Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And they have proof that any changes in the water or within these shell fish come from human-induced CO2 eh?
This sounds like same knee-jerk reaction that went on for over a decade, blaming man-made global warming for frogs dying. Sorry, I'm not buying all of this climate change scare mongering with man-made global warming playing the bogeyman all the time.
There is absolute proof that the carbon being absorbed by the oceans is indeed human generated.
So far what they know is that as more atmospheric carbon is absorbed into the ocean, it becomes more acidic. This makes it more difficult for the shellfish to actually form shells, compromising their immune systems.
The company is now launching a research programme with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans to try and determine if acidification is to blame or if other factors are at play.
Nobody really gives a crap what you believe, as what you believe does not alter the facts.
You appear to be the one taking the debate off on tangents, it is simple:
If my position is correct and the pause exists, then, indeed, you are correct and scientists are conducting further research.
If, however, as you state there is no pause, then your scientists have no need to address the issue with further research.
Your pause you speak of is only taking the atmospheric component, I've mentioned this numerous times in this thread. Your dishonesty only makes you and your arguments weak.
Furthermore, scientists are researching why the atmospheric warming has stagnated.
Quote:
You repeatedly, categorically, deny the existence of the pause; yet, alarmist scientists are pumping out paper after paper acknowledging the pause while simultaneously trying to explain it away.
Again that's how science works..... You can be dishonest and use the phrase "explain it away", but that's what science does.... figure out what's going on.
Quote:
Finally, as to the "oceans ate my heat" *SWAG*, the Oceans giveth and the Oceans taketh away - any natural internal fluctuation of the system that can purportedly mask the "supposed" CO2 signal could likewise be responsible for most of the earlier upward trend.
Huh? So do you or do you not agree there is an atmospheric and oceanic? You are kinda all over the place.... take some time and collect your thoughts.
Quote:
I have a "warming" prediction: if the pause lasts 2-3 more years, the IPCC is toast.
LOL. Not only do you reject evidence from skeptics, now you reject evidence from alarmists - It appears nothing will get in the way of your green orthodoxy.
Wow, proving that your own citations don't support your claim sure makes you whine about me a lot. If I'd known you were going to whine like this, I'd have proved it sooner.
Let the free market decide if they want to attempt a stop rising sea levels or not. I can guarantee that an ice age would have far more catastrophic effects to the economy than a warmer earth. A warmer earth means a longer growing season, doesn't sound like something you want to stop unless you live near sea level.
And they have proof that any changes in the water or within these shell fish come from human-induced CO2 eh?
This sounds like same knee-jerk reaction that went on for over a decade, blaming man-made global warming for frogs dying. Sorry, I'm not buying all of this climate change scare mongering with man-made global warming playing the bogeyman all the time.
And polar bears drowning because their land is dissapearing when the facts are polar bears ate thriving.
And polar bears drowning because their land is dissapearing when the facts are polar bears ate thriving.
That is because the land is not disappearing. When the ice recedes from the northern shore during the summer the bears stay on land to hunt. The bears go where the seals go, and during the summer when there is no arctic ice nearby, the seals rook on land.
The ONLY reason Democrats placed the polar bear on the endangered species list is to prevent future oil development on Alaska's north slope. It has absolutely nothing to do with the polar bears.
Let the free market decide if they want to attempt a stop rising sea levels or not. I can guarantee that an ice age would have far more catastrophic effects to the economy than a warmer earth. A warmer earth means a longer growing season, doesn't sound like something you want to stop unless you live near sea level.
The free market has no incentive to solve this problem.
Let's see if the free market can solve all of our problems. How about the environment? Companies can be free to choose whether to stop spending billions of dollars to keep their wastes from poisoning us. How about food?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
