Ocean Acidification - Fraud?

[futurecurrents]

these are the true issues... I think these damn agw bullshitters have siphoned off billions of dollars and unreal man hours and emotions distracting the world from the true concerns like the one you just raised.

if we don't clean our oceans and protect our fisheries... well that is the true scary scenario.

The AGW bullshitters? You mean virtually the entire world's science community? Those bullshitters? The over 97% of climate scientists who agree that AGW is very real? Those bulshitters? Or do you mean the people like myself that bring up these truths.

The only bullshitters here are ideological liars like yourself that lie about and deny the problem of AGW, which is a far far greater threat than plastic in the ocean. AGW can be catastrophic to mankind. Plastics in the ocean? Not so much.

 

[jem]

it was 75 out of 77.... out of 10000 sent the survey and 3000 who answered.
most of the organization you cite are bought with grants....

you have never once sited a peer reviewed paper providing science that concludes man made co2 causes warming...

its all opinion..

and the skeptics are growing in #.
it was 40% in 2011.


http://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

 

[jem]

 

[jem]

Sabine’s excuse for using modeled data over real data? – ‘earlier data is not of “sufficient quality.”‘
Anthony Watts / 2 days ago December 25, 2014
WUWT reader Peter Gadiel writes:

After reading of the critique of Sabine’s exclusion of the historical data on ocean acidification I emailed him. I thought his response might be of interest to you at WUWT. He says the earlier data is not of “sufficient quality.”

My question to him:

As a taxpayer who is helping to pay your salary I’d like to know why you are refusing to include all the data on ocean acidification that is available.

Sabine’s response:

Chris Sabine – NOAA Federal
12:31 AM (11 hours ago)

As a public servant that must stick to the rigor of the scientific method and only present data that is of sufficient quality to address the question, I am obliged to report the best evaluation of ocean chemistry changes available. This is what you pay me to do and I am working very hard to give you the best value for your tax dollar every day. I hope you are having a good holiday season.

The question that immediately comes to mind is:

Who determined that the directly measured ocean pH data was not of “sufficient quality” and if it wasn’t, why then did NOAA make the data available on their website as part of other ocean data in their World Ocean Database without a caveat?

My search on NOAA’s NODC database for ocean pH data showed plenty of data and no caveats on use:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/...ta-earlier-data-is-not-of-sufficient-quality/


read more at the link...​

 

[piezoe]

Another serious problem is ocean pollution, especially from plastics that don't dissolve. One in five sea lions off Cali now have cancer, probably caused by all the muck humans chuck into the oceans. Force the politicians to clean up imho

What fraction had cancer in 1910?

 

[piezoe]

Jem is one of a very few posters that actually pays attention to the literature and the actual data. Some of the rest of you just repeat what you read in USA today. Or in the case on one particular poster simply come back with an insult every time he posts something of real interest.

 

[piezoe]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...biggest-con-since-michael-manns-hockey-stick/

There seems to be some outliers (or is it "outliars" ) that if you had the confidence limits for this data you would probably be justified in eliminating, by statistical test, as very likely erroneous. In any case, even without any error bars or error estimates, it is obvious that anyone that wants to conclude anything about ocean pH trend from this particular set of data is skating on thin ice.

 

[futurecurrents]

it was 75 out of 77.... out of 10000 sent the survey and 3000 who answered.
most of the organization you cite are bought with grants....

you have never once sited a peer reviewed paper providing science that concludes man made co2 causes warming...

its all opinion..

and the skeptics are growing in #.
it was 40% in 2011.


http://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

i present multiple studies showing 97% and you show one. That says the same thing.

If the skeptics are now at 40% it should be easy for you to find ONE science org that denies it.



I'll be waiting. Liar.

 

[futurecurrents]

Jem is one of a very few posters that actually pays attention to the literature and the actual data. Some of the rest of you just repeat what you read in USA today. Or in the case on one particular poster simply come back with an insult every time he posts something of real interest.

Thanks for the laugh. Yeah, he pays attention to it so he can lie about it while sounding like he knows what he is talking about. When in reality he just reposts lies from Breitbarf and LOLWUWT.

But good to know that you are impressed with the kind of lying only a shifty slimey lawyer like jerm can do so well.

 

[futurecurrents]

Selective data set and this year is the warmest in at least a thousand years. Global warming is happening at faster rate than ever.

So once again jerm. You are lying. You are a liar.