Con Home’s Climate Crock Rundown (88-100)


6:37 pm - December 15th 2009

by Unity    


      Share on Tumblr

Conservative Home have published a list, in conjunction with the Daily Express, of their ‘100 Reasons why the ‘Copenhagen’ Governments and other proponents of “man-made” Global Warming theory of Climate Change are completely wrong‘.

By way of a response to Jim McConalogue’s lengthy article, we’ll be publishing our own rundown, in several parts, which we’re calling…

‘100-ish Reasons why Conservative Home and Jim McConalogue are full of shit’

For part one of our rundown, which covers reasons 88 to 100, check below the fold… my responses are in italics.

88. US President Barack Obama pledged cutting emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, representing a 3-4 percent cut from 1990 levels as he aims to reach a 41 percent reduction by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050. However, target emissions for 2050 will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen. The ideology is wrong. The target is delusional.

89. The European Union, whose various 500 million peoples disagree with its emission targets, has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

90. Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

91. Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar-sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters. Ottawa is asking that no agreement emerges from the summit which will act as an impediment to its economic growth.

92. India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

88-92 are statements about politics and economics and have absolutely no bearing on the scientific evidence for climate change. The comments regarding President Obama’s proposed emission cuts appear to be no more than the author’s own opinions, not statements of fact. McConalogue might as well be talking about the prospect of flying cars and monkey butlers for all that they prove anything other than that he’s a major asshole.

93. It is claimed that during the late 20th Century, the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached a high point of unprecedented magnitude. However, the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century, which falls within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 years.

For Northern Hemisphere temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years. Older data are insufficient to provide reliable hemispheric temperature estimates. Ice core data suggest that the 20th century has been warm in many parts of the globe, but also that the significance of the warming varies geographically, when viewed in the context of climate variations of the last millennium.

Large and rapid climatic changes affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, and the hydrological cycle, occurred during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period (which began about 10,000 years ago). Based on the incomplete evidence available, the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 – 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years.

Source: NOAA Global Warming FAQ.

94. Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland published his research that found that a change in earth’s temperature would have more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. He “points out that cloudiness and water vapour [sic] are nearly a hundred times more influential on global temperature variations than all the rest of the greenhouse gases combined. He suggests for example, that if it were possible to double the global CO2 concentration, the effect could be cancelled out by a 1% increase in cloudiness.”

Jaworowski’s views are rejected by the scientific community. Hans Oeschger, the founder of the Division of Climate and Environmental Physics at the Physics Institute of the University of Bern said of Jaworowski: “Some of his statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view.”

Jaworowski has also written that the movement to remove lead from gasoline was based on a “stupid and fraudulent myth,” and that lead levels in the human bloodstream are not significantly affected by the use of leaded gasoline. This is just one of the many PubMed listed papers that demonstrates that Jaworowski is an asshat.

95. One petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the politician’s and media’s portrayal of Global Warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992, from Germany, with 4000 signatures. The Heidelberg Appeal was publicly released at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. By the end of the 1992 summit, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal. Since then, word of mouth has prompted hundreds more scientists to lend their support. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it. Neither a statement of corporate interests nor a denial of environmental problems, the Heidelberg Appeal is a quiet call for reason and a recognition of scientific progress as the solution to, not the cause of, the health and environmental problems that the globe faces. The Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty, and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. The petition was wrongly ignored.

The Heidelberg Appeal makes no reference whatsoever to climate change but is routinely misrepresented by climate change deniers, notably Fred Singer. The text of the appeal states:

“We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved. But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational pre-conceptions.”

Irrational pre-conceptions seems as good as description of climate change denial as any I can think of.

96. Another petition put forward by scientists trying to tell the world about the false portrayal of Global Warming was the Leipzig Declaration in 1996, from Germany with 110 signatures, signed up to a statement claiming that “As independent scientists researching atmospheric and climate problems, we – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the Climate Treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.” Again, the petition was wrongly ignored.

There are actually three Leipzig Declarations. The first was issued in 1995, the second in 1997 with a focus on the Kyoto Protocol talks and the third in 2005, which still refers to the Kyoto Protocol as a future event. None of them were issued in 1996.

The Declaration’s were authored by Fred Singer’s Science and Environmental Policy Project, which has since become the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) [see #98], while the signatories on the declaration include Frederick Seitz, the initiator of the Oregon Petition Project [see #97]. Several of the 79 signatories on the 1995 declaration were found to have received funding from the Oil industry, while others were found to have no scientific training, including Dick Groeber of Dick’s Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio, one of TV weather presenters amongst the signatories. Other signatories could not be identified.

The 1997 declaration increased the number of TV weather presenters amongst its signatories to 25. The 1997 declaration’s European signatories were investigated by Øjvind Hesselager of the Danish Broadcasting Company for a TV special. Hesselager found that that four of them could not be located, twelve denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who verified signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an entomologist.

97. A petition presented by US scientists trying to tell the world that the Government’s portrayal of Global Warming is false, named the Oregon Petition Project (from California), stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” It has over 31,000 American scientist signatories. Still their voices are ignored.

In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 they were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition – one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today (2001), three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. On a crude extrapolation from this sample, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers, a small fraction of the climatological community.

98. A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) concludes “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

The NIPCC, despite its official sounding name, is an organisation of climate change deniers led by Fred Singer that was formed during the 2008 ‘International Conference on Climate Change’. The conference was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank that received $561,000 in funding between 1998 and 2005 from Exxon-Mobil. 40% of that funding was designated for climate change projects. The NIPCC’s 2009 report, ‘Climate Change Reconsidered’ was described by climate scientists from NASA, Stanford University and Princeton as ‘fabricated nonsense’.

99. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.

This may be true, but it has absolutely no bearing on climate change. Plant growth generated by CO2 forcing will not provide a large enough carbon sink to counteract the effects of global warming.

100. Out of the 210 countries that adopted the Kyoto Protocol, only 32 actually ratified it. In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the country’s most prestigious technical institute, published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

As of November 2009, 186 countries and one regional economic organisation, the EU, have ratified the Kyoto Protocol – FFS sake Jim, the correct information is on Wikipedia!. Russia ratified the protocol in 2004. In 2005, the Russian Academy of Sciences was one of 11 national science academies that signed a joint statement calling on World leaders attending the G8 summit at Gleneagles to take action on climate change, along with the national academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the UK and the United States of America.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
'Unity' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He also blogs at Ministry of Truth.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Science

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Unity: “In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition – one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. On a crude extrapolation from this sample, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers, a small climatological community.”

So of a random sample of 30, “three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages” (3 + 1 + 5 = 9), Scientific American identified 21 respondents who were willing to comment for a second time. That’s a piss poor sample for any form of extrapolation.

It does say ‘crude’ extrapolation, but SA’s rough and ready findings are fully consistent with other similar petitions and lists of sceptics, which have been found on a more detailed analysis to contain very few genuine climate scientists.

The Inhofe list is a good example.

Less than 10% of the sceptics named on that list are climate scientists and under 15% have ever published any relevant work in a peer reviewed journal.

Unity: “Several of the 79 signatories on the 1995 declaration were found to have received funding from the Oil industry….”

This theme about oil industry funding is thoroughly tiresome. There are going to be lots of companies that are entirely dependent on oil excavation and trading, but the big boys are energy companies and have diversified. The environment in which they trade is not that of Standard Oil 100 years ago. Contrary views from researchers funded by these energy companies deserve analysis on a one-to-one basis, rather than being discarded in such a dogmatic fashion.

The organisers of the Oregon petition make no attempt to check the credentials of the signatories – anyone can call themselves a scientist and sign it. There are about 2.5m people in the US who can call themselves “scientists” – 30,000 isn’t very many at all.

Here is a link to a list of real climate scientists, the most cited authors on the subject of climate change. There are 2,900 of them and it notes the ones who have signed the five major declarations of “skepticism”. There aren’t very many.

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html

Unity: “Jaworowski has also written that the movement to remove lead from gasoline was based on a “stupid and fraudulent myth,” and that lead levels in the human bloodstream are not significantly affected by the use of leaded gasoline.”

Unity provided a link to a Jaworowski paper that discussed lead in petrol. I’ll follow it up when I’m at work, but don’t expect to learn anything. Unity fairly points out that Jaworowski’s views are unusual. But in spite of strange analysis, it is worth listening to Jaworowski and the like.

In the case of eliminating lead compounds from petrol, it was utterly wrong for Europeans and others to follow in the footsteps of the USA. The USA introduced a low octane lead free gasoline (roughly equivalent to three star in Europe) and Europe copied. As any petrolhead will tell you, lower octane ratio leads to lower thermal efficiency in a petrol engine. (Engines are very much more efficient than 20 years ago owing to improvements in production engineering and engine management systems, but they could be better if more attention had been paid to basic principles.)

If the anti-lead lobby had been slowed down a bit by Jaworowski, they may have thought a bit longer about the best fuel for a petrol engine. We might have cars with engines that are 5% more efficient (relatively, not thermally). The future of the planet will not be determined by the Copenhagen conference, so why not spend a bit longer understanding the science and engineering and economics a bit more. Like turning micro-energy production into an economic efficiency rather than a green hard-on.

Unity,

An excellent undertaking. I haven’t had a look at the whole list – I hope they can do better than this, it’s frankly pitiful so far.

If you need any additional input I’d be happy to assist.

So The Daily Express takes this horrifically flawed article and gives it the front page headline “100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL”.

I’ve never felt more enraged.

You should try reading the Express more often

@Kris

See Anton Vowl on The Daily Express:

It’s like the Mail, but worse. It’s as if someone had seen the Mail and thought: “That looks quite entertaining, but can we possibly make it less good, more racist and more comically awful to look at? Let’s really go for it!”

An excellent undertaking. I haven’t had a look at the whole list – I hope they can do better than this, it’s frankly pitiful so far.

Did you see the New Scientist take-down. They crapped all over the list.

But saying that I’m quite enjoying ConHome descent into bat-shit craziness.

@9: To be fair, the Daily Mail does try damn hard to keep up in the ‘comically awful’ stakes.

Did you see the New Scientist take-down. They crapped all over the list.

Yes indeed. The thing that gets me is that the people at ConHome are presumably not stupid (I make no such claims about the Daily Express). They must realise that any reasonably intelligent and honest person even if they know nothing about the science behind climte change could demolish half their points because they are they are either logical fallacies or just irrelevent to the question of whether global warming is “natural”, and the points which are actually based on science have been demolished hundreds of times in the past. It really is just embarrassing.

“Tories are wrong & full of shit & we’ll tell you why later when we have figured it out”

Oh for a bit of intelligent debate.
88-92 So if political arguments are out LibCon will have repeatedly denounced everybody who said sceptics were right wing & friends of Big Oil (unlike the CRU who are only frineds of Shell & BP). You haven’t – imagine my surprise.

93 It is currently cooler than during the mediaval warming period. This is why the IPCC shortened the Hockey stick from 1,000 years to 500.

94 So somebody else disagrees with Prof J hust as he disagrees with alarmists. That is why disagreement is allowed in science – heresy hunts are for religion.

95 The Heidelberg Appeal says “We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to
scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development”. If that is not a reference to the eco-fascists & their use of false scare stories I would be interested to know whta you think it is. I’ll grant that if there weren’t another 99 other pouints this would not stand alne, but thjere are though you refuse to answer most.

96 Ditto Leipzig

97 The alleged debunking of the oregon Petition has never been independently verified or repeated. As such it is meaningless. I don’t think you can deny that the Oregon petition has had les coverage on the BBC than 31,000 alarmist, or indeed 1.

98 You object to the NIPCC getting some funding from Exxon. I guess that answers my question about whether you were being hypocritical about on 88-92 over raising political rather than factual objections.

99 That rising CO2 helps crop growth, as you accept, is absolutely relevent to the question of whether its overall effect is catastrophic or whether it is beneficial. There are other rweasons to believe the latter too.

100 FFS it is a fact that at the given date Russia & the other countries hadn’t ratified it & were holding out for the right quid pro quo. Had they really believed the nionsense they wouldn’t have needed the bribe.

Ahh, Neil, so good of you to appear.

88-92 – they don’t seem to address the claim that there are 100 reasons why the copenhagen governments and proponents of AGW are wrong. The list should therefore be 95 reasons, perhaps you would agree?

Point 93 – you are lying.
Point 94 – Disagreement is all very well but when one party is flat out wrong (Ie jaworoski) it seems a bit silly to rely upon him to disprove AGW. Unless you want to get into a discussion about how science is biased and should be replaced by a relativistic decision making process in which everyone can be correct.
point 95- Not evidence against AGW. Especially if it doesn’t mention climate change…
Point 96 – I think Unity dealt with that one.
POint 97 – I think the Oregon petition has been demonstrated to be a pile of rubbish many times before, like those petitions that creationists put forwards.
Point 98 – the nipcc is a biased non-scientific organisation, whose opinion is worth as much as yours, ie nothing.
POint 99 – does not address the many other issues such as ocean acidificaiton. Indeed deniers continue to avoid carrying out any proper cost benefits analysis of AGW, instead shouting from the sidelines about how the game should be played.
Point 100 – It is entirely possible that Russia both believes in AGW and wants a bribe at the same time. Either way point 100 does nothing to show why AGW supporters are wrong.

May I intoduce guthrie who has been trolling around blogsites after me for some time, though not daring to comment on my own blog.

He is a total Luddite on record as saying he wishes to prevent any economic growth whatsoever. In this cause he has repeatedly proven himself a typical eco-fascist in that he will tell any lie whaysoever in the cause of enhancing poverty.

Please prove that any of the things you say above are more 10,000 times closer to honest than the very highest standard of honesty to which you aspire.

You are, of course, wrong about CO2 making the sea acidic. But then you really don’t know any science do you, like the rest of the eco-fascist liars?

How interesting, my previous post hasn’t appeared, that might have something to do with the flaky internet connection.

Anyway, I’m sure you can all see that Neil, instead of answering my comments regarding his previous post, has chosen to attack me, because he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Why I’d want to comment on his own blog escapes me, because there’s no need to waste time on a lunatics echo chamber. As for trolling around after him, my first post on this site was several weeks ago and this is the first time I’ve bumped into Neil. As for on record for havign no economic growth at all, I don’t remember writing that, but it is behaviour oddly like an internet stalker to bring it up, as if Neil has little files with people’s posts in them he refers to later.

As for being wrong about “CO2 making the sea acidic”, note the total lack of scientific awareness summarised in the above phrase. Or perhaps the word salad of a good PR flack. The reality is somewhat different – ocean acidification means that the ocean is becoming more acidic. This means its Ph is moving towards the acidic end of the scale, ie towards 0.
As documented by the notorious communist fascists of the Royal Society:
http://royalsociety.org/News.aspx?id=1220&terms=ocean+acidification

Or the National oceanic and atmospheric administration in the USA:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/

Go on Neil, prove that the oceans aren’t getting more acidic, and thereby overturn over a century of chemistry and gain yourself a Nobel prize.

I remember you implying some conspiracy on a different blog about your pearls of wisdom not appearing. I suspect it is simply that working a keyboard is stretching your capacity.

Acidic means more acid not more neutral. You have clearly done a little checking, long after speaking & found that the ocean is alkaline so that adding CO2 would not make it more acidic but would make it more neutral like distilled water. Rather than admitting to being an ignorant fool (& in this you are not alone because the eco-fascist everywhere are making the same claim) you have attempted to redefine your tems. The idea that distilled water is a pollutant is an even more ridiculous lie than than that CO2 is but such are the lunacies of you eco-fascists.

You have, of course, made no attempt to prove that, though being a Luddite liar any of the other things you have said this time is more than 10,000 times closer to honest than you ever aspire to. Let me know which, if any, you regard as such with, covering evidence, & I will be happy to blow you out of the water yet again.

Actually the pH scale is the negative log of the H+ concentration. Becoming more acidic means having more H+ around. i.e. what happens when CO2 dissolves in water, forming carbonic acid (H2CO3) and a variety of other species, including carbonate and bicarbonate. The point being that the ocean is becoming more acidic, moving towards the higher concentration of H+ ions end of the scale.
I’m not surprised you have misunderstood this, it seems a common mistake.

How can you get ‘more’ neutral? Again, you twist the language to suit yourself, never mind that the evidence is that the H+ concentration is increasing and thus the ocean is becoming more acidic.
As for distilled water being a pollutant, you are making yourself look stupid again, because oddly enough sea water with added CO2 isn’t distilled water, it has lots of atoms and dissolved salts and stuff in it.
As for making no effot to prove it, that NOAA page I linked to has on it “What is ocean acidification?”, but I can only assume that you havn’t read it or refuse to agree with the scientists, thus showing yourself to be an idiot.

To repeat for eco-fascists of little brain it is not becoming more acid it is becoming less alkaline – more neutral. This is basic like having to explain to you what one & one makes (oh alright – 2).

Nope Craig. Go and read chemistry textbook, preferably one for university level stuff. Oddly enough you can say it is becoming less alkaline, which is the cognate of it becoming more acidic…
(Or rather it is becoming less basic, but thats more advanced chemistry than you are clearly familiar with)

To repeat for eco-fascists of who9 refuse tom use any small amount of brain they have becoming acidid at all it is becoming more neutral & less alkaline. There was no acidicty whatsover & there still isn’t. And 1+1 still equals 2.

Neil, you’re foaming at the mouth so much that your spelling is suffering.

For anyone reading this – Neil is showing the classic behavioural traits of a lunatic science denier – he is correct about how acidification is defined, never mind the many thousands of scientists who use the term according to their scientific definition. But oh no, Neil knows better, the absolutely classic sign of a crank.

You can tell that Neil still doesn’t understand what I have written, because he types ‘there is no acidity at all’ when I’ve already pointed out the pH scale is based upon the H+ concentration, i.e. even in a solution with a pH of say 10, there will be H+ (or rather H3O but lets not make things too complex) and therefore some acidity.

Guthrie you are a moron. You have already acknowledged that the entire claim of CO2 endangering the seas by turning them acid is purely eco-fascist lies & that all it can do is make the ocean more neutral.

Now you are you are simply playing verbal games by trying to redefine “acid” as something that includes neutrality. You are, of course, lying on that too:

“Pure water is said to be neutral, with a pH close to 7.0 at 25 °C (77 °F). Solutions with a pH less than 7 are said to be acidic and solutions with a pH greater than 7 are said to be basic or alkaline” Wikipedia

Seawater is alkaline, ie reactive in the opposite direction & all more CO2 could possibly to is make it more neutral. I hope you don’t think “moron” is overstating it?

*Yawn*

Neil, your reading comprehension is pathetic. I’ve already said “more acidic”, which is not thesame as “acidic” of itself. I’ve explained the pH scale and roughly how itworks, butnaqturally you are deluded enough to think that you know better.
Your quote from wikipedia doesn’t help your case – if you had any intellectual honesty you would also admit that said page includes ocean acidification leading to a whole page on the topic…
So you trust it to prove that pH above 7 is basic and below 7 is acidic, but not to demonstrate that all I have said regarding oceanic acidification is correct?

Thus you see the madness of the ideologue.

You can’t be more acidic if you aren’t acidic. A ph of above 7 is alkaline. This is still as basic as 1+1 & you are showing your foolishness. And you have already accepted the important part – that the claim seawater will get acidic 7 therefore damaging rather than neutral & therefore us undamaging as distilledc water is simply another lying eco-Fascist scare story – like all the others.

Ummm, no. Read it again. Becoming more acidic is not the same as being specifically acidic. I note you still have not explained how many thousands of scientists have come to a different conclusion from yourself, nor how you are the world expert on pH and its relevance to the ocean, nor why you ignore the wikipedia entry…

So, to summarise – Neil Craig is wrong, and this is quite normal.
And still the CO2 dissolves in the water, decreasing the pH, making it more acidic.

You are simply repeating your ignorant lie because it represents the very hi8ghest standard of honesty of which you are capable.

Answer my point – do you acknowlwdge that CO2 will make sea water, if anything, more neutral like pure water. That that is clearly not damaging & thus that all the eco-Fascists claiming it will be damaging are simply engaged in yet another fraudulent scare story?

That that is clearly not damaging

Cite?

Clearly not damaging? Are you smoking something, neil? Can I have some of it?

Here we have a nomenclature agreed upon by thousands and thousands of scientists across the globe, but Neil doesn’t like it because he doesn’t understand it, so he ignores all the things which tell him he is wrong, such as wikipedia through to the NOAA, and continues with his stupidity.

You could try and understand pages like these:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081121_coralacidification.html

http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2006_en/wbgu_sn2006_en_voll_4.html#Heading47

Let us assume a straight line. Let us call this the y axis.

Let us assume that the bottom end the line is labelled alkaline.

Let us assume that the top end of the line is labelled acidic.

Let us assume a second straight line at right angles to the first. Let us call this the x axis. Let us label it as a time series, lets choose annual.

Let us measure each year the PH of sea water at a wide range of locations across the oceans of this planet. Let us call this planet ‘Earth’.

If we graph these results and the line rises over time, we could reasonably say that sea water was becoming more acidic. If on the other hand, the graph fell over time, we could reasonably say that sea water was becoming more alkaline.

It does not seem to me to matter whether we are starting from a position of extreme acidity or alkalinity, it is the trend that is being measured. And described by the word ‘more’.

Could someone point out what is wrong with that?

Douglas Clark – Thats precisely it.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    :: Con Home's Climate Crock Rundown (88-100) http://bit.ly/7lNgY0

  2. Paul Evans

    Con Home’s Climate Crock Rundown (88-100) http://bit.ly/6sc0hM behind Cameron's mask – the Tory id exposed

  3. gimpy

    Unity, the best blogger at @libcon by some distance, takes on the AGW denying idiots at @TimMontgomerie 's conhome http://bit.ly/6glsRV

  4. Liberal Conspiracy » Revealed: Tory front-benchers linked to climate change denialism report

    […] aside the fact it was quickly and easily debunked by the New Scientist and on LibCon. Temporarily forget the fact that if you actually went through the list you’d quickly realise […]

  5. Liberal Conspiracy » Con Home’s Climate Crock Rundown (70-87)

    […] honour of Paul Evans’ tweet on the first part of this series, we’re calling this next part ‘Creatures from the Tory […]

  6. Top Blogging for the 16th December « Left Outside

    […] Unity continues to patiently, and occasionally impatiently, point out why Global Warming is real, and why its man made, and why we might want to do something about it. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Selected Reading 29/11/09Top Blogging for the 11th DecemberTop Blogging for the 9th DecemberDecember 16th: Big Donation Day For Ron Paul […]

  7. Climate Denial – The stupid, it burns! « Greenfyre’s

    […] Conspiracy picks up some of the slack by debunking #s 88-100 in Con Home’s Climate Crock Rundown (88-100). They also provide some background on the European Foundation “think tank” (think […]

  8. 100 reasons why "vote blue, go green" won't work | Left Foot Forward

    […] Cash MP is the Chair of the European Foundation which wrote the hilarious report offering a 100 reasons why “global warming was natural and […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.