SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Banned
- #441
It's a silly pipe dream to think that people are going to make the kind of sacrifices needed to move entire cities inland.
Ocean acidification
- Thread starter Old Rocks
- Start date
SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Banned
- #442
This one:
I really don't remember, maybe a couple dozen at most? Most of them worked during the day. In my building, there would be at most one other person at night, sometimes he would leave and ask me to shut down things for him in the morning. I was in the small satellite building up the hill. In the main building with the larger telescope there would be maybe one or two there at night but often no one at all. Although my title was "astronomer" I was functionally only a telescope operator. I showed up at 6 pm and left at 6 am and didn't see too many other people, except the two machinists that would show up right before I left.. My actual superiors were back in Washington, D.C. and we kept in touch by phone and email.
Last edited:
gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
- 48
I just love the way you try and obfuscate getting called on your lies with this nonsense.... Truly funny to watch....
I tell you you're lying and tell you how and why this is so, and your defense is to call me a know-it-all... HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Well pal, I don't know everything. But I do know some things pretty well. Like how scientific research is conducted, how the Dept. of the Navy in particular handles research, data, and procedures involved in such. it kinda goes with my job idiot.... And after 21 years doing it, I think I have a good grasp on it. Now if you would like me to expand this with some hard info I can...
For instance, the largest naval telescope is at flagstaff and its a astrometric reflector. it recorded the moon they believed revolved around Pluto back in the late 70's. its used to measure distances and brightness/color of stars. It uses a combination of photographic and CCD technology.
BTW, I set you up earlier.... I mentioned FERMI being a naval telescope. you didn't even argue about whose satellite it was... A true astrophysics PHD candidate would know dam good and well FERMI is a NASA gamma ray orbiting telescope... Hell man it was in the news.....
You are fucking DONE!!!!!!
Enough of your bullshit buddy, you are a fake and a known and proven liar!!!!!
You are no more a scientist than DR.Douchebag(Dr.Greg) or any of the myriad of other internet fakes trying to win debates by bullshit credentials and education....
Now shut the fuck up you intolerable little moron!!!!
SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Banned
- #444
After 21 years of doing it, you've got a good grasp on how to operate a Navy telescope, too, apparently. In fact you're a better expert at it than people who've actually done it!
That's awesome. Who the fuck cares?
lol! MOst everything you say is complete crap, didn't seem out of the ordinary to me!
gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
- 48
Well no junior, but a known and proven fake like you??? Most assuredly I know more about it than you do....
Well you should junior... After all you claimed you worked in the building beside it.... Remember? in this thread and the post linked to and quoted below..
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2268706-post442.html
spidermantuba said:
yeah you see that? You couldn't name the type of telescope... I did... Easy to do for me and I am not a astrophysics PHD candidate....
Really? The fact a self-proclaimed Astrophysics PHD candidate didn't know the FERMI telescope didn't seem out of the ordinary to you? Well of course not its just one more lie for an internet phony isn't it...... yeah thanks for this confession junior its been fun....
PHONY!
Try reading the NAS report on Manns arithmetic. The REAL report not the cut and past one that Mann used to exonerate himself.
Nice file photo.
This one:
I really don't remember, maybe a couple dozen at most? Most of them worked during the day. In my building, there would be at most one other person at night, sometimes he would leave and ask me to shut down things for him in the morning. I was in the small satellite building up the hill. In the main building with the larger telescope there would be maybe one or two there at night but often no one at all. Although my title was "astronomer" I was functionally only a telescope operator. I showed up at 6 pm and left at 6 am and didn't see too many other people, except the two machinists that would show up right before I left.. My actual superiors were back in Washington, D.C. and we kept in touch by phone and email.
SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Banned
- #448
Thanks.
Nice file photo.
This one:
I really don't remember, maybe a couple dozen at most? Most of them worked during the day. In my building, there would be at most one other person at night, sometimes he would leave and ask me to shut down things for him in the morning. I was in the small satellite building up the hill. In the main building with the larger telescope there would be maybe one or two there at night but often no one at all. Although my title was "astronomer" I was functionally only a telescope operator. I showed up at 6 pm and left at 6 am and didn't see too many other people, except the two machinists that would show up right before I left.. My actual superiors were back in Washington, D.C. and we kept in touch by phone and email.
SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Banned
- #449
gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
- 48
Thanks.
Nice file photo.This one:
I really don't remember, maybe a couple dozen at most? Most of them worked during the day. In my building, there would be at most one other person at night, sometimes he would leave and ask me to shut down things for him in the morning. I was in the small satellite building up the hill. In the main building with the larger telescope there would be maybe one or two there at night but often no one at all. Although my title was "astronomer" I was functionally only a telescope operator. I showed up at 6 pm and left at 6 am and didn't see too many other people, except the two machinists that would show up right before I left.. My actual superiors were back in Washington, D.C. and we kept in touch by phone and email.
HAHHAHHAHAHAA!
SpidermanTuba says:
"I am a astrophysics PHD candidate, and therefore you cannot question me nor point out my ignorance... here is proof if you don't believe me."
"that was the telescope I worked on.. See? Now you have proof that I am science expert, super-smart, genius guy who does not pretend to be what he isn't to try and win a debate... Don't be so silly."
-SpidermanTuba - super-smart, smarter than you smarty pants smart guy who is an expert on this sciencey stuff so shut up!
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
Here's a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences to the US Congress on the ocean acidification crisis. The problem will just continue to get worse and more damaging to marine life and the ocean ecology as CO2 levels rise.
CO2 Emissions Causing Ocean Acidification to Progress at Unprecedented Rate
National Academy of Sciences
Date: April 22, 2010
WASHINGTON -- The changing chemistry of the world's oceans is a growing global problem, says the summary of a congressionally requested study by the National Research Council, which adds that unless man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are substantially curbed, or atmospheric CO2 is controlled by some other means, the ocean will continue to become more acidic. The long-term consequences of ocean acidification on marine life are unknown, but many ecosystem changes are expected to result. The federal government's National Ocean Acidification Program, currently in development, is a positive move toward coordinating efforts to understand and respond to the problem, said the study committee.
The ocean absorbs approximately a third of man-made CO2 emissions, including those from fossil-fuel use, cement production, and deforestation, the summary says. The CO2 taken up by the ocean decreases the pH of the water and leads to a combination of chemical changes collectively known as ocean acidification.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased approximately 0.1 unit -- from about 8.2 to 8.1 -- making them more acidic. Models project an additional 0.2 to 0.3 drop by the end of the century. This rate of change exceeds any known to have occurred in hundreds of thousands of years, the report says. The ocean will become more acidic on average as surface waters continue to absorb atmospheric CO2, the committee said.
Studies on a number of marine organisms have shown that lowering seawater pH with CO2 affects biological processes, such as photosynthesis, nutrient acquisition, growth, reproduction, and individual survival depending upon the amount of acidification and the species tested, the committee found. For example, some of the strongest evidence of the potential effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems comes from experiments on organisms with calcium carbonate shells and skeletons. The results showed decreases in shell and skeletal growth in a range of marine organisms, including reef-building corals, commercially important mollusks such as oysters and mussels, and several types of plankton at the base of marine food webs.
The ability of various marine organisms to acclimate or adapt to ocean acidification is unknown, but existing data suggest that there will be ecological winners and losers, leading to shifts in the composition and functioning of many marine ecosystems, the committee said. Such ecosystem changes could threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources.
Although changes in ocean chemistry caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 can be determined, not enough information exists to assess the social or economic effects of ocean acidification, much less develop plans to mitigate or adapt to them, the committee noted.
The federal government has taken initial steps to respond to the nation's long-term needs with the development of the National Ocean Acidification Program. The committee found that legislation has laid the foundation for a program that will advance our understanding and improve our response to ocean acidification.
The committee recommended six key elements of a successful National Ocean Acidification Program:
· an integrated ocean acidification observation network that includes the development of new tools, methods, and techniques to improve measurements
· research in eight broad areas to fulfill critical information gaps
· assessments to identify stakeholder concerns and a process to provide relevant information for decision support
· a data management office that would ensure data quality, access, and archiving, plus an information exchange that would provide research results, syntheses, and assessments to managers, policymakers, and the general public
· facilities to support high-quality research and training of ocean acidification researchers
· an effective 10-year strategic plan for the program that will identify key goals, set priorities, and allow for community input, in addition to a detailed implementation plan
The study is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Committee members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academies' conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf. A committee roster follows.
Copies of the summary for the report Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean are available from the National Academies Press
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
CO2 Emissions Causing Ocean Acidification to Progress at Unprecedented Rate
National Academy of Sciences
Date: April 22, 2010
WASHINGTON -- The changing chemistry of the world's oceans is a growing global problem, says the summary of a congressionally requested study by the National Research Council, which adds that unless man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are substantially curbed, or atmospheric CO2 is controlled by some other means, the ocean will continue to become more acidic. The long-term consequences of ocean acidification on marine life are unknown, but many ecosystem changes are expected to result. The federal government's National Ocean Acidification Program, currently in development, is a positive move toward coordinating efforts to understand and respond to the problem, said the study committee.
The ocean absorbs approximately a third of man-made CO2 emissions, including those from fossil-fuel use, cement production, and deforestation, the summary says. The CO2 taken up by the ocean decreases the pH of the water and leads to a combination of chemical changes collectively known as ocean acidification.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased approximately 0.1 unit -- from about 8.2 to 8.1 -- making them more acidic. Models project an additional 0.2 to 0.3 drop by the end of the century. This rate of change exceeds any known to have occurred in hundreds of thousands of years, the report says. The ocean will become more acidic on average as surface waters continue to absorb atmospheric CO2, the committee said.
Studies on a number of marine organisms have shown that lowering seawater pH with CO2 affects biological processes, such as photosynthesis, nutrient acquisition, growth, reproduction, and individual survival depending upon the amount of acidification and the species tested, the committee found. For example, some of the strongest evidence of the potential effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems comes from experiments on organisms with calcium carbonate shells and skeletons. The results showed decreases in shell and skeletal growth in a range of marine organisms, including reef-building corals, commercially important mollusks such as oysters and mussels, and several types of plankton at the base of marine food webs.
The ability of various marine organisms to acclimate or adapt to ocean acidification is unknown, but existing data suggest that there will be ecological winners and losers, leading to shifts in the composition and functioning of many marine ecosystems, the committee said. Such ecosystem changes could threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources.
Although changes in ocean chemistry caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 can be determined, not enough information exists to assess the social or economic effects of ocean acidification, much less develop plans to mitigate or adapt to them, the committee noted.
The federal government has taken initial steps to respond to the nation's long-term needs with the development of the National Ocean Acidification Program. The committee found that legislation has laid the foundation for a program that will advance our understanding and improve our response to ocean acidification.
The committee recommended six key elements of a successful National Ocean Acidification Program:
· an integrated ocean acidification observation network that includes the development of new tools, methods, and techniques to improve measurements
· research in eight broad areas to fulfill critical information gaps
· assessments to identify stakeholder concerns and a process to provide relevant information for decision support
· a data management office that would ensure data quality, access, and archiving, plus an information exchange that would provide research results, syntheses, and assessments to managers, policymakers, and the general public
· facilities to support high-quality research and training of ocean acidification researchers
· an effective 10-year strategic plan for the program that will identify key goals, set priorities, and allow for community input, in addition to a detailed implementation plan
The study is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Committee members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academies' conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf. A committee roster follows.
Copies of the summary for the report Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean are available from the National Academies Press
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Banned
- #453
Because you are stupid.
gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
- 48
I find it very odd that I just had a discussion in another thread were I had to remind oldrocks about the bullshit he tried in this thread.... And wouldn't ya one of his alter egos/pals tries to revive this thread citing a supposed report on ocean acidification....
Anyone else find this more than a little bit ridiculous now? oldrocks is a proxy punk, we already know konradv is.... nice try candyass wuss.... Why not debate me outright you useless POS propaganda pushing phony!!!!
If you want to play this way I will repost it here as well......
Okay going to play pretend and force me to embarrass you again douchebag? okay want to do this again in another thread no problem.....
Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2?
Not only did they evolve in times with 20x higher CO2 in the atmosphere, but the thrived and spread as well.... Just in the limited confirmed paleo study we can affirm this as fact..... IF the current theory pushed by your faithers and their agenda driven pseudo-science based theory is indeed accurate as stated and implied in their papers and claims in their pamphlets and through the media outlets, and politically oriented IPCC; How is that possible?
Its not and when you examine the theory itself you see the fact they take a theory and accepted current fact about CO2 in an enclosed water environment (not like an ocean but more like a pool), and try to make a case for ocean acidification based on that principle and concept.
Is a swimming pool like an ocean? Why no and why not? Well a pool is limited by a great many things that are not apart of the system. A short list of examples:
1. A pool does not have a soil or earth based system underneath it. There is no free and abundant source of alkali in a pool. Alkali inhibits acidification.
2. A pool does not benefit from waves stirring the system recycling the deeper water with the upper water. Deeper water as in measured in 100's and thousands of feet or more in some areas. The deeper water will naturally be far less acidic than the upper levels and multiple times less acidic than the surface water. The constant mixing and circulating of this, forcing the older more acidic surface water to eventually make contact with the alkali laden sea bed and various other substances which lower the acidity. And we aren't even mentioning the fact temperature of water effects the level of absorption of atmospheric CO2... Colder water holds more CO2, warmer water releases more CO2.... Anyone see a problem yet? keep this point in mind...More on it in a little bit....
3. A pool being a closed environment, and maintained in a timely basis only allows certain types of organisms to take hold. Most other organisms require the first organisms to set a groundwork for them to make a foothold. oceans are already set in this respect. This base and required structure already is established in an ocean. These things through life, waste, reproduction, and the cycle of life also inhibit acidification.
So when they take an example like PH in a pool or any closed environment and attempt to make a case regarding the oceans, it is a gross oversimplification. An oversimplification that gives a false scenario to an uneducated or already frightened over CO2 public.
All of this is a simplification as well, one made to give a more complete view of what any claims of ocean acidification really mean.....
Oldsocks will ask me for some scientific source for this..... Well all of this is easily found from actually reading the articles and information on this from even his own sources..... Don't go with the headlines or the pamphlets they give the AGW groups and major media. Actually read the stories or data summaries and FAQS.
All of this shows us categorically, we do not understand the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and ocean PH well enough to make any rash claims like those the propagandists and MSM, or their agenda driven scientists try to make....
I asked this simple question of oldrocks last time and he went into a fit...
I will ask it again....
Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2? IF CO2 ocean acidification theory is correct as stated and implied by your side and their proponents (be they scientific or any other) and coral and similar life are particularly susceptible to acidic conditions as claimed. How could they have possibly evolved and thrived in such times of vastly greater atmospheric CO2?
Using simple logic and sound reason we see that there is a marked conflict here... Either the theory is unsound in some way, overstated to generate fear, or our understanding of the bigger process isn't detailed enough. Because our own researchers give us data that is conflicting and counters each others claims.
In the meantime here is a new one for him to bake his little noodle trying to make an excuse for it....
Also the same so-called scientists from the pro-AGW agenda driven organizations out there tell us of a feedback loop regarding CO2 ocean acidification and Global Warming. As in the planet gets warmer from Atmospheric CO2, the oceans absorb more of it because the oceans are warmer, one feeds the other until we heat up land kill the planet. Well that would be fine if the fact the ocean warming did not actually slow down CO2 absorption.... What was that??? yep warmer oceans absorb less CO2. So that kinda puts a bit of a monkey wrench in the whole theory doesn't it....
IF warmer oceans absorb less CO2 the so-called feedback loop is broken. SO if atmospheric CO2 causes drastic warming as they claim, the oceans will warm absorbing less CO2, leaving more in the atmosphere... Which means? The whole premise of ocean acidification is again in question... if they absorb less as they warm the claims of massive ocean acidification getting worse as the planet warms is highly unlikely if not impossible given the nature of the system..
The way they sell this nonsense for grant money is simple.... They take a legitimate concept or theory like Ph balance and acidification in water. And ask questions like "does CO2 effect the oceans like it would my swimming pool?".. They first assume it must effect it somewhat because its water. Then they go about trying to prove this. They show some link and get a little grant money to further this study. Do a bit more research and show a bit more accurate a link, may get published in a science journal, and then make some bold statements of CO2 and Ph in the oceans. THey make the bold statements because they have a product to sell; their theory and themselves as researchers. Whom are they selling to? The governmental organizations, environmental organizations, the think tanks, the sierra club, the club of rome, etc. etc.. And BINGO! Grant money with a stipulation. That stipulation being; the study must show a link to AGW.... So now they are stuck... No tie in to AGW, no more grant money, no more inside track to the vast infrastructure perpetuating this AGW theory, no more big house, no more Benz in the driveway, and no more immediate publication in the major science journals......
Thats why they all but deny these simple and logical points. They either leave them out of their final publications, gloss over them and diminish them, or they try and hide this with charts, graphs, equations, and often wrong, misleading or irrelevant data to the claims they make in regards to the topic.
It's called BULLSHIT....
lets watch him dance around it and ask for sources for sound reason and logic again....... Douchebag can't even form a series of thoughts together well enough to think.. If its not on his green reading list or propaganda posting card he is dumbfounded....
Anyone else find this more than a little bit ridiculous now? oldrocks is a proxy punk, we already know konradv is.... nice try candyass wuss.... Why not debate me outright you useless POS propaganda pushing phony!!!!
If you want to play this way I will repost it here as well......
Okay going to play pretend and force me to embarrass you again douchebag? okay want to do this again in another thread no problem.....
Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2?
Not only did they evolve in times with 20x higher CO2 in the atmosphere, but the thrived and spread as well.... Just in the limited confirmed paleo study we can affirm this as fact..... IF the current theory pushed by your faithers and their agenda driven pseudo-science based theory is indeed accurate as stated and implied in their papers and claims in their pamphlets and through the media outlets, and politically oriented IPCC; How is that possible?
Its not and when you examine the theory itself you see the fact they take a theory and accepted current fact about CO2 in an enclosed water environment (not like an ocean but more like a pool), and try to make a case for ocean acidification based on that principle and concept.
Is a swimming pool like an ocean? Why no and why not? Well a pool is limited by a great many things that are not apart of the system. A short list of examples:
1. A pool does not have a soil or earth based system underneath it. There is no free and abundant source of alkali in a pool. Alkali inhibits acidification.
2. A pool does not benefit from waves stirring the system recycling the deeper water with the upper water. Deeper water as in measured in 100's and thousands of feet or more in some areas. The deeper water will naturally be far less acidic than the upper levels and multiple times less acidic than the surface water. The constant mixing and circulating of this, forcing the older more acidic surface water to eventually make contact with the alkali laden sea bed and various other substances which lower the acidity. And we aren't even mentioning the fact temperature of water effects the level of absorption of atmospheric CO2... Colder water holds more CO2, warmer water releases more CO2.... Anyone see a problem yet? keep this point in mind...More on it in a little bit....
3. A pool being a closed environment, and maintained in a timely basis only allows certain types of organisms to take hold. Most other organisms require the first organisms to set a groundwork for them to make a foothold. oceans are already set in this respect. This base and required structure already is established in an ocean. These things through life, waste, reproduction, and the cycle of life also inhibit acidification.
So when they take an example like PH in a pool or any closed environment and attempt to make a case regarding the oceans, it is a gross oversimplification. An oversimplification that gives a false scenario to an uneducated or already frightened over CO2 public.
All of this is a simplification as well, one made to give a more complete view of what any claims of ocean acidification really mean.....
Oldsocks will ask me for some scientific source for this..... Well all of this is easily found from actually reading the articles and information on this from even his own sources..... Don't go with the headlines or the pamphlets they give the AGW groups and major media. Actually read the stories or data summaries and FAQS.
All of this shows us categorically, we do not understand the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and ocean PH well enough to make any rash claims like those the propagandists and MSM, or their agenda driven scientists try to make....
I asked this simple question of oldrocks last time and he went into a fit...
I will ask it again....
Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2? IF CO2 ocean acidification theory is correct as stated and implied by your side and their proponents (be they scientific or any other) and coral and similar life are particularly susceptible to acidic conditions as claimed. How could they have possibly evolved and thrived in such times of vastly greater atmospheric CO2?
Using simple logic and sound reason we see that there is a marked conflict here... Either the theory is unsound in some way, overstated to generate fear, or our understanding of the bigger process isn't detailed enough. Because our own researchers give us data that is conflicting and counters each others claims.
In the meantime here is a new one for him to bake his little noodle trying to make an excuse for it....
Also the same so-called scientists from the pro-AGW agenda driven organizations out there tell us of a feedback loop regarding CO2 ocean acidification and Global Warming. As in the planet gets warmer from Atmospheric CO2, the oceans absorb more of it because the oceans are warmer, one feeds the other until we heat up land kill the planet. Well that would be fine if the fact the ocean warming did not actually slow down CO2 absorption.... What was that??? yep warmer oceans absorb less CO2. So that kinda puts a bit of a monkey wrench in the whole theory doesn't it....
IF warmer oceans absorb less CO2 the so-called feedback loop is broken. SO if atmospheric CO2 causes drastic warming as they claim, the oceans will warm absorbing less CO2, leaving more in the atmosphere... Which means? The whole premise of ocean acidification is again in question... if they absorb less as they warm the claims of massive ocean acidification getting worse as the planet warms is highly unlikely if not impossible given the nature of the system..
The way they sell this nonsense for grant money is simple.... They take a legitimate concept or theory like Ph balance and acidification in water. And ask questions like "does CO2 effect the oceans like it would my swimming pool?".. They first assume it must effect it somewhat because its water. Then they go about trying to prove this. They show some link and get a little grant money to further this study. Do a bit more research and show a bit more accurate a link, may get published in a science journal, and then make some bold statements of CO2 and Ph in the oceans. THey make the bold statements because they have a product to sell; their theory and themselves as researchers. Whom are they selling to? The governmental organizations, environmental organizations, the think tanks, the sierra club, the club of rome, etc. etc.. And BINGO! Grant money with a stipulation. That stipulation being; the study must show a link to AGW.... So now they are stuck... No tie in to AGW, no more grant money, no more inside track to the vast infrastructure perpetuating this AGW theory, no more big house, no more Benz in the driveway, and no more immediate publication in the major science journals......
Thats why they all but deny these simple and logical points. They either leave them out of their final publications, gloss over them and diminish them, or they try and hide this with charts, graphs, equations, and often wrong, misleading or irrelevant data to the claims they make in regards to the topic.
It's called BULLSHIT....
lets watch him dance around it and ask for sources for sound reason and logic again....... Douchebag can't even form a series of thoughts together well enough to think.. If its not on his green reading list or propaganda posting card he is dumbfounded....
Last edited:
SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Banned
- #456
What difference would atmospheric CO2 make? Corals live underwater. The water is not the atmosphere. Duh.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,583
- 78,911
- 2,645
Do you read your own posts? Did you read any of the other posts in here?
What a fucking retard!
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
ps...........anything to do with climate is not science. Lets just get that out of the way please. Its not any more "science" than any of the social sciences.
Science is chemistry..........physics. Thats it..........everything else is hardly hard science. There is zero consensus on any "science" that is environmentally related. Its all conjecture and depends upon which theory one wants to embrace.
Science is chemistry..........physics. Thats it..........everything else is hardly hard science. There is zero consensus on any "science" that is environmentally related. Its all conjecture and depends upon which theory one wants to embrace.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Mississippi dad's 10-year-old paperwork mistake lands him in ICE detention after final citizenship interview- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 0
-
The truth about the tax portion of the big beautiful bill.
- Started by Cougarbear
- Replies: 1
-
LA assistant mayor arrested for fabricating bomb threat
- Started by scruffy
- Replies: 3
-
