Comments on: Silly Illustrated 2: The Corruption of Peer Review

By: Frank R

Frank R — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:41:31 +0000

“No one (at least not anyone reputable) claims that climate change results from a single variable.”
The focus of the AGW has been nearly exclusively on CO2 and how it operates in the environment. The solutions that this group proposes all deal with a reduction in CO2. These are the same “reputable” people we see quoted as the climate experts.

There is no equilibrium in the climate or in the levels of CO2. Never has been. The only constant is change. It has been both much colder and much hotter than it is today. CO2 levels have been higher and lower than today. And climate changes have happened with great rapidity in the past, as well as slowly. There is no evidence that climate variation has intensified. This is particularly true if you look at earth’s entire history rather than what amounts a a nano-second of natural history. If anything, the period in which we are living is the anomaly in terms of temperature.

In the end all we can be certain of is that the climate will change. Man’s contribution is likely quite small and unavoidable (read the link referenced earlier). Man must learn to adapt to the changes in climate. It is nothing short of hubris to believe that we are both the cause and salvation of the Earth.

By: Tim R.

Tim R. — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:31:41 +0000

Frank: My point all along has been about intensification of climatic variation. Minor changes in ocean ph have dramatic changes in the rate of CO2 absorption that in turn impact the homeostasis of the carbon cycle.

A 1 % change in CO2 absorption (using your claim) is small, but if the ocean ph is changed by half a point, that 1% contribution has exponential impacts because of the large-scale reduction in CO2 absorption.

It is true that man does not contribute more CO2 than natural processes, BUT (and this is the point) changing the CO2 absorption rates through ocean acidification, forest reduction, and increase fossil fuel use, can have a synergistic effect increasing that rate of climatic variation beyond the system’s resiliency.

No one (at least not anyone reputable) claims that climate change results from a single variable. To make such a claim is to ignore the complexity of the issue. We’re talking about large systems with large and variable homeostatic powers.

But, when the homeostatic power of those systems is stressed, their resiliency is reduced.

By: Frank R

Frank R — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:25:18 +0000

Tim R, CO2 in the atmosphere has been far higher than today WITHOUT man’s contribution. What is the evidence that man’s contribution, which is LESS THAN 1% of the total, is making the critical difference? To date the ONLY evidence exists in the computer models and they have proven to be incorrect. Further, the atmospheric CO2 is but one source of carbon which acidifies the oceans.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm#intro
The environment is dynamic and in a constant state of adjustment, regardless of what man does. We have only scratched the surface in understanding how all of the variable interact. CO2 is a very small variable and man’s portion of that is even tinier.

By: amanda

amanda — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 11:40:12 +0000

MSM isn’t getting this story: right or at all. There have been dozens of HARO queries in the last 2 months seeking “green” input on corporate adaptations to the climate change kool-aid.

By: Tim R.

Tim R. — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:47:28 +0000

Frank R: “how he makes the leap to the notion that man is contributing the CO2 he says is acidifying the oceans.”

It’s a real simple: Take a seashell, put a few drops of acid on it and watch what happens. It’s fun and simple to see how acidification of the ocean increases atmospheric CO2.

When marine organisms cannot absorb available atmospheric CO2 due to acidic ocean water preventing shell construction (just like you found out in the little experiment above..) then that leaves more CO2 in the atmosphere–unabsorbed.

The ocean is a CO2 sink, but only if its ph is conducive to shell formation by marine life. Reduced shell formation = more atmospheric CO2.

It doesn’t matter where it comes from when the carbon cycle is thrown off balance.

This is basic science learned in 7th grade. He probably didn’t make the connection in his report because he assumed (wrongly) that people had learned the basics of ph in middle school.

By: News

News — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:03:59 +0000

Federal agent runs down pedestrian, then pedestrian is ticketed for jaywalking.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/04/struck-down-feds-refuse-to-explain-how-agent-injured-daily-caller-writer/comment-page-1/

By: Frank R

Frank R — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:24:56 +0000

Dr. McClintock is likely an eminently qualified and respected marine biologist. I am sure that his research regarding the acidification of the polar oceans is quite good. He never explains, however, how he makes the leap to the notion that man is contributing the CO2 he says is acidifying the oceans. Since man contributes very little, it’s unlikely that the paltry level of human CO2 contribution is responsible. Since atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher during earth’s pre-industrial history, it’s unlikely that what we are seeing is not a natural occurrence.
Given the drastic and often sudden changes in climate that have occurred over earth’s natural history, how can one state conclusively that man is driving the climate change?

By: Well

Well — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:40:32 +0000

The Anthropogenic Climate Change fairy tale deserves as much study as the nutritional content of the various porridge dishes Goldilocks ate, or the temperature of the oven in which Hansel and Gretel were going to be cooked.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:31:05 +0000

Government stockpiling infant DNA without parental consent

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/04/baby.dna.government/index.html?hpt=C1

By: Tim R.

Tim R. — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:12:50 +0000

One other thing: You placed me in the “Global Warming” camp, I presume because it’s easier to knock down anything I say with straw man arguments than actually looking at what I’ve said repeatedly from the beginning of this thread:

Global Warming is just one part of a larger issue; that issue being Man-Made Climate Change.

Climate change is to global warming as continental drift is to plate tectonics. Small part of a larger body of evidence.

Never once have I said global warming was happening. I’ve said repeatedly climatic variations and their intensification were the issue.