so tell me... which animal do you think would me adaptive in this circumstance? the one that is just making use of the calcium shells... or the one that has had millions of years to evolve?

think about what you are saying here, for a second. You are claiming that, at a pH of 7.2, calcium-based corals evolved, despite the fact that their calcium protection dissolves in this situation, as proven by the destruction of corals in a far more alkaline environment. What possible evolutionary advantage could occur by adapting a trait that FUCKING KILLS YOU?

Moreover, all of this is based on the assumption that CO2 absorption is 1:1 based on aerial concentration, which btw, we know isn't true! ie, something else is causing the acidification. It can't possibly make sense that oceans that weren't that acidic then, with a higher level of CO2, are somehow turned so acidic now, based solely on an increase in CO2

4/17/2009 9:26:29 PM

Quote :

"think about what you are saying here, for a second. You are claiming that, at a pH of 7.2, calcium-based corals evolved, despite the fact that their calcium protection dissolves in this situation, as proven by the destruction of corals in a far more alkaline environment. What possible evolutionary advantage could occur by adapting a trait that FUCKING KILLS YOU?"

Here's the thing - and again I make reference to the original science: not every organism responds the same. This is the point. Some are doing fine. Many others are doing poorly. This is because, as should be obvious, not every coral (or other calcium-cabonate based organism) originated from the paleolithic.

More subtly, let's assume it doesn't just up and kill corals (this much is true); mostly we're talking about impeding the growth / not thriving as much. In other words, it's more difficult for corals to survive and grow, not impossible.

It's entirely plausible to believe that the equilibrium of fauna would be different under a different pH. This is the point to take away - not whether things will live or die, but what the equilibrium balance will be.

My argument has been, and continues to be, that radical shifts in pH over short time periods (decades, as opposed to thousands of years), shift the equilibrium very fast in ways that the rest of the biosphere may not as easily adapt to.

Quote :

"Moreover, all of this is based on the assumption that CO2 absorption is 1:1 based on aerial concentration, which btw, we know isn't true! ie, something else is causing the acidification. It can't possibly make sense that oceans that weren't that acidic then, with a higher level of CO2, are somehow turned so acidic now, based solely on an increase in CO2"

You're making a lot of assumptions, here.

We don't know that oceans were not less alkaline in the Paleolithic. I am not qualified to comment, but I think chances are that they were.

Again, I feel it necessary to stress: not every calcium-carbonate based organism necessarily fares poorly under reduced alkalinity. This however does not mean all are okay. There is evidence for this; it is also a testable hypothesis. Setup a lab and do the experiments.

Furthermore, the relationship between partial pressure and CO2 is actually pretty linear. This, again, is something that can be measured in a lab. Control the partial pressure, use seawater, and measure. This really is basic chemistry which we can test in the lab. Your standard objections don't really apply here.

Look, to put it another way: we can easily reproduce the partial pressures of CO2 between say, a pre-industrial estimate and today. Then we can measure the pH of the water from the dissolved CO2. Very simple, very straightforward. We can directly test for acidification.

4/17/2009 10:28:30 PM

Quote :

"Furthermore, the relationship between partial pressure and CO2 is actually pretty linear. This, again, is something that can be measured in a lab. Control the partial pressure, use seawater, and measure. This really is basic chemistry which we can test in the lab. Your standard objections don't really apply here."

then you are going against what we actually know about the oceans... namely that they absorb CO2 at a lower rate, the more they have absorbed.

Quote :

"Look, to put it another way: we can easily reproduce the partial pressures of CO2 between say, a pre-industrial estimate and today. Then we can measure the pH of the water from the dissolved CO2. Very simple, very straightforward. We can directly test for acidification."

So, in short, take a far-fetched scenario, do something to it, and then claim that it works in something as vast as THE OCEAN. If you really think that a bucket of sea-water represents the entire ecosystem that is THE OCEAN, then something is wrong with you. and you say that I am the one making assumptions here...

4/17/2009 10:40:20 PM

DrSteveChaos

might as well not waste your breath. You forget aaronburro believes science is silly stuff and anything worth knowing comes from the most fair and balanced news source of the land aka Faux News.

4/17/2009 10:43:45 PM

sigh. why does an asshole like you even bother to post? what fucking value did you just bring to the thread there? not a fucking bit. if you don't have anything to say towards the topic, THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP. Read the fucking shit I posted, OR SHUT YOUR FUCKING ASSHOLE TROLLING MOUTH.

4/17/2009 10:45:08 PM

Quote :

"then you are going against what we actually know about the oceans... namely that they absorb CO2 at a lower rate, the more they have absorbed."

Look, this is an approximation, particularly made by someone (myself) who is not an oceanographer or an earth scientist. So I'm not going to try to claim to be the final expert, here.

However, I believe you are missing the point - this is basic science, the kind where we can actually go out and do experiments. We can sit down in a laboratory and do experiments to make testable hypotheses. Then go out and check these against the real world.

Quote :

"So, in short, take a far-fetched scenario, do something to it, and then claim that it works in something as vast as THE OCEAN. If you really think that a bucket of sea-water represents the entire ecosystem that is THE OCEAN, then something is wrong with you. and you say that I am the one making assumptions here..."

Exactly what is far-fetched about this, exactly? You start off with a scalable model and move upwards. This seems to be how science is generally done - understand the mechanics as a small level, then move up to something bigger and study the effects.

I mean, honestly, do you apply this line of logic to other things?

"HAI GAIZ! THERE'S NO WAY A LAW OF GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION WHICH RELATEZ OBJECTZ TO TEH EARTH WOULD HAVE ANY APPLICABILITY TO TEH MOTIONZ OF TEH PLANTEZ! THEY'RE BIG!"

Again - you are asking for testable science. I am trying to provide a basic means for you to look for testable hypotheses starting with scalable experiments and you are acting as if it's simply ludicrous.

4/17/2009 10:57:29 PM

Quote :

"However, I believe you are missing the point - this is basic science, the kind where we can actually go out and do experiments. We can sit down in a laboratory and do experiments to make testable hypotheses. Then go out and check these against the real world."

and YOU are missing the point. When you make it THAT FUCKING SIMPLE, then you are ignoring the millions of other things that actually affect the scenario! It is precisely what is wrong with "science" today. They do anything they can do to satisfy the funders, so they always make sure they get the desired results

4/17/2009 11:03:14 PM

Quote :

"It is precisely what is wrong with "science" today. They do anything they can do to satisfy the funders, so they always make sure they get the desired results"

tell me more about what i do and you don't

4/17/2009 11:23:43 PM

tell me... DO you rig studies to suit your hypothesis? Do you make a computer model that weights data that supports your hypothesis four hundred times more than it does other data?

4/17/2009 11:25:05 PM

Of course I don't, and if you think that scientists are doing this in troves you're delusional. When you apply for grants and funding, reputable organizations that provide funds (such as the NSF) are concerned with the accuracy of your results and your intention to get it right.

[Edited on April 17, 2009 at 11:26 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2009 11:26:11 PM

so, would that be why Mann did it at Penn State and then his work was used to support the entire global-fearmongering sham, at the behest of the UN? Sorry, you are going to have to give me more support than your current assertion, given that we know how far fake research has gone already.

We've also seen "peer-review" that has been done by the original performers of the study, as in the case of Mann.

We've also seen outright chicanery and fraud, on the part of James Hansen.

Finally, we've seen researchers have their funding pulled for speaking out against AGW. There has also been numerous cases of intimidation against those who disagree with the faux consensus. It is widespread. In what way is any of that indicative of a truly "scientific" process?

4/17/2009 11:28:11 PM

Scientists that fix their results are shunned because they're not doing science. I don't know how else to express this to you.

Everytime a scientist puts his name on something he stakes his reputation on it. Falsified results basically end your career.

Quote :

"We've also seen "peer-review" that has been done by the original performers of the study, as in the case of Mann. We've also seen outright chicanery and fraud, on the part of James Hansen. Finally, we've seen researchers have their funding pulled for speaking out against AGW. It is widespread."

Going to have to ask for citations, because I'm unaware of any of these cases. Curious what funding they had, what the cited reason for its cessation, and a description of the fraud. Did they fake readings? Did they run a faulty data analysis? How was the fraud discovered?

4/17/2009 11:32:08 PM

Quote :

"and YOU are missing the point. When you make it THAT FUCKING SIMPLE, then you are ignoring the millions of other things that actually affect the scenario! It is precisely what is wrong with "science" today. They do anything they can do to satisfy the funders, so they always make sure they get the desired results"

I can't tell if you are intentionally reading out the words I am saying to reach a desired conclusion, or if the words actually are simply escaping you.

Quote :

"Exactly what is far-fetched about this, exactly? You start off with a scalable model and move upwards. This seems to be how science is generally done - understand the mechanics as a small level, then move up to something bigger and study the effects."

In other words, I am quite aware of the fact that the problem is not as simple as a very small lab experiment. I have simply proposed that one begins at the smallest level to understand the gross dynamics and moves further upward to see how other forces come into play and thus must be corrected for.

So, breaking it down:

Start with a small experiment. Understand it.

Make a bigger experiment. Look for things not present in the small one.

And so forth until you can reach a sophisticated understanding of large-scale natural systems.

The point is scaling upwards.

Just in case I didn't make this clear enough:

Start small. Go progressively bigger.

4/17/2009 11:33:44 PM

Quote :

"sigh. why does an asshole like you even bother to post? what fucking value did you just bring to the thread there? not a fucking bit. if you don't have anything to say towards the topic, THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP. Read the fucking shit I posted, OR SHUT YOUR FUCKING ASSHOLE TROLLING MOUTH. "

Just block him, it was the best thing I've ever done on TWW

Quote :

"Scientists that fix their results are shunned because they're not doing science. I don't know how else to express this to you. Everytime a scientist puts his name on something he stakes his reputation on it. Falsified results basically end your career."

Mike, unfortunately this does not always hold true. Mann's "research" that resulted in the Hockey stick was so intentionally fixed (and his results are utterly impossible to recreate using the same data) that it in no way was a mistake, and rather was done intentionally. Yet he has not been discredited and continues to pump out bad science on behalf of the AGW contingent.

Also has anyone ever thought it odd that Al Gore and James Hansen, the main cheerleaders of the AGW movement, have never agreed to debate climate change with skeptics. Of course they've been proven to be wrong over and over again so its really no surprise.

4/18/2009 12:04:14 AM

gimme a minute on those citations

ok, page 17 on this article discusses the very real things that have been done to intimidate deniers.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060126/20060126_13.pdf

btw, chaos, it's one thing to scale up with more experiments. It's entirely another to make broad statements about the nature of a huge system based on these small experiments without "scaling up" your knowledge

4/18/2009 12:07:36 AM

Dinosaur christian

4/18/2009 12:13:03 AM

^^ Not to be nitpicky but that's a manuscript. Do you have the reference from where it was published? The manuscript says it's forthcoming so I should be able to find it from an actual source, right?

4/18/2009 12:36:45 AM

this would be a full text of the actual document:
http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812773890/9789812773890_0016.html

4/18/2009 12:50:57 AM

Cool. I wish I could get the actual PDF from the journal as opposed to this manuscript, but it'll have to do. I need some time to read it.

4/18/2009 12:55:32 AM

yeah, i don't know if you have acces to that site, but i figured u might

4/18/2009 12:56:32 AM

I might if I were on campus but I'm not. I don't know if my university has access to this or not.

4/18/2009 12:57:50 AM

^I've got a 20-25 page report written by Richard Lindzen about how the whole scientific process behind "climate change" is in most cases flawed and somewhat biased. If you're curious let me know and I can email it to you. Its a pretty easy read.


... of course some moonbat will probably come in here and comment that Lindzen is himself biased and getting rich off the oil companies.

4/20/2009 1:29:30 PM

Lindzen is a smart guy, but his Iris Hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis. It's been tested by other scientists and effectively debunked. While scientists have produced a wealth of evidence supporting positive feedback, they couldn't find any evidence supporting negative feedback.

This guy also questions the link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer.

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 1:56 PM. Reason : spelleng]

4/20/2009 1:49:04 PM

ironically, I did not click on the link supplied by aaronburro b/c I have a slow connection at work. (its the same article.

also, Lumex, the article has nothing to do with his hypothesis on climate change. Guess what else is just a hypothesis? That global warming is caused by CO2.

Moving on...a retired officer of the Air Force has requested from the EPA evidence that CO2 causes global warming under the Freedom of Information Act. This should be very interesting as there is no real evidence that would stand up to any amount of scrutiny.

If you'd like to read his letter follow this link: http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/FREEDOM%20OF%20INFORMATION%20ACT%20REQUEST.pdf

Additionally, the summarized press release from the EPA on classifying CO2 as harmful is laughable. It reads like something out of "An Inconvenient Truth", i.e. its easily dismissed as rubbish. You can read the 2 page pdf below.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/ScienceFactSheet.pdf

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 11:24 PM. Reason : k]

4/20/2009 11:21:46 PM

[Edited on April 21, 2009 at 12:25 AM. Reason : forget it]

4/21/2009 12:23:01 AM

Quote :

"think about what you are saying here, for a second. You are claiming that, at a pH of 7.2, calcium-based corals evolved, despite the fact that their calcium protection dissolves in this situation, as proven by the destruction of corals in a far more alkaline environment. What possible evolutionary advantage could occur by adapting a trait that FUCKING KILLS YOU? "

While the finer points of this debate are obviously pointless to argue about, allow me to point out that you obviously have completely misunderstood evolution. Sometimes, organisms do evolve traits that kill them. Evolution in no way trends towards what is beneficial towards the organism. The organism gains traits that help it, or gains traits that hurt it, or stays relatively neutral. All are equally possible and all have happened.

4/21/2009 12:53:20 PM

^ I can understand that, to an extent. However, calcium does not evolve. A pH of 7.2 will affect calcium today the same way it affected it 400 million years ago. Thus, if the dissolving away of calcium is bad at a pH of 8.3 vs 8.4, it must be horrendously worse at a pH of 7.2 vs 8.4. We see these creatures "dying out" at 8.3, though... How would they have even emerged in any form at 7.2?

While evolution happens, I find it hard to believe that something as fundamental as the calcium to these corals was any less important to the original species some 400 million years ago.

4/22/2009 6:31:22 PM

Look, I've said it once and I'll say it once more:

The response is not uniform.

Not every coral response the same. Some do okay - or even better. Many calcium carbonate-based organisms fare worse under a pH change.

I think what should be stated here is that there is likely a complex interaction, of which pH acts as a driver. That is, the same organisms are competing against a different "zoo" now in the ecosystem for the same resources than they were hundreds of millions of years ago. This pH may in turn weaken their fitness against the ecosystem now due to the makeup of competitors whereas these competitors may have simply been absent before.

Frankly, I don't know the answer. But I think it is sufficient to stress - once more - than the response is not uniform.

4/22/2009 6:49:15 PM

i'm going to admit some ignorance here, but I was under the impression that the response to the pH change was "dissolving of calcium carbonate." how, exactly, can the response vary, then? you got calcium carbonate. you got water. put em together... boom. response.

if what you are instead telling me is "gee, we really don't know what's happening," then it sounds, frankly, like more global-warming bullshit alarmism. Anything that's "different" from what it was two days ago is immediately attributed to OMG GLOBAL WARMING!!!one1 It could be that the pH has absolutely nothing to do with it, and something else is to blame, something which is entirely divorced from the actions of mankind. If this is the case, the "gee, we really don't know what's happening," then I'd say my claims of faux-science are upheld, once again.

4/22/2009 7:04:41 PM

Quote :

"i'm going to admit some ignorance here, but I was under the impression that the response to the pH change was "dissolving of calcium carbonate." how, exactly, can the response vary, then? you got calcium carbonate. you got water. put em together... boom. response."

pH dissolves calcium carbonate, or as I understand it to be in this case, shifts the equilibrium point of shell thickness. (i.e., the equilibrium point between shell formation and dissolution - in other words, it's not as if shells are simply dissolving wholesale in ocean water.)

Again, I disclaim the fact that this is not my area of expertise.

Quote :

"if what you are instead telling me is "gee, we really don't know what's happening," then it sounds, frankly, like more global-warming bullshit alarmism."

No, what I'm telling you is that I don't know. I do nuclear engineering (and nuclear physics) for a living. I don't study ocean fauna for a living. Hence I can't offer you a more cogent explanation - because I, non-expert, do not understand the results very well. This does not mean it is the case for the experts.

4/22/2009 8:03:19 PM

Right - different species have different shell thicknesses and/or can survive better than others if their shells are weakened by changing pH or some other external factor, assuming the study we're talking about is even correct or being understood correctly. It's hardly difficult to see that this chemical difference wouldn't somehow destroy all calcium carbonate shelled species.

4/22/2009 9:25:48 PM

the ocean absorbing more atmospheric CO2 does more than just drop the pH -- at the same time it's shifting the bicarbonate/carbonate equilibrium towards more bicarbonate (and aqueous CO2 obviously, as well as more H+ thus the lower pH)

the potential effects on calcifying organisms is more a result of the overall altered seawater carbonate chemistry -- basically it's more complicated than just CaCO3 dissolving at a lower pH

the saturation states of calcite or aragonite are important (and dependent on temperature, pressure, salinity, etc), and as mentioned the sensitivity of various organisms appears to be variable but in some cases the effects are quite dramatic

4/23/2009 1:27:32 AM

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/energy_update

While the whims of the public don't really change the facts of the debate, I thought it might interesting to keep tabs on the mob.

4/23/2009 10:56:30 AM

The whole ocean acification issue is interesting, but in the grand scheme of the history of the earth it has had a lot more CO2 in it than it doesn now, or will in the near future. So I really don't see any point for concern.

Then again I suppose we could also manufacture giant plugs to prevent CO2 from coming out of active underwater volcanos

4/23/2009 1:04:35 PM

Quote :

"The whole ocean acification issue is interesting, but in the grand scheme of the history of the earth it has had a lot more CO2 in it than it doesn now, or will in the near future. So I really don't see any point for concern."

It's not the gross amount that's of concern, it's the delta. As in, how fast it's changing. Very sudden, rapid changes in CO2 partial pressure (and hence, ocean pH, etc) are what's at issue - not the simple fact that it's changed.

It's a lot like speed - how fast you come to a stop tends to make all the difference in the world.

4/23/2009 1:21:43 PM

I'm aware of the delta T issue, and the concern therein is that while marine organisms adapted and evolved in the past, now things are changing too quickly. However I have a hard time understanding that. At the IPCC's current predicted growth curve for CO2 atmospheric concentration it would take over over 100 years to even approach 1000ppmv. And in the past atmospheric levels have been above 6000ppmv. And this isn't even taking into account that the IPCC's predicted rate is horribly wrong (current rate is 204ppmv).

Let me see if I can find some of these studies/reports to strengthen my viewpoint.

4/23/2009 1:45:08 PM

Here's the abstract of a recent study showing coral reef recovery. It doesn't reinforce my points here exactly, but it shows you that nature finds a way and also that we don't completely understand this process entirely.

Quote :

"Doom and Boom on a Resilient Reef: Climate Change, Algal Overgrowth and Coral Recovery Abstract Background Coral reefs around the world are experiencing large-scale degradation, largely due to global climate change, overfishing, diseases and eutrophication. Climate change models suggest increasing frequency and severity of warming-induced coral bleaching events, with consequent increases in coral mortality and algal overgrowth. Critically, the recovery of damaged reefs will depend on the reversibility of seaweed blooms, generally considered to depend on grazing of the seaweed, and replenishment of corals by larvae that successfully recruit to damaged reefs. These processes usually take years to decades to bring a reef back to coral dominance. Methodology/Principal Findings In 2006, mass bleaching of corals on inshore reefs of the Great Barrier Reef caused high coral mortality. Here we show that this coral mortality was followed by an unprecedented bloom of a single species of unpalatable seaweed (Lobophora variegata), colonizing dead coral skeletons, but that corals on these reefs recovered dramatically, in less than a year. Unexpectedly, this rapid reversal did not involve reestablishment of corals by recruitment of coral larvae, as often assumed, but depended on several ecological mechanisms previously underestimated. Conclusions/Significance These mechanisms of ecological recovery included rapid regeneration rates of remnant coral tissue, very high competitive ability of the corals allowing them to out-compete the seaweed, a natural seasonal decline in the particular species of dominant seaweed, and an effective marine protected area system. Our study provides a key example of the doom and boom of a highly resilient reef, and new insights into the variability and mechanisms of reef resilience under rapid climate change."

link to complete report: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005239

4/23/2009 3:32:47 PM

My girlfriend told me about her pregnant cousin who continued to drink and smoke while pregnant. According to hear Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and potential fetus damage while drinking is all liberal bullshit. This blew my mind and kinda reminds me of the republican party response to AGW.

Why would doctors and the surgeon general lie about the harms of drinking while pregnant. What do they have to gain.....
Likewise there are exaggerators and profiteerers but what does the overwhelming majority of the climate and weather community have by spreading the so called global warming lie/conspiracy.

Sure the claims of NYC being underwater are bullshit. Is it that hard to beleive that human created CO2 could play even 10% role in the climate variation we see versus 100% being from natural cycles. When you sail the wind blows you in one direction but you can utilize the sail to trend one way or the other.

4/23/2009 3:47:11 PM

Quote :

"Likewise there are exaggerators and profiteerers but what does the overwhelming majority of the climate and weather community have by spreading the so called global warming lie/conspiracy."

Pretty simple: continued funding for their research. Quite obvious. Oh, and the ability to continue their job, since it has been shown that there is a significant AGW-bias among the higher ups, and these higher-ups will discriminate against evil dissenters.

Quote :

"Is it that hard to beleive that human created CO2 could play even 10% role in the climate variation we see versus 100% being from natural cycles."

Umm, yes, it is. That's kind of why there are a lot of scientists who disagree w/ AGW.

Quote :

"When you sail the wind blows you in one direction but you can utilize the sail to trend one way or the other."

True, but if you don't have the right kind of sail, then you are only going to go in the direction of the wind

4/24/2009 10:29:58 AM

Quote :

"Umm, yes, it is. That's kind of why there are a lot of scientists who disagree w/ AGW."

And this would be why it's hard to take you seriously. I can respect the notion of disagreeing with the mainstream body of thought on the topic, but not even admitting room for any human component, given very strong evidence of a human-driven factor in increased CO2 concentrations over the last 100 years, along with very basic thermodynamics - just categorically ruling out the possibility of human contribution altogether? Really? That's where you want to go with this one?

Now who's being dogmatically ideological?

Plenty of scientists disagree - and you know what a lot of them say? That humans do contribute CO2, and that this CO2 does have an impact, but one which is not determinative. Even many those scientists who dissent from the issue aren't being so vapidly ideological as to deny the core premise that CO2 traps solar radiation - their bone of contention is in the magnitude of the effect.

Your position, right here, is that it's simply impossible. You have functionally graduated to flat-earther territory. Congratulations.

4/24/2009 10:49:13 AM

Quote :

"but not even admitting room for any human component, given very strong evidence of a human-driven factor in increased CO2 concentrations over the last 100 years"

And then you ignore other, more pertinent evidence that shows otherwise. Is there a human component? Sure. Is it in any way meaningful? Absolutely not.

Quote :

"along with very basic thermodynamics"

You should read Lindzen's comments about this. To put it briefly, the CO2 forcing effect has a maximum, and we've pretty much already reached that maximum. And we were at that maximum BEFORE the industrial revolution.

Quote :

"just categorically ruling out the possibility of human contribution altogether? Really? That's where you want to go with this one? Now who's being dogmatically ideological?"

Never said that. Thx for the strawman.

Quote :

"Your position, right here, is that it's simply impossible. You have functionally graduated to flat-earther territory. Congratulations."

Yes, congratulations for setting up a wooooonderful strawman and then bashing him to itty bitty bits! By the way, did you know that the notion of a "flat-earther" is, in fact, a "flat-earther?"

4/24/2009 10:54:52 AM

Quote :

"Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing Thursday, April 23, 2009 By Marc Morano 'House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated' Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon. “The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.” According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore. “The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening. “Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 ) A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night. "

Is anyone surprised by this in the least? There's your lack of bias, right???

4/24/2009 11:16:34 AM

Quote :

"And then you ignore other, more pertinent evidence that shows otherwise. Is there a human component? Sure. Is it in any way meaningful? Absolutely not."

So, to clarify your comments - it's entirely possible that a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 - something pretty much directly tied to human activities - would have an effect. But your argument is that it's so minor as to be inconsequential.

Look, let's put it this way - even the science of skeptics doesn't really back you up on this point. At this point, we're into full-blown denial territory. And again - I am perfectly willing to listen to arguments that some of the "mainstream" sources have over-hyped their conclusions - chief among them being the IPCC.

But I find it a little hard to take seriously the notion that massive increases in CO2 concentration due to human activity have a "negligible" effect. Particularly given what we've observed with other industrial pollutants, like NOx and SOx, in terms of how much concentration is required to manifest in noticeable ways.

Quote :

"You should read Lindzen's comments about this. To put it briefly, the CO2 forcing effect has a maximum, and we've pretty much already reached that maximum. And we were at that maximum BEFORE the industrial revolution."

Lindzen's comments are based upon his proposed "Iris Effect" regulating temperature. This effect, suffice it to say, has not exactly been vindicated by the evidence thus so far.

Quote :

"Never said that. Thx for the strawman."

O RLY?

Quote :

""Is it that hard to beleive that human created CO2 could play even 10% role in the climate variation we see versus 100% being from natural cycles." Umm, yes, it is."

Yeah, sorry about the confusion there. It's just so easy to confuse your argument when you pretty much deny the idea that human-released CO2 could even play a minor role in AGW, and then when confronted with this, you deny ever saying this.

Any chance you ever worked with the John Kerry campaign, perchance?

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .]

4/24/2009 11:30:46 AM

this thread is a myth

4/24/2009 11:47:01 AM

Quote :

"That humans do contribute CO2, and that this CO2 does have an impact, but one which is not determinative"

Yeah this is a logical and reasonable argument that a dissenter could right a thesis on and republican party could adopt

as not to sound scientifically challenged. By opinion is that due to the low intelligence and simple mindedness of much of the

GOP base (i.e joe the plumber) it is easier just to play the "OMG GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST AND IS PART OF THE EVIL LIBERAL

AGENDA TO TRICK PEOPLE" than to rationally disprove the current hypothesis with a counter-hypothesis explaining how even though humans

do increase levels of CO2 in atmosphere other extraneous variables mitigate any artifical human related change in global climate.

This is line of reasoning takes to much brain power; it is just easier to blow it off knowing that much of your base will soak up your

words no matter what you say.

Quote :

"Is there a human component"

My car must emit potpourri out of its exhaust

[n]TKE-Teg
[/n]

would you care to post the source of your article

4/24/2009 12:19:46 PM

Quote :

"Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,"

Hmmmm....yes, no agenda for this man. Margaret Thatcher loved restrained markets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

Oh come the fuck on, this guy's a business consultant handpicked by a Texas Republican (no conflict of interest there) to testify. Yeah, sure his name sounds all official and important and people are probably like "oh hey, a British guy, they're smart" or "a European who doesn't believe Global Warming! Surely a smart man indeed!", but he's basically got no more credentials than me.

That Stephen Chu, he's a dumbass, let's hear from Lord Viscount Monckton Fauntleroy Witherington Smith Smyth Smith the III consultant to Margaret Thatcher instead.

The GOP is a joke.

4/24/2009 2:42:57 PM

Quote :

"That Stephen Chu, he's a dumbass"

He did go along with Obama in canning Yucca Mountain...

4/24/2009 2:45:02 PM

The guy could be a Jehova's Witness for all I care, that's not the issue here

4/24/2009 2:46:27 PM

If you thought - honestly thought - that you were trying to save the world, and a group of people wanted to (in your mind) waste the government's time by testifying to the committee you're trying to get to save the world, would you allow them to do so?

4/24/2009 3:50:01 PM

You people haven't a leg to stand on. You think the gov't should listen to Al Gore, someone just about everyone knows is full of shit. Why is Gore afraid of Lord Monckton? Oh yeah, b/c he backs up his arguments with science. Nevermind the fact that Lord Monckton has already spoken in front of that House committee. I guess he wasted so much of their time he was invited back?

Al Gore's been preaching for years about rising sea levels and violent weather from global warming. But apparently his own arguments didn't factor into his decision to buy a $4 million condo in the St. Regis tower in San Francisco on the waterfront in 2005. Clearly he believes his own rantings.

Maybe Al Gore's afraid of all the data showing global temperatures to be dropping. According to the Hadley Center the current trend is cooling 2.1°C/century. The National Center Data Center's data shows a decrease of 0.8°C/century. The University at Alabama Huntsville says the downtrend is 2.3°C/century. And finally, Remote Sensing Systems (microwave sensors on satellites) points to 2.7°C/century decreasing. (all for the current cooling period 2002-2008).

Then again, I suppose we should believe all those scientific institutions are paid off by Big Oil. Instead we should believe the IPCC's models, which predicted for 2002-2008 that we should experience warming between 2.4°C/century and 5.3°C/century.

The effect of CO2 increased concentration in the air is logarthmic. The more you add the less effect it has.

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 5:01 PM. Reason : you people]

4/24/2009 4:59:12 PM