of the "scientific evidence" doesn't make it so, no matter how much you personally believe it. There's nothing scientific about your particular level of bias, and that's the problem not your CV.

[jackdale]

Great another personal attack.

Originally Posted by Exile

Funny, but one of the reasons I'm attracted to these threads is it's a somewhat interesting way to acquire a better layman's understanding of some of the science (maybe ). No disrespect . . . but . . . how is this relevant to what part of the science -- including its data, organizations, scientists, or other entities -- a non-expert anonymous poster on CF personally happens to "like"??

Your background is most interesting, respectable, and no doubt accomplished, but only renders the misleading nature of your posts that much more incredulous. But mine is not a critique of your general competence, credentials & experience, but of your extreme and largely unmanaged bias. If we were discussing an area of science that is indeed more certain, then your zeal in the face of challenges would be understandable if not justifiable. But we're not. Whether it's the relationship between CO2 and warming, future impacts, adaptation, energy alternatives, or the countless other dilemmas & nuances this overall issue entails, many aspects are most uncertain. Yet rather than simply advocating for the merits of one side, your posts misrepresent the science as entirely one-sided, and resort to pettiness & superficiality to try and bully those who disagree.

I think I've already provided more than enough "hard evidence" of your misrepresentations, especially since they are mostly self-evident in your own posts. I'm happy to hear you're engaged with some of the skeptics within the science itself, but I can't imagine your debate strategy is taken seriously if it amounts to polling counts and the cryptic presentation of "evidence" which fails to make some of the basic connections between CO2, warming, and its actual & future impacts. Simply repeating that you are merely a follower of the "scientific evidence" doesn't make it so, no matter how much you personally believe it. There's nothing scientific about your particular level of bias, and that's the problem not your CV.

[newhaul]

Ok consider this and I found it to be censured everywhere but here .
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskep.../?ref=readnext
Read it then tell me why they would publish and then censure it .

[newhaul]

Here is an electric bmw charging . What's wrong with this picture.
And yes its real

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok consider this and I found it to be censured everywhere but here .
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskep.../?ref=readnext
Read it then tell me why they would publish and then censure it .

Cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere from the explosive death of massive stars across the universe play a significant role in the formation of so-called cloud condensation nuclei needed for the formation of clouds. When the sun is more active, solar wind reduces the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A more active solar wind leads to fewer cloud formation nuclei, producing clouds that are less white and less reflective, thus warming the earth.

The CLOUD experiment at CERN has discounted this, as I have pointed put on numerous occasions.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here is an electric bmw charging . What's wrong with this picture.
And yes its real

Time to go nuclear.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Great another personal attack.

Not on you personally, just the misleading representations made in many of your posts. Like I said, you're so heavily biased I'm not sure you're even aware of it. Much of the core science is already heavily tilted in your direction, so representing it as completely one-sided when others can so easily rebut that only undercuts the science you like. So why do it?

But I can understand why you can't distinguish between ad hominem & legitimate critique of your postings, so I don't expect any sort of rational response. But at least this way some less biased readers may not automatically assume the worst of those of us who have different levels of skepticism. Despite some of the drama we often hear about the scientists themselves, I doubt the actual professionals engage with each other at this level. It would compromise their objectivity, and therefore their work.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The CLOUD experiment at CERN has discounted this, as I have pointed put on numerous occasions.

Discounted it perhaps, and maybe or maybe not legitimately so, but it doesn't answer the question why it would be suppressed. It appears the authoring scientist, a physicist, has credentials.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Time to go nuclear.

this one is for you jack . I don't agree with most of it but I do agree nuclear is a good option

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The CLOUD experiment at CERN has discounted this, as I have pointed put on numerous occasions.

dislike the paper if you wish but answer the real question why is it being censured everywhere except Reddit . I looked all over .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Discounted it perhaps, and maybe or maybe not legitimately so, but it doesn't answer the question why it would be suppressed. It appears the authoring scientist, a physicist, has credentials.

What exactly is being suppressed? He is being ignored.

Nevertheless, the world of climate science has “mostly ignored” his research findings.

CERN says he is wrong, there is no mechanism. Let us see an independent experiment that says he is correct.

The world of evolutionary biology tends to mostly ignore "intelligent design."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

dislike the paper if you wish but answer the real question why is it being censured everywhere except Reddit . I looked all over .

It is neither censored or censured.

There are numerous rebuttals.

https://www.google.com/search?q=shav...hrome&ie=UTF-8

Google scholar has his publications

https://scholar.google.com/citations...BuUAAAAJ&hl=en

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What exactly is being suppressed? He is being ignored.



CERN says he is wrong, there is no mechanism. Let us see an independent experiment that says he is correct.

The world of evolutionary biology tends to mostly ignore "intelligent design."

Don't be too sure about that...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What exactly is being suppressed? He is being ignored.



CERN says he is wrong, there is no mechanism. Let us see an independent experiment that says he is correct.

The world of evolutionary biology tends to mostly ignore "intelligent design."

sorry to break it to you but the Cern cloud experiment was wrong. Or rather incomplete.