In science, you have to prove your logic. THis isn't philosophy where you just make wild statements without anything to back it up. That's what separates philosophy from science, in science you seek to support your logic is in fact true, until then, its nothing but unsubstantiated bullshit.
Funny you think you have better logic than the leading scientists in the matter that have been highly educated and are experts on the field.
YES YOU DO have to prove your logic. AND that is the problem with your parroting what others tell you without even checking it for obvious logical fallacies. You have done nothing but post crap after crap and then scream that its fact. When we point out problems in the basic premise and logic behind it, you post more of the same crap and then scream about it again. You never showed any bit of logic or reason, or even basic understanding of what you posted.
Want me to demonstrate fake dr boy?.... Here we go...
I have a close friend/co-worker who is a theoretical physicist. His capacity at work is the lead in our little group of number crunchers, coders, and analysts (me). Basically he oversees all our work and tries to keep things from going beyond the factual to the realm hypothetical. Understand so far?
I am the lead analyst, we work closely all the time. I kick my groups findings to him after I go over them, and then he makes sure my reasoning and logic are sound, and that I stay within the proper scope of the task and not venture into speculation.
You see thats the problem with our kind of work. It's real easy for relatively smart people to make assumptions based on their own preconceptions and thoughts. So we need two people to make sure we stay in the proper frame. I oversee the analysts, the coder lead oversees the coders, and my friend ( call him dave ) Dave oversees all of us. That process is essential to our work.
Now our findings and recommendations are only as sound as the data we derive it from. If we get an inaccurate report that is key to the premise, the report or recommendation will be off. And no amount of excuse making, stretching, or reaching for a hypothesis to secure that premise will change that. And that my ignorant little forum fake is how a scientific process is protected and maintained in research.
Your links, all of them all regard CO2 ocean acidification as fact.
There have been many, many studies, measurements of the increasing acidity, worldwide. That is a fact.
That is their premise. However many scientists look at it in published journals and nod their heads that their equations and practices are correct according to what they see in the paper, it means nothing unless the theory holds up in real world application.
Ain't a real world application, boy. It is measured data.
But we find fossil records stating that life that was particularly susceptible to Ocean acidification not only survived but evolved and thrived at times where the CO2 was 20 times the level of today.
They claim that even current levels of CO2 are causing severe problems with these same type of life forms in the oceans today, and if CO2 levels increase much more those life forms will perish. They even cite fossil evidence from the past showing what they believe to be mass extinctions, and they claim it was due to CO2 levels turning the oceans acidic.
But if that is the case, why did they not die off millions of years ago when CO2 was much higher? If they evolved some form of resistance to this back then, why didn't they evolve that resistance in the same manner again rather than die off? Why indeed....
Indeed, do you have a problem understanding rate of change? Life adapts readily to gradual changes over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Changes on the century or millinial scale is far differant. And the fossil record quite clearly shows that.
You see the problem here yet? Its a illogical to make assumptions either way especially when the premise is so full of holes and unexplainable points of contention.
What is contentuous about increasing CO2 in the oceans raising the acidity level? Straight forward chemistry. What is contentious about the fact that we are now actually measuring that increase?
What we have here is a series of organizations and research groups, all banking on this. We already know how research money is granted. hot ticket items get the bigger shares and fan fair. And AGW is the biggest ticket. You want funding? then it better be what will sell or what is wanted, and right now that is AGW. Its hip and cool and all the celebrities back it. And there are all those new grant allocations for climate change research or green tech.
So that is the ethics of your group. Most people in science are a good deal more ethical than that.
So do you really think it is shocking when you can cite a review of a paper up for publication, that supports some form of climate change or CO2 theory from a group who tells you in their mission statement they are in fact trying to prove climate change and educate on it? Give me a break..... Of course they will publish, its the dream of most scientists these days. And if you want the recognition of your peers you will publish, publish, publish...
So do us all a favor and stop with ignorant childish wannabe scientist crap. its fake and it shows...
