I am a Climate Change (human caused) agnostic.

[grantcart]

393. No I said that since you were unable to even cite the correct age of the earth you couldn't have

gotten out of my daughter's 6th grade class.

Still waiting for the evidence on your claim for a billion year old world.

Now as to the graph it completely makes my point.

Like the bible toting fundies that really don't understand the bible they quote you practice eisogesis and not exegesis. In other words you have an opinion and you go looking for a source that you think supports your theory in the same way that a true believer searches for a biblical quote that they think (but often in context does not) prove their point.

Just because there were past fluctuations in the Earth's climate is not an argument for or against the current changes in the climate. Your chart means nothing.

So who are you using for sources?

Clicked on the link.

Some pseudo scientific looking cite with an anonymous article. Do you have any grasp of what peer review scholarship even means?

So we go to the Board of Directors and I google the first name.

James L. Buchal

No science background at all.

But he runs SOS Forests.

Who does he cite for authority?

September 14th, 2005


I have a lot of generous people to thank for helping me hatch this weblog. However, none of them wish to be publicly revealed at this time, for fear the thing will backfire and cause them subsequent regret. I respect their feelings and wishes, for now.

He proudly states that he is a member of no group of any kind, scientific or professional.

and who does he like on climate control

The most rabid right wing idiot on the subject, Senator Inhofe. Are you begining to see how right wing your approach is?

http://www.sosforests.com/?p=454


You are quoting lame ass right wing sources that are propped up by industry dollars to spread propaganda to undermine actual scientific research.

A year ago they were all in love with Richard Muller, the last real scientist that had doubts about the methodology of the data.

Koch brothers gave them a million dollars to prove that the climate scientists were wrong.

They came back and said that they (Muller, Koch and the other climate deniers) were 100% wrong. The data confirms that the earth is warming and it is from human activity

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real


SETH BORENSTEIN 10/30/11 03:39 PM ET


WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

So all the people that you are citing were quoting their main scientist Muller a year ago and Muller now admits that the data is correct.

Now if your mind finds it difficult to understand the medium of climate change because there are different seasons or because there are different climate epochs then we will go to the 5th grade level.

The Acidification of the Ocean.

You see all of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere has this long range impact on climate. But since some days are going to be warmer and some days colder and some climate epochs were warmer and some colder then some people with underdeveloped intellects cannot grasp the complexity.

That is not the case with the CO2 that is being absorbed by the Oceans.

There are no ups and downs or any doubt about the data.

Every day our oceans are absorbing more CO2. They are getting more acidic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Lets draw a diagram



Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[1] About 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans, rivers and lakes.[2][3] To maintain chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing the ocean's "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[4] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans,[5][6]

This increasing acidity is thought to have a range of direct undesirable consequences such as depressing metabolic rates in jumbo squid[7] and depressing the immune responses of blue mussels.[8] (These chemical reactions also happen in the atmosphere, and as about 20% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere,[3] also in the ground soils between absorbed CO2 and soil moisture. Thus anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere can increase the acidity of land, sea and air.)

So our discussion about climate change data always ends in the same place. If people are too dimwitted to understand the data on climate change and to stubborn not to trust clearly stated peer review concensus then there is only one thing to do. Like the horse that is too stupid to drink you take them to the water. Like the horse who you can't force to actually drink there is nothing I can do to actually make you think. Obviously you are too defensive and emotionally committed to consider facts that you may not have had before (by the way you are a true beliver not an 'agnostic'. Perhaps agnostic sounds better to your ear, like a billion old earth does.

So while the foresters and the oil guys have spent millions to muddy the discussion on climate and confuse the simple minded they haven't even bothered on the parallel question of what is happening to the ocean.

It is clear.

It is unambiguous.

It is documented.

There is no contrary opinions.

You are wrong. You are free to use your right wing sources and 'believe' all you want. But if you bring them around here you will be widely and completely embarrassed.

Only the rules of civility by the DU community prevent me from actually telling you what I really think about what you are doing here.

Going back to work leaving you to continue to find self gratifying emotional comfort in the bubble you inhabit. We all have to make decisions on time allocation at some point and your value as an interlocutor doesn't meet evn the lowest bar, it is clear that there is no facts, arguments or sources that would have any impact on your point of view.