Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every detailed account of the ocean feedback system has stated that "as ocean temperatures rise, they will release more carbon dioxide". Yet, as ocean temperatures have not risen by much yet, they are still absorbing the excess CO2 in the atm, causing the oceans to become more acidic. So no oceanographic chemist that I know of is denying basic chemistry.
I would like to see a link to any studies showing that the ocean temperatures are steady/unchanged. Not that I question your integrity, but everything that I have read/heard states that the ocean temps are rising. And even as you stated, "ocean temperatures have not risen by much yet,..." that implies an increase in temps, which leads to less solubility. I'm having issues with the paradox in this.
You ever notice that science journals have retractions?
Why is that? If the process is so robust, so... infallible, then why do they ever retract a published paper?
Care to answer that one?
LOLZ. It happens in ALL science journals, so therefore all scientific disciplines are corrupt and untrustworthy?
Seriously....that is just ignorant. Do you not want retractions or do hold people to some god-like standard of perfection?
Quote:
Also, are you aware of the climategate emails? Did you read the ones where they were putting pressure on journals to publish CAGW research and restrict any research that did not support it? Didn't read that? You do realize that they do not deny those emails, they argue "context", which... by the way was supplied in later climategate email releases. That is, the "out of context" claims were not "out of context".
But hey, what they did was not "illegal", rather it was unethical. So, no crime committed, no harm no foul right? See, you can go on about how I am using a "blog" (cleverly refusing to deal with the content of a given response within it, or the fact that those who are writing the articles on that "blog" are often climate scientists) and hope that you can dismiss with fallacious approaches that are nothing more than appeals to authority, but at the end of the day, you have nothing. All you have is yet another tired old plea to everyone to worship at the feet of title and position.
Good luck with that, I will stick with the science. You know, that process where you actually have to verify, validate, and replicate your claim through showing your work.
I know, I know.... take if on faith right?
It was very unethical what they did but that doesn't disprove the fact that we hum so but the evidence points to us.
Quote:
Sorry, but you worship your religion like a good little fanatic, I will take the science.
Yes the side that conveniently aligns with your ideology, it's all good. You are only human.
Well, that was a disingenuous reply if I've ever seen one. There's plenty of folks on this board who refuse to accept that the climate is changing right before their eyes. A few admit it's changing - but that's just natural they say. And a large perportion still think climate change is a fairy tale invented by lefties with their own agenda to push.
So, which group do YOU fall into?
Climate cannot change right before your eyes .... that is weather, and it's always changing on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis. Climate, on the other hand, is measured across vastly longer periods of time, such as thousands of years!
Now, the last time I checked ... oranges were still being grown in florida, texas and california, just as they have been for long before you were born. The tropics are still tropical, and the arctic is still arctic ... so no, there has been no climatic change .... weather has been changing just like it always has.
When Alaska becomes a citrus growing state ... then come back and talk about the climate changing.
Awfully mean of you to refer to neoconservatives as fictional characters. I have reason to believe they really do exist in far away places like "Kansas" and "Texas"
It is the perception of a given group within your fantasy novel that is the issue, but then I would be hard pressed to explain reality to you, after all... you educate yourself with fiction. /shrug
LOLZ. It happens in ALL science journals, so therefore all scientific disciplines are corrupt and untrustworthy?
Seriously....that is just ignorant. Do you not want retractions or do hold people to some god-like standard of perfection?
Nope, it was a point (that you obviously avoided) that peer review is not infallible, so demanding appeals of authority to a peer reviewed paper for the express purpose of dismissing any comments concerning its validity is an action to promote bias, not science.
The problem with the second part of your comment is that you applied a straw man. Trying having a bit more integrity when you discuss the issues and you won't be confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
It was very unethical what they did but that doesn't disprove the fact that we hum so but the evidence points to us.
The entire point of them being unethical was that they had no means to establish their position scientifically. Science is not a process of horseshoes and handgrenades. Some evidence is irrelevant to the process of the scientific method. It only takes a single fact to invalidate a given hypothesis, so you can have some or even a large amount of evidence, but that will not validate a given assumption. They knew this, even stated it in the emails, which is why they discussed turning to politics.
To be clear, there is no "partly right" in science. If you can't establish its validity completely within our means, then it is wrong. That is how science works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Yes the side that conveniently aligns with your ideology, it's all good. You are only human.
Yes, the process of science "conveniently" aligns with my ideology. Sorry that I do not share your religious devotion to your belief.
It is the perception of a given group within your fantasy novel that is the issue, but then I would be hard pressed to explain reality to you, after all... you educate yourself with fiction. /shrug
Duly noted: don't recommend an interesting piece of literature to a neoconservative lest you be attacked for "educating yourself with fiction." The only reading material allowed is poorly written blogs like Wattshappenin!
Every detailed account of the ocean feedback system has stated that "as ocean temperatures rise, they will release more carbon dioxide". Yet, as ocean temperatures have not risen by much yet, they are still absorbing the excess CO2 in the atm, causing the oceans to become more acidic. So no oceanographic chemist that I know of is denying basic chemistry.
Nope, it was a point (that you obviously avoided) that peer review is not infallible, so demanding appeals of authority to a peer reviewed paper for the express purpose of dismissing any comments concerning its validity is an action to promote bias, not science.
The problem with the second part of your comment is that you applied a straw man. Trying having a bit more integrity when you discuss the issues and you won't be confused.
Lolz. Who is claiming peer review is infallible besides your strawman you are building. Lolz you are comical. I mean, what human is infallible or organization?
Quote:
The entire point of them being unethical was that they had no means to establish their position scientifically. Science is not a process of horseshoes and handgrenades. Some evidence is irrelevant to the process of the scientific method. It only takes a single fact to invalidate a given hypothesis, so you can have some or even a large amount of evidence, but that will not validate a ven assumption. They knew this, even stated it in the emails, which is why they discussed turning to politics.
Like i said it doesn't invalidate the position that we humans play a part in climate change, which you said you agree with.
Quote:
To be clear, there is no "partly right" in science. If you can't establish its validity completely within our means, then it is wrong. That is how science works.
To be clear you aren't the judge on science. And yes science does work on partially right. You think researchers just throw awayaway their research when it is doesn't "add up
. Lolz talk about amateur hour....
Quote:
Yes, the process of science "conveniently" aligns with my ideology. Sorry that I do not share your religious devotion to your belief.
Lolz religious devotion? Can't do better than that.... Pathetic.
Lolz.... Now run along little boy.... I knew you had no comeback.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
