How little you understand.
That is not my claim, you have spun it to being absolutely wrong from my point. This is one reason I often ignore you.
No Sherlock.
There you go again, assuming, and incorrectly.
This new tactic of him trying to be mysterious is kind of funny if it were not for all the stupid that led up to it. His perception of the oceans chemical composition is just so beyond the likes of you and I.
Nothing new. You simply keep insisting I say things I didn't. You keep reinterpreting my words incorrectly. I never said the ocean is a net source of CO2. It is a net sink. How can I debate someone as dishonest as you are?
I keep wondering, just how stupid are you to continually do this. Why do you fail to understand my points after I clarify them.
I don't see peanuts tbh; though at this point they would probably add a lot of value to this thread.
Well, I figure since you are part of the peanut gallery lately... Afterall, you didn't add any substance. Are you capable of Global Warming topics?
We're all just here to bask in your glory, WC.
Three stooges ganging up on WC. Impressive.
Another article on Fakegate
http://m.torontosun.com/2012/03/02/c...-pants-on-fire
Climate expert’s pants on fire
Lorrie Goldstein
Saturday, March 03, 2012, 8:00 PM
Question: If a world-famous climate scientist lied to obtain do ents fraudulently, would he lie about other things? Like his research?
It’s a reasonable question to ask in light of the ongoing controversy over the recent public confession of prominent U.S. climate scientist and water expert Peter Gleick.
Gleick is now on temporary leave from the presidency of California’s Pacific Ins ute, which he co-founded, after admitting he lied about his iden y in order to obtain internal do ents from the climate skeptical Heartland Ins ute (Gleick calls them climate deniers) based in Chicago.
He’s also resigned, somewhat ironically, from the chairmanship of the American Geophysical Union’s task force on scientific ethics.
Gleick said he posed as a member of the Heartland board of directors to obtain the do ents and expose what he described as its campaign to falsely discredit climate science.
Gleick apologized for what he called “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.”
But he’s also defended his actions by arguing he was driven to them by well-funded, co-ordinated and often anonymous attacks on climate science. He’s also thanked supporters in the ensuing controversy for their support, so his apology is a qualified one.
To be fair, Gleik’s never been accused of misrepresenting his scientific research, as far as I can determine.
But as any lawyer will tell you, once a witness is caught in a lie on the stand, all of his testimony becomes suspect, not just that directly related to the lie.
That’s the thing about ethics. People tend to believe you either have them, or you don’t.
Knowing the serious issues Gleick’s conduct raises about the integrity of climate science, his defenders have been trying to change the subject from what he did, to Heartland’s conduct.
Thus the same people who insisted in Climategate that information obtained from climate scientists via stolen emails should not be subject to public scrutiny, have now done a 180-degree turn to demand Heartland explain the do ents Gleick obtained through his deception.
Problem is, they really aren’t that big a deal, or all that surprising, and the people who tend to obsess the most about Heartland are climate scientists to begin with.
For example, the financial statements Gleick obtained show Heartland — often accused of being a nefarious, powerful front group for super-rich, mega-corporations related to the fossil fuel industry — had revenues of $4.6 million last year.
That’s chump change compared to what many environmental organizations raise annually.
Besides, anyone familiar with this issue knows that while fossil fuel companies have funded climate sceptics, the millions of dollars they’ve spent pale in comparison to the billions earmarked by governments to the public and private sectors for climate change research and, supposedly, ameliorating its effects.
(See Premier Dalton McGuinty’s ongoing green energy financial disaster in Ontario, as recently do ented by the province’s auditor general.)
Indeed, the big money in climate science has never been in scepticism, but in orthodoxy.
Gleick’s other big “find”, according to Heartland’s critics, was a plan to infiltrate public schools with educational programs promoting climate denial.
But for heaven’s sake, if Al Gore and his minions are going to be welcomed into schools to scare the bejeebers out of children on climate change, what’s the big deal about Heartland sending in a few troops to say Gore’s full of hooey?
Of course, it would be better to allow neither side in and instead teach young people to think critically, so they can decide these issues for themselves.
Gleick said he started his campaign of subterfuge because someone anonymously sent him a two-page strategy do ent from Heartland that worried him and prompted him to want to expose the organization.
Heartland says that do ent was a forgery, probably created by Gleick, which Gleick denies.
Of course, once you’ve told one lie …
Uh-huh, so clarify then how the ocean is like a big soda going flat which is what you said and it at the same time be a net sink? Remember your bull about CO2 not driving warming but rather warming driving CO2?
Well at least you linked a major publication and not the mouthpiece for a energy lobby even if it is just an editorial.
I would rather be told what to think about rather than what to think.
You really need an explanation to that? Think about how temperature and partial pressure changes solubility. Both have increased. If you can't think that one out, then I doubt you would understand anyway. Especially since you keep repeating my statements back incorrectly.
i will ask again. explain how the ocean is like a giant soda going flat when the CO2 composition of it is increasing? Quit babbling about science you read from someone else that you obviously only partially understand and stick to the ing point. i already understand what you are claiming as is I am just trying to point to the 400 lbs gorilla.
Good article. Finally read it. Most these "trusted" climate science places have been caught in very questionable cir stance. I agree with treating them like a witness in court. All they say becomes suspect.
So when witness lies then you treat all subsequent witnesses the same? Thats how you think perjury is handled huh?
My God, are you really that dumb?
Since mankind has put more CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans have absorbed around half of it making the oceans a net sink. However, temperature increases of the ocean changed the equilibrium of solubility between the atmosphere and ocean. If the ocean temperature had remained unchanged, the ocean would have absorbed nearly all the CO2 mankind put in the atmosphere. If we never industrialized, or in some other way, never generated CO2 like we do, I say the atmosphere would have sill more CO2. It is only under these conditions I claimed the ocean would be (not is) a net source of CO2, because as water warms, it holds less dissolved CO2, carbonic acid, etc.
Can't you figure that out yourself?
So then you admit that warming does not drive CO2 and that the unlike a Coke going flat the net CO2 content of the ocean is going up?
AND YET, its holding MORE and will CONTINUE to hold more even as it warms.
SMH.
I knew you would not understand.
No, that is not my claim. Ocean warming does drive CO2. That is an irrefutable fact. CO2 probably has some positive feedback to warming, but their are studies that shows it has a net cooling effect as well.
Do you understand equilibrium?
AND YET, its holding MORE and will CONTINUE to hold more even as it warms.
SMH.
Lol!
Lololololol
You haven't had anything valuable to add for a very long time. What say you?
I sometimes wonder if hes trolling but then i have seen him troll. i suspect he doesn't remember what he initially posted on the subject. what i really want to know is whether or not his girlfriend who is thinking of moving to Arizona even knows his name.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
