Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial:

I did not write for the Globe and Mail in 1993 let alone about climate!

Then he moved onto stage 3, bargaining:

global av temp (ignoring pinatubo drop) is about 0.2C above 1991 level after 22 yrs – so I was spot on so far!

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_2012_v5.51

As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo.   Which brings us to Ridley’s next column, published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 Jan 1994 (one month after his column with the failed prediction):

The satellites, however, tell a very different story about the 1980s (their data do not go further back). Orbiting the planet from north to south as the Earth turns beneath them, they take the temperature of the lower atmosphere using microwave sensors. By the end of 1993 the temperature was trending downwards by 0.04 of a degree per decade.

The satellite’s masters explain away this awkward fact by subtracting two volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichon in 1982) and four El Ninos (sudden changes in the circulation of the water in the Pacific).  Since they assume that all these would have cooled the atmosphere, they conclude that the 1980s did see a gradual warming of the air by 0.09 degrees: still less than a third of that recorded by the old method.

Even with this sleight of hand (and when I was a scientist I was trained not to correct my data according my preconceptions of the result), the startling truth remains that the best measure yet taken of the atmosphere has found virtually no evidence of global warming.

So according to Matt Ridley in 1994, Matt Ridley in 2013 used a “sleight of hand”, something that he was trained not to do.   If we hold Matt Ridley to the standard he declared at the time of his prediction there has been 0.5 degrees of warming since he predicted that there would be just one degree by 2100.

But if we do want to know what the long term warming trend is, it is not a “sleight of hand” to remove the short term effects of volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina. It is, however, a sleight of hand for Ridley to just correct for Pinatubo and not El Nino/La Nina.  Here is the graph from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that shows what temperature records look like if the short term effects are removed:

figure05

Using Ridley’s preferred UAH data set we see that there has been 0.4 degrees of warming since he made his prediction.

Any way you slice it, there has been much more warming that Ridley predicted.  I hope this information will help him reach stage 5, acceptance.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    January 24, 2013

    GSW

    Stick to the science then. There’s enough referenced here.

  2. #2 BBD
    January 24, 2013

    Latimer

    The dodging is now *painfully obvious*.

  3. #3 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @lotharsson

    When the European scientists can come up with a lot lot more than just 5 datasets with a total observation length greater than 113 years (over half of which are proxies) and which are representative of the conditions across all the oceans, not just in a few spots. then I;d be happy to agree that OA is a ‘proven scientific fact’.

    Until then I’m happy to argue my point with anybody at all. It has not been so established. Maybe one day it will be – maybe it won’t. But there just ain’t enough data to tell.

  4. #4 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @BBD

    ‘The dodging is now *painfully obvious*.’

    What am I ‘dodging’ and why does it matter so much to you?

    If you mean the three irrelevant questions about my irrelevant beliefs, then take your pick from

    NNN
    YNN
    NYN
    NYY
    YYN
    YYY

    I think that covers all the possibilities. But if this is some True Believer initiation rite where only those with the ‘correct’ answers are Inducted into the Craft – or some other unscientfic bollocks, then you can play your silly little game without me.

    You’re still welcome to come to the pub, but I have better things to do.

  5. #5 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @lionel a

    ‘But of course if you get your pseudo science from such as Global Warming Science rather than places such as this Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming Science (and I wonder if that title was hi-jacked) then you are bound to come up with the kinda stupid that you do.’

    And there’s me thinking that scientists got their ideas from observational data, not websites.

    Silly me….Deltoid science must be different from conventional science like Chemistry or Physics

    Much more faith and credential- based. perhaps. A renaissance of the old idea that because Aristotle was clever geezeer so we can just rely on what he said.. No need for any actual observations. A word from On High is enough.

  6. #6 BBD
    January 24, 2013

    What am I ‘dodging’ and why does it matter so much to you?

    You have over-stepped the bounds of civilised discourse Latimer. Blatant dishonesty is not acceptable.

  7. #7 GSW
    January 24, 2013

    @BBD

    “Stick to the science then. There’s enough referenced here.”

    Thanks BBD, glad that at least one of the Deltoid regulars realises that the output of “Union of Concerned Scientists” is not science. I was starting to think that you were ALL barmy.
    ;)

  8. #8 Lionel A
    January 24, 2013

    Latimer ‘Slippery’ Alder,

    You have explained precisely zilch and thus have not answered BBDs questions as I am sure he will point out shortly.

    Whatever there are some more pointers, as if you have not had enough already, in this article The Acid Ocean – the Other Problem with CO2 Emission where the following response was posted to comment 8, my emphasis:

    Response:You have this backwards. A pH LESS THAN 7 is acid. So 8.14 is more acidic than 8.25. Also, it is a logarithmic scale. A small change in the numbers is actually quite large in the chemistry. pH 7 is 10 times more acidic than 8. pH 8.14 is about 30 percent more acidic than pH 8.25 (because 10^8.25/10^8.14 = 1.3). – eric ]

    So you don’t care for the RS and other sources that supply what you were asking for – tough. You have been proven evasive. Watch and mark casual visitors.

  9. #9 BBD
    January 24, 2013

    As a counter to evasiveness and dishonesty I will re-post the dodged questions on this page. This is the fifth time they have been posted on this thread.

    1/ Do you [Latimer] argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further? Is this what you believe? Yes/no.

    2/ If no, please explain *why* robust, fundamental theory with copious experimental confirmation is an unreliable predictor of what to expect.

    – Be sure to explain *why* you think the fundamentals of chemistry will not apply in this case.

    3/ Please explain *why* average ocean pH will *not* continue to fall as CO2 concentration increases if it is *not* already so low that further reduction cannot be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

  10. #10 BBD
    January 24, 2013

    GSW

    Stick to the science. Stop trying to distract.

    I suggest others ignore the more obvious trolling.

  11. #11 Vince Whirlwind
    January 24, 2013

    It is not possible to understand basic chemistry and to not understand why ocean acidification is a reality.

    Ergo, either Latimer is even more of a failure than suspected, or, he is dishonest.

    Considering Latimer asserted temperature wasn’t the main driver of CO2 uptake by the oceans, we have clear evidence that he is a failure.

  12. #12 Stu
    January 24, 2013

    Hmm. Wildly inappropriate scare quotes, unilateral redefinition of “science” and “real science”, continuous and blatant avoidance of direct questions…

    This playbook reminds me of someone.

  13. #13 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    ‘Considering Latimer asserted temperature wasn’t the main driver of CO2 uptake by the oceans, we have clear evidence that he is a failure’

    I did? Where? Co2 solubility is driven by a number of things and temperature is one of them. Where did I say it wasn’t?

  14. #14 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @bbd

    ‘ Do you [Latimer] argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further? Is this what you believe?

    I have no opinion as to what *will* happen. The measurements have not been done. That is why – like a good scientist – I will wait for the oceanic level data to confirm the effect you expect. (or not)

    This is beginning to take on a religious tinge. I’m told that various churches have similar sets of things you *must * believe. But since I am not a believer in any sort of religion – including Deltoidism – why people get so worked up about it escapes me.

    And I’m pretty sure that out there in the wild blue ocean the little CO2 molecules aren’t going to change their interaction with the seawater they find one iota because you or I or anybody else believes or expects or hopes that they will do one thing or another. They’ll do what they do – and we’ll only find out what that is once we’ve measured it.

    That’s science.

  15. #15 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    ‘It is not possible to understand basic chemistry and to not understand why ocean acidification is a reality’

    In case I have missed it, please lay out the ‘basic chemistry’ that shows this.

    Hint – it’s more complicated than CO2 + H2O –> H2CO3.

  16. #16 chameleon
    January 24, 2013

    JeffH,
    Your comments are more of same.
    Unlike your cringing however, I am laughing.
    You are suffering from what I call HUB syndrome.
    The acronym means Head Up Bottom:-)
    You want people to respect you and pay attention to you and you think you can win that by sneering at other people who you perceive are getting more attention.
    You use words like mediocre, nutter, right wing, anti environmental, deny/denier/denialism/climate change denier, j, crank, in the pay of, etcetera.
    You are convinced there are two hands or two sides and that one wears a white hat (your side of course!) and one wears a black hat.
    Really scary people like Matt Ridley are deeply and suspiciously involved.
    You and the people you deem are on your side are the ONLY ones who care about and understand the environment.
    That’s why you think it’s OK to use analogies with paedophilia and holocaust deniers because in your HUB syndrome these people are evil enemies of ‘the environment’.
    You seriously need to get ‘out there’ where you think there is the ‘massive anti environmental movement’.
    IOW Latimer offered you good advice :-)
    It is not as scary ‘out there’ as you seem to think JeffH.

  17. #17 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @lionel a

    ‘Response:You have this backwards. A pH LESS THAN 7 is acid. So 8.14 is more acidic than 8.25. Also, it is a logarithmic scale. A small change in the numbers is actually quite large in the chemistry. pH 7 is 10 times more acidic than 8. pH 8.14 is about 30 percent more acidic than pH 8.25 (because 10^8.25/10^8.14 = 1.3). – eric ]’

    Yep. Learnt that stuff when I was abt 13…more than 40 years ago. It’s just a restatement of the definition of pH. No argument with any of it.

    But why do you wave it around s if its some sort of trump card.

    And if it really is new news to you …this is very worrying, for it makes me wonder just how much else of the discussion has passed you by……..

    And its worth pointing out that acid/alkali are a bit like a see saw. A pH of 8.14 is still overwhelmingly alkaline in nature (about 200 times more alkaline ions than acid). But at 8.25 the ratio is nearer 300. Concentrating only on the relatively few acid ions rather misses the point. Both solutions will react with alkaline chemistry. Both will neutralise acids. Both will turn litmus blue – not red.

    You only change to acid chemistry when the pH is less than 7 i.e when the acid ions begin to outnumber the alkaline. There is no realistic prospect of that happening in the forseeable future, even if observation proves that ‘ocean acidification’ is actually occurring.

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    January 24, 2013

    “That is why – like a good scientist – I will wait for the oceanic level data to confirm the effect you expect. (or not)”

    Problem is, Latimer, you’re not a scientist in any way, shape or form. You’re not even close. So stop trying to give people the impression that you know what you are talking about. You don’t. You’re full of you-know-what.

    As I said earlier, its accepted now amongst the vast majority of scientists that the oceans are absorbing a huge amount of the extra atmospheric C02 and as a result are becoming more acid. Of the 1500 or so articles I found on the Web of Science that pop up under the key words “ocean acidification”, you’ll be hard to find a single one which does not agree that there is a strong link between atmospheric C02 concentrations and declining marine pH levels. I linked AAAS sties as well as others.

    If you are just too dumb or arrogant or whatever to accept this overwhelming consensus, then that is your problem. Like other deniers – and the word suits you to a tee – you appear to want to wait until ‘all the data are in’ whenever the hell that is. Earth and environmental scientists know that if we wait until that point then growing concerns become intractable. In other words, its too late to do anything and the consequences become disastrous. There are those who still think there is not a relationship between CFCs and ozone depletion. Some of them are prominent AGW deniers. If society had waited to deal with CFCs until everybody danced to the same tune, then I don’t even want to think of the potential ramifications.

    You are a waste of time and space, and clearly belong with the other brainless hordes who populate the anti-environmental blogs. I find it hard to admit this here but I though that Jonas was a pretty lame debater; you are even worse. Since when did I use analogies to do with pedophilia you moron? In your dreams. I make no apologies in referring to you and people like you for what they are. The fact that you – with a basic chemistry degree and no publications – appear to think that you know more than a huge number of the world’s experts in the area of atmospheric and marine chemistry takes remarkable hubris. But then again, deniers act like big men on web logs. You’d be cut down to size in a scientific arena.

    Just go away. And take your stupidity with you.

  19. #19 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @lionel a

    Here’s some O level stuff to help you.

    http://simplechemconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/o-level-chemistry-ph-scale.JPG

    Be sure to click on the scale to see it enlarged. Remembering that ocean pH is about 8.1 (varies a bit according to geography).

    And try the questions to check your understanding.

  20. #20 BBD
    January 24, 2013

    Latimer

    I have no opinion as to what *will* happen.

    That’s it?

    I really don’t need to say anything else. Thread bookmarked for reference.

    Bye for now.

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    January 24, 2013

    Actually I apologize to Latimer. Sorry. I meant Chameleon. Stupid cow. Arrogant idiot. Even Jonas hasn’t stooped to her depths. The reason she’s pissed is because she can’t answer a single point I make. She thinks she’s witty, smart, on top of things, when its clear to see that she hasn’t got a clue about anything she discusses. I don’t know from under which slimy orifice Chammy crawled but I wish she’d go back there with her CAP`S and witless humor. Go away!

    PS If you think Ridley’s so great, then you ought to read some of his 90s columns in the Telegraph. He used some pretty choice words to describe environmentalists.

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    January 24, 2013

    Finally, the wicked witch of the south says this:

    “You seriously need to get ‘out there’ where you think there is the ‘massive anti environmental movement’.”

    I have been out there, dopey. Just because you don’t know a bloody thing doesn’t make it wrong. Read a little, dammit! Learn something for once! Monbiot certainly was correct. When her vapid ignorance is laid bare, she comes out baring her teeth. I repeat: you are an anti-environmental denier. Otherwise, you wouldn’t defend every Tom, Dick and Harry on this site who downplays AGW or its symptoms. Its you who ought to get out more. Contrary to the saying, ignorance is not bliss.

  23. #23 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @jeff h

    ‘Of the 1500 or so articles I found on the Web of Science that pop up under the key words “ocean acidification”, you’ll be hard to find a single one which does not agree that there is a strong link between atmospheric C02 concentrations and declining marine pH levels’

    I’m sure I’d find that all of them *state* that there is a strong link. But very few of them provide any data to back up this claim.

    You may have missed our littel crowdsourcing exercise earlier thsi week when e actually went and looked for the published data itself. Not just what other people said about it..but for the actual confirmatory data.

    It is surprisingly scant. – Only collected in 5 locations (one of these only by proxy) and only for short periods (< 20 years).

    You can try it yourself. Take any one of your 1500 papers, and try to trace back to the original source. If you find it not to be one of the original five we've found (see earlier in this thread for details) then I'll be very surprised.

    So now we can see how a 'consensus' can be arrived at with hardly any actual work being done. Somebody publishes results that may just be interpretable as 'ocean acidification' (eg Hawaii). Another paper referneces it as fact. Number 3 chimes in. Paper 4 sees three papers all saying OA is real and adds its own voice…….it snowballs.

    Within a few publishing cycles, you have a huge consensus that OA is real and that it is a big problem. Indeed there are 1500 papers that say so! Every 'scientist' agrees.

    But the actula data n which this edifice rests is very very scanty.

    But – like a good scientist – you shouldn't take my word for it. (Nullius in Verba). Make your own observations. Check the literature trail. You;ll find some pointers earlier here. But don't take them as gospel either.

    Do let us know how you get on. I think you'll be surprised.

    Cheers.

    PS : 'Since when did I use analogies to do with pedophilia you moron?'

    I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. Perhaps you have me confused with somebody else? Please explain.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    January 24, 2013

    Latimer:

    Here’s some O level stuff to help you.

    http://simplechemconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/o-level-chemistry-ph-scale.JPG

    More stupid condescension, you have no clue as to my level of understanding. But your intent is clear obfuscation.

    Studies of acidification have been done.

    Do you expect me to go out around the world logging data myself. Its been done silly as the documentation, from scientific sources, demonstrates.

    Do you build your own car, make the tyres and carry out the servicing or do you take the makers and mechanics on trust?

    Yep. Learnt that stuff when I was abt 13…more than 40 years ago. It’s just a restatement of the definition of pH. No argument with any of it.

    Maybe you did but you don’t seem to understand the implications. I was particularly pointing out the logarithmic function in the statement.

    You got yourself into a hole wrt effects on the biosophere and now it is you doing all the hand waving frantically digging that hole. There is still an open question from myself on that one BTW.

    Discussing with you is like trying to nail a jelly to the wall!

  25. #25 chameleon
    January 24, 2013

    JeffH,
    Downplay?
    Is that a new definition for denialism?
    PS I don’t have an opinion about Matt Ridley the person.
    nor Humlum the person nor JeffH the person nor Marohasy the person nor Mann the person nor Flannery the person.
    I don’t PERSONALLY know any of them
    I read their comments and their research and their references

    .

  26. #26 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @jeff h

    ‘You’d be cut down to size in a scientific arena’

    It is extremely easy to show that I am wrong. You can ‘cut me down to size’ by linking to the many hundreds of time series of pH data taken at geographically dispersed places across the oceans.

    And I they are there and they show ‘ocean acidification’, then I am quite happy not to object to people saying that it is ‘an established scientific fact’.

    Whoever it was who said I had lousy search skills will be vindicated, you can eat crow, my invite to the annual Deltoid convention will be revoked. And you can all spit on my name as much as you want for ever and a day. Perhaps you’ll burn a virtual effigy of me on a daily basis.

    All these delights can be yours

    Just show the data. That’s all the argument is about.

    Is it there? I say no it isn’t. Lots say ‘yes’, but never quite seem to be able to locate it..

    Will you be the one to find it?

  27. #27 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    typo – I meant ‘you can crow’.

  28. #28 chameleon
    January 24, 2013

    BTW JeffH,
    Those comments from MR last century were about the POLITICS which has an ‘ism’ on it like lots of other political movements and/or theories.
    They weren’t about the actual environment.
    Enviromentalism and denialism and capitalism and communism etcetera are POLITICAL and SOCIO/ECONOMIC terms.

  29. #29 Jeff Harvey
    January 24, 2013

    Latimer, look it up yourself. I have provided links; others here have provided more. You want us all here to do your homework for you. Have you logged into the Web of Science before? Ever types in the relevant keywords? Moreover, if you are the next Galileo (good Lord, there are enough of them amongst the climate change denier ranks these days) then why haven’t you taken your perceived wisdom to the big world? Why aren’t journals like Nature, Science, Global Change Biology etc. replete with Latimer Alder papers proving that the scientific community has got it wrong?

    And while you are at it please explain why every major scientific body in every nation on Earth agrees that oceans are under threat from C02 mediated acidification. Omigosh! There is a huge conspiracy! Tell me it ain’t so!

    PS You act just like our infamous Jonas over in his own thread. Your views are at odds with the scientific community by and large. Another storm in a teacup. Another denier blog immigrant wading in here with his penny farthings of wisdom. Have you ever written to a scientist (or spoken with one) who works in the area and asked on what empirical evidence they base their opinions? Or are Curry, Watts, et al. it?

  30. #30 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @lionel a

    This is getting silly

    1. Yes. I know that pH is a log scale. That;s what ‘eric’ was trying to point out to you. And me with my discussion of ratios. It is about the first thing a physical chemist learns about pH. So each time the pH varies by 1 unit, the ionic concentration varies by 10. Elementary – but so what?

    2. You got yourself into a hole wrt effects on the biosophere

    I did? Where? Since I don’t remember having made any discussion of effects on the biosphere, I’m struggling to recall this

    3. ‘Studies of acidification have been done’

    So you keep saying. But where are they? Bleating that ‘they’re there somewhere’ doesn’t establish your point. Any more than ‘I had my ticket when I boarded’ satisfies the ticket collector if you can’t find yours on the train. The whole essence of my argument is that – no matter how many people assert that these studies have been done – it is proving incredibly difficult to track down the actual data. Its a sort of urban myth. ‘everybody knows’ it is there…but none can actually put their finger on it

    Same as I asked Jeff H. Prove me wrong. It’d be so easy to do.

  31. #31 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @jeff h

    ‘Latimer, look it up yourself.

    I have. I’ve looked extensively. I can’t find it. Lost and lots of people assure me it is there…but can’t actually lay their hands on it when asked to produce it. Are you just another? I had hoped for better.

    And now you are withdrawing from the easiest thing in the world. With your superior skills and the backing of the consensus, this should be the work of only a few minutes.

    Game Set and Match to the Deltoids. Humiliation for the ‘New Galileo’ (nice epithet, but far above my abilities I fear).

    And I explained the evolution of the consensus that you are all so fond of without invoking any conspiracy…I see no reason why you need to do so either.

    The ball is in your court.

  32. #32 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @jeff h

    You refer extensively to ‘Jonas’. I have no idea who (s)he is so your point is lost on me,

  33. #33 Jeff Harvey
    January 24, 2013

    Chameleon’s comedy routine just gets better and better:

    “I don’t have an opinion about Matt Ridley the person.
    nor Humlum the person nor JeffH the person nor Marohasy the person nor Mann the person nor Flannery the person.
    I don’t PERSONALLY know any of them. I read their comments and their research and their references”

    You – let me get this straight – read their comments and research their references? (To my wife: Pass me the barf bag puh-lease).

    Um, Maharosey has no pedigree is climate science or any science. Most deniers don’t. A good number of them are shills – right wing ideologues who write columsn for the corporate media, or are ‘adjunct scholars’ on think tanks and the like. Mann is guess what? A real, bonafide scientist! And guess what also? You do not posses the academic background or qualifications to be able to say that his science indeed any science pertaining to the environment and climate- is bad science (or good science for that matter). If you think you do, then its time to send you to Dunning and Kruger so that your mental state can be evaluated.

    I would be shot down in seconds if I was to wade into an area that is related to mine at some level of organization – such as the link between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning – and draw conclusions that countered the prevailing views in the field. I certainly defer to the vast majority of experts in climate science and atmospheric and marine chemistry who agree that the human-mediated increase in atmospheric C02 is reducing marine pH levels. I’ve already shown that every major scientific body agrees on this point. The along come some laypeople who have not studied the field and lo and behold – they read the evidence in blogs for heaven’s sake – and then argue as if they are now bonafide experts that the real experts are wrong.

    Talk about hubris! I have learned as a trained scientist to exhibit caution when venturing beyond the boundaries of my won field to be very cautious. You clowns don’t do that at all. Read a few blogs, maybe give a cursory look at a few papers and bingo! Instant expertise. And expertise at odds with the real experts.

    Unbelievable. This is beyond a farce. I can only be thankful that you armchair experts make no dent in the peer-reviewed literature or in decisions reached by National Academies.

    PS I also think its a very dishonest thing to accuse me of calling climate change deniers and anti-environmenalists (who do exist) pedophiles. I have never ever done that in my life. Its a blatant lie and pushes the boundary of debate well over the line. Its clear you don’t know much about the link between public policy and advocacy. But when your ignorance is exposed, resorting to this kind of behavior is the lowest of the low. And your Holocaust denial barb is equally nauseous. That reference – to Stuart Pimm and my review of Lomborg’s error-riddent tome in Nature – has been intentionally misquoted and distorted by the far end of the political right so often that I have lost count. Trust you to do the same with it. Shows your colors in full.

  34. #34 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @jeff h

    ‘Have you ever written to a scientist (or spoken with one) who works in the area and asked on what empirical evidence they base their opinions? Or are Curry, Watts, et al. it?’

    I’ve read the journals. And followed up on the references to ‘ocean acidification’. If the ‘scientists’ are basing their views on a hidden stash of data, I haven’t been able to find it and they haven’t published it.

    Nothing to do with Curry or Watts IIRC. Just one of my own interests.

    This thread has now had over 1000 comments. Getting on for half are about this topic. If the supporting data was easy to find and generally available surely one of you great scientists would have been able to find it by now?

  35. #35 bill
    January 24, 2013

    While one hates to distract from the troll non-scientist – still arguing from his heroic ignorance, one notes – and his genitally-fixated monkey, Adelaideans can see James Balog’s ‘Chasing Ice’ at the Mercury.

    Having seen it last night I was struck by the realization that what we’re really experiencing is a phenomenon only indirectly related to rising seas: we are drowning in an ocean of morons.

    Whether they’re pontifical dissemblers, venal Free Market™ zealots, febrile Brownshirt thugs, Alzheimersy old fools, or simply thick as the proverbial 2 short planks and thereby incapable of knowing it, they’re the real problem.

  36. #36 Vince Whirlwind
    January 24, 2013

    Latimer won’t follow links and if he does he won’t read what’s there.

    The only references he admits knowledge of are to crank blogs like WUWT and Curry’s.

    Thus he establishes a successful platform from which to argue his logically fallacious argument from ignorance.

    We’ve tried to educate you , Latimer, but you just don’t want to learn.
    All you want to do is stay in your little bubble of contrarianism.

  37. #37 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    There’s an eastern european pretending to be an old scientist over at Ill Considered on scienceblogs who is doing the same thing.

    I think it is the current crop of idiot graduates looking for a job at the denialist ho-down (spelling deliberate!).

  38. #38 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    I have. I’ve looked extensively. I can’t find it. Lost and lots of people assure me it is there…but can’t actually lay their hands on it when asked to produce it

    As Joan would say: you’re too stupid to find it and far too stupid to know.

    Do you ever consider that if everyone else has found it and you haven’t, then maybe the problem ISN’T with the entire rest of the world?

    Or is your ego just unable to take that sort of thinking?

  39. #39 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    She thinks she’s witty, smart, on top of things, when its clear to see that she hasn’t got a clue about anything she discusses.

    She’s not even a half-wit.

  40. #40 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    ‘The dodging is now *painfully obvious*.’

    What am I ‘dodging’ and why does it matter so much to you?

    You are dodging this:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-8/#comment-144742

    Which you continue to dodge.

    Why is it so important to you that you dodge answering the question?

    I will tell you, since you are too stupid to understand.

    It is because you can’t answer.

    You do not understand what you’re saying, you’re just “discussing” because you want to be a twat.

  41. #41 bill
    January 25, 2013

    Look, seriously, I know expecting coordinated behaviour at Deltoids is like herding cats, but can we agree not to respond to the troll until he does answer BBD’s question?

    That’s answer directly and unequivocally: a mode so novel for him that it may even constitute a refreshing experience.

    I suggest he’ll simply disappear if he has to do so, because the game will, indeed, be up.

  42. #42 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    Or he’ll post a blizzard of posts hoping to get a reaction.

    Or one of the other whores for scores will jump in and blather for pages and pages, demanding attention.

    But just in case he wants to answer the questions, they’re here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-8/#comment-144742

  43. #43 bill
    January 25, 2013

    While we’re waiting, Greg Laden on Distinguished Professor Michael Mann:

    Michael Mann is one of the key climate scientists of the day. History will crown Mann as one of the great heroes who defended the freedom to do science rationally despite constant attacks from mean spirited and ignorant, self interested, politically motivated, oil-money-soaked climate science denialists.

  44. #44 chameleon
    January 25, 2013

    JeffH,
    I did not say you PERSONALLY said it.
    The prevailing attitude here at deltoid however is that it was an acceptable and valid analogy.
    I am relieved that you don’t appear to agree with that.
    I also think what you call the ‘other side’ are just as guilty of the same hyperbole and use of inappropriate psychological comparisons.
    Also JeffH, Marohasy does indeed have a science pedigree and a public persona which is quite googleable:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Marohasy
    as does Humlum:
    http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGRAPHY%20OLE%20HUMLUM.pdf
    as does Ridley:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley
    As do many others who you claim are ‘nutters’ or ‘mediocre’ or ‘shills’ or whatever.
    They were easier to google than you.
    That doesn’t mean anything profound BTW, it was just an observation.
    The difference is that they have chosen careers outside of academia.
    That does not automatically make them less reliable or suspicious JeffH.
    Some of them are even ‘self employed’ which means they are not pressured to ‘publish or perish’ or to fulfil a specific job description.
    They’re not particularly concerned about pay grades or levels or promotions or whatever.
    That doesn’t make them better or worse or any
    ‘less widely read’ than anyone else BTW.
    I don’t know any of them PERSONALLY, but if I have to guess I would say that some of them are highly charismatic and pleasant to be around and some of them aren’t.
    That is not important or relevant.
    Some of the most brilliant minds in History were vilified as whackos and nutters by their peers.
    Your comment here is once again more of the same:
    “PS I also think its a very dishonest thing to accuse me of calling climate change deniers and anti-environmenalists (who do exist) pedophiles.”
    Climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists (who do exist)?
    You need to be a little more honest about your use of ‘anti- environmentalists’ JeffH.
    That is a POLITICAL term and has precious little to do with the ENVIRONMENT.
    Because the POLITICS and POLICY platforms of ‘environmentalism’ (note the ‘ism’ on that term) are being questioned does NOT mean that the people who are questioning the POLITICS are therefore automatically anti the ‘environment’.
    That is ‘utter tosh’ JeffH.
    The issue is about political ideologies and socio/economic policy platforms.
    Science and statistics can certainly inform social policy but they are not a prophetic political instrument and it’s becoming painfully evident that is a mistake to abuse them in that manner.
    The good work of committed people like you is being shamelessly misused by BOTH HANDS or BOTH SIDES.
    Unfortunately people are being caught up in the rhetoric and the ‘academic pissing contests’ in their attempts to protect their predictions.
    I would once again recommend the book written by the nobel prize winner and academic Daniel Kahneman “Thinking Fast and Slow”.
    It is a current bestseller and easy to find.
    Kahneman explains why we are NOT the paragons of reason that we assume ourselves to be.

  45. #45 bill
    January 25, 2013

    Type type type.

  46. #46 Vince Whirlwind
    January 25, 2013

    Chameleon, Marohasy was in the paid employ of the IPA.

    You know the IPA doesn’t do science, doesn’t fund research, doesn’t publish science, right?

    Do you know what it does do?

  47. #47 mike
    January 25, 2013

    Ltmr,

    Yr: “Ths s bgnnng t tk n rlgs tng..”

    ‘m lvn’ yr crrnt, vrts btt-kckn’ rp thrgh Dltd-lnd, Ltmr, s t s wth th grtst rlctnc tht rspctflly dsgr wth yr bv stmt f th Dltd trgh-hggrs.

    By tht, mn, Ltmr, thr s n “rlgs” mpls, n th lst, prmptng th crbn-hypcrt, prst sql f th th lttl c-pggs n ths blg. Rthr t s ll bt n nstnctv (nd wll-fndd) lrm, n thr prt, tht thr shbby, lttl CGW hstl, n whch hngs thr bscn, txpyr rp-ff swll-rtn, s n prl .

    Th prf? ny n cn prdc th prf–jst chllng th Dltds rnnn’ thr snts hr t st th xmpl n crbn strty FRM TH FRNT ND BY PRSNL XMPL! Y knw, lk, dr ths blg’s nvr-crps t prctc wht thy prch, nd ll. Y knw, lk, dmnd tht Jff Hrvy (Dltd’s lph, r-mls/pr dm prkr), fr xmpl, t ttnd ll hs fms, grnshrt cnfrncs v vd-cnfrnc (nd nsst hs gd-cmrds d lkws) s s t spr s h-pll ll ths nn-stp, chkng lds f C2 l’ Jff cpsly spws n th crs f hs ncssnt, lttl, xcs-fr–txpyr-fndd-bddy-bddy-bzy-bng-bng-gd-tm-GHG-blw-t jnts. Y knw, tht srt f thng.

    “LDRSHP FRM TH FRNT ND BY PRSNL XMPL N CRBN STRTY!!!???” xclm ths blg’s hmbg-phlc, slckr, Phlsphr-Kng wnnbs n hrrfd ncrdlty, whl cltchng thr prls-bfr-swn. Fllwd by ths frs rjndr: “NK! NK! SHRK-SQL! SHRK-SQL! N WY! CRBN STRTY S FR Y DSPSD HLTS, Y STPD, PPTY, NSBRDNT PSNT PN-SRF, NT YR BTTRS, LK S! NW JST SHT-P, F Y KNW WHT’S GD FR Y, ND FRK-VR YR CRBN-TXS S S SMRTY-PNTS STY-MSTRS WTH TH CRDNTLS CN KP R CRBN-GLTTN, GD-TMS RLLNG!

    ls, Ltmr, my b s bld s t sggst y ls md mstk n skng th Dltd wrds t mt-nd-grt vr br?– mn, lk, ths blg’s mrry drv s mr nt th slp-bckts nd gd, plsy-wlsy wllw n th md srt f dl nd ll.

    thrws, th bv qbbls sd, y’r th MN!, Ltmr!

  48. #48 bill
    January 25, 2013

    Can we perhaps get the freak disemvowelled, Tim? Ta if so.

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    January 25, 2013

    I could make a whole bunch of observations about Latimer returning to his vomit, but y’all can imagine them – it’s just a combination of new and old variations of “lies”, “denial”, “really, that shopworn denialist misdirection?”, “intellectual cowardice – called it, and now self-admitted”, and “you raising that strawman again?”

    The whole schtick is a bog standard high proofer denialist gambit which denies all methods for inferring ocean acidification except the one that he deigns to bless, and even then even denies the existing results of that method by excluding the entire middle ground between “no data and no existing theory therefore no reasonable inference” and “lots of data and well-confirmed existing theory therefore an overwhelmingly strong inference”.

    I will reiterate the chorus asking Latimer to actually answer BBD’s questions, but it’s clear that he cannot allow himself to. (Brave, brave Sir Latimer! And nobly cheered on by such … er … competent … individuals!)

    Answering BBD’s questions is inconsistent with his “awww, shucks, we don’t really know enough about that” stance and with his claim to have chemistry capabilities and to have investigated the area well enough to know what he’s talking about. And he couldn’t admit any of that to himself, even if it’s obvious to the rest of us.

  50. #50 chameleon
    January 25, 2013

    Vince,
    Yes at one stage in her life Marohasy worked for IPA.
    The Institute of Public Affairs.
    And I googled them for you here:
    http://www.ipa.org.au/
    So what?
    That has absolutely nothing whatsoever with the JeffH accusation that she has no science pedigree.
    Here:
    ” Um, Maharosey has no pedigree is climate science or any science.”
    A simple google check actually says otherwise.
    BTW, is there something underhand or illegal about the IPA?
    This is the first time I have ever looked them up but I can’t see what is actually so incredibly baaaaad or scaaaaarrrry about them.
    Like many other such websites and organisations from all sides of politics, they tend to overstate and rather deliberately abuse all manner of statistical research.
    The ACF here:
    http://www.acfonline.org.au/?gclid=CNu_k5rZgrUCFQcipQod6iMAog
    Are a similar kettle of fish
    And then we have others like
    Getup:
    http://www.getup.org.au/
    or in a diferent manner again the AEF:
    http://aefweb.info/about.php
    Which I believe Marohasy is affiliated with?
    Do you have a problem with these types of organisations Vince?

  51. #51 Lotharsson
    January 25, 2013

    I’d point out the usual bullshit and miscomprehension in chameleon’s latest set of rants – and her blatant denial of her own words to Jeff claiming that she did not say them – and that “downplay” is most definitely part of the practice of denialism – and that her obsession with arguing that it’s all politics is counter-factual – but really, by this point, haven’t we seen pretty much all of it before?

    Better trolls, please. These ones are stuck in a write-only loop.

  52. #52 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    @Stu:

    “I wonder what Freud would make of Brad’s infantile gonad fixation.”

    Really? This topic again?

    If you really need to talk about sex, Stu, please be accurate. I think I noted the fact the resident nards appear underdevelopedinfantile is your word.

  53. #53 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    @Lotharsson alleges against me the supposed denialist flaw du jour and says,

    “Which, come to think of it, was one of heroic Latimer’s grand failings. Ain’t that a coincidence.“*

    BBD seems to think he’s discovered another similarity:

    “Skip, skip, skip…
    Just like Latimer.”

    All right guys.

    I am, in fact, Latimer.

    And I may as well admit I’m also

    – the smile of a child
    – the ASIO agent who sells you coffee
    – second and subsequent rainbows after a summer shower
    – the dulcet yet Slavically-inflected switchboard operator “Valentina” who instructs you at night, via any dental prostheses and/or craniotomy plates you might have, to do those …deeds

    You’re right about me. (A first, Lotharsson!)

    I guess a conspiracy theorist really is like a stopped clock.

    *And yes, that was my emphasis Lotharsson, just to save you the effort of indicting the whole “denialist” world with conspiring to misquote believalists, and us the effort of reading it.

  54. #54 chameleon
    January 25, 2013

    OH!!!
    Hello there Lotharsson!
    I was wanting to let you know that you were correct and that Brad was definitely playing semantics with you.
    No question at all about that.
    It was actually rather fun to read BTW.
    He is easily your equal in that particular regard.
    If there was a prize for the number of times one can write the many different forms of the word ‘deny’ in a single comment I think you may just edge out JeffH for that prize with that last comment above @ #49
    I notice you’re trying to play semantics with me again too re downplay vs denialism.
    Brad obviously enjoys that game and he has a delightful sense of humour to boot.
    Have you forgotten that I find it a waste of time?
    And Lotharsson,
    What about the point of contention that has been raised here re ‘scientific pedigree’, particularly pertaining to Ms Marohasy?
    JeffH definitely wrote:
    ” Um, Maharosey has no pedigree is climate science or any science.”
    We can ignore the incorrect spelling of the name as that was probably just a typo :-)

  55. #55 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    I reported, when asked, that:

    I’ve “contributed” less damage to science than Michael Mann.

    @Wow then screams:

    Citation needed.

    @I politely decline, in a calm voice:

    Sorry, better things to do than prove a negative to you.

    @Wow howls:

    Except you’ve made a POSITIVE claim.
    Apparently you don’t know the difference between + and -,

    before failing to spell a simple, one-syllable name correctly.

    Listen, Wow.

    Surely even h. deltoides has enough cranial volume to calculate that my remark was logically interchangeable with the negative statement that I haven’t done as much damage to science as (let alone more damage to science than!) Michael Mann.

    Look around: your tribesmen appear to have had much less difficulty parsing it than you. Tell me, do you often find yourself cast in the role of cave idiot?

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    Chameleon, ssh! :-)

    Ixnay on the e’re-having fun at their expense-way.

    A large part of the hilarity is precisely that they’re so gosh-darned serious about putting us “denialists” in our place.

    You often hear that cults are absolutely, violently humorless, but now we have a front row seat to the confirmation of that!

    Don’t spoil it! ;-)

  57. #57 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @wow

    ‘You are dodging this:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-8/#comment-144742

    Which you continue to dodge.’

    I gave my answer here

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-11/#comment-145204.

    Sorry if it doesn’t conform to the Accepted Version of ‘Deltoid Science’

    But I arrived at it strictly according to the first principle of mainstream science.

    ‘Experiments and Observations Rule OK’

  58. #58 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @bill

    ‘but can we agree not to respond to the troll until he does answer BBD’s question?

    If that remark was directed at me, I answered BBD’s question last night

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-8/#comment-144742

    Though why this has become such a ’cause celebre’ among you all baffles me.

    Is there some hidden tribal significance to one of the questions? A deep-hidden motif of Believerism?

  59. #59 chameleon
    January 25, 2013

    OH!
    And I’m assuming of course that the ‘is’ was a typo too :-)
    But just so we’re clear, I’ll do a little ‘nuancing’ for JeffH so you don’t have to worry about it Lotharsson.
    I think he meant to write: (corrections in capitals)
    Um, MAROHASY has no pedigree IN climate science or any science.
    :-)
    BTW I’m not therefore automatically defending everything that Ms Marohasy has or hasn’t said or where she has or hasn’t worked or whatever she has or hasn’t.
    What is evident however is that she does have a science pedigree.
    I believe that she has even conducted research which has been peer reviewed and published in science journals.

  60. #60 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    As regular readers will know,

    I’ve “contributed” less damage to science than Michael Mann.

    Now I (honestly, hand-on-heart) considered such a boast to be about as remarkable as claiming “I have fewer anthopogenous body parts in my freezer than Jeffrey Dahmer,” yet our favorite selective skeptic Lotharsson somehow finds a way not to believe it!

    So you assert.
    But you assert a lot of stuff and demonstrate very little.

    Sorry, but WTF?

    Let me get this straight: despite the facts that …

    1. I didn’t initiate the silly ritual of exchanging credentials in the first place,
    2. I wouldn’t have bored you with my life story had Jeff Harvey not (politely) asked me about it,
    3. I’ve not once attempted to construct any argument from any of my biographical data
    and
    4. I’ve repeatedly told you that my backstory is of no more value than yours for the purpose of scientific debate,

    … you actually think I’ll be inclined to go the extra mile to assure you that I haven’t done as much damage to science personally as your favorite Nature-tricking, method-omitting, algorithm-withholding, data-secreting, Nobel-lying, speaking-fee-denying, vexatious-litigating dendrophrenologist hack, Mann?

    Jebus* H. Christ.

    No.

    If you don’t like it then I permit you—nay, encourage you—to indulge in whatever paranoid fantasies you like about my many, many years of occult machinations to subvert science.

    In fact, let me strongly hint that I, “Brad Keyes,” a low-profile university student with no police record, have (from behind what Bill D. Byrd might call “the cloak of obscurity” if he didn’t have such difficulty with polysyllables) masterminded every bit as much—heck, more!—injury to the progress, integrity and good name of the scientific enterprise than that Fauxbel-winning mediocrity par excellence, Mike “Mystery Method” Mann. I am the author of half that is criminal and most that is unsolved in the world of “science.” Including his half. The scandals for which that pudgy upstart is blamed? Me. The fact that more and more members of the public now rate scientists as more pompous than politicians and 40% dodgier than personal-injury lawyers? I bet you thought that was thanks to Mann and his mates. No, it was culpa mea, maxima fucking culpa mea.

    As Omar Khayyâm put it during his lesser-known AA rhyming period (Richard Burton trans.):

    Well well, what matters it?
    Go ahead, believe that shit.

    And to think that, had the dice of my humor landed differently today, I might just as well have acted the innocent and even referred you to the peer-reviewed “evidence” to prove it—and all you journal-struck automata would have had no choice but to believe every word!

    Yeah, that’s right. You ask for “citations,” which (in the bad-faith tradition of your kind), is of course a request for the opposite. You’re really asking me to say I have no evidence.

    Mora. You think your stiff-kneed manoeuvres are unanticipated? You obviously haven’t heard about the high-impact multi-institution collaborative review which I funded specifically to look at the question of the comparative damage to science attributable to Brad Keyes versus Michael Mann and which, mirabile dictu, significantly “exonerated” yours truly. Look it up (surely you can do some of your own homework) and weep, rubes.

    *Sorry Wow, did I take in vain one of the many, many names more sacred to you than Science itself? I meant nothing by it. I just said it to offend you—promise.

  61. #61 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘The whole schtick is a bog standard high proofer denialist gambit which denies all methods for inferring ocean acidification except the one that he deigns to bless’

    You guys are making this all far more complicated than it is.

    I am quite happy for you guys to ‘infer’ anything you like about anything you like. As long as you make it clear that you are arguing using inferences – not actual data.

    If you say ‘we infer that Ocean Acidifcation is taking place’ I have no objections. An inference is just an untested hypothesis and its not an unreasonable one to suggest.

    But where you are wrong is if you say ‘Ocean Acidification is a ‘proven scientific fact’ without having collected the observational data to show that it is so.

    That is it. That is my only point here and I have argued it consistently all the way through this little discussion.

    Many of you have read into it some sort of ideological significance that just ain’t there.

    It is the simple basic definition of science..’

    Experiments and Observations Rule OK’.

    If you know of another way to do ‘science’ then please let us all know.

    Because IMO without that essential prereq you’re doing philosophy or semantics or theology or comparative religion or politics or a whole host of other things. But you ain’t doing science.

  62. #62 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    “If you know of another way to do ‘science’ then please let us all know.”

    Latimer, you obviously haven’t heard—the very engine of science (the epistemology at its heart) has been unrecognisably overhauled!

    Yep, by the lovely Ms Oreskes, who (in addition to redefining neutral pH as 6.0) has also revealed unto us that everyone from Socrates to Feynman was on the wrong track the whole time, since…

    “what counts as knowledge = the ideas that are accepted by the fellowship of experts.”

    Apparently, like all world-changing discoveries, this just happened one day, in the course of routine climate “science” meta-rhetoric.

    Sure, this news can seem like a downer to change-fearing denialosaurs like us. After all, I thought science was doing a pretty good job for the last 250 years or so. (Didn’t you?)

    But look on the bright side. (My climate psychologist has put me on some amazing meds that have really helped me do that.)

    Oreskeism means no more faffing around with hard and unforgiving entia like evidence, observations, hypotheses, and most importantly: no more living in constant fear of that embarrassing event called “falsification.”

    Nope. Knowledge, along with truth itself obviously, is now as simple as whatever “ideas” you can convince a majority of primates of the same size, age and university credentials to vote for!

  63. #63 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @wow

    ‘Do you ever consider that if everyone else has found it and you haven’t, then maybe the problem ISN’T with the entire rest of the world?’

    Well, when I started my little quest for the observational data in about 2010 while having a discussion with an ardent catastrophist (I believe it may have been Fred Moolten who BBD will remember) I did wonder if I was somehow missing a big chunk of the big picture on ‘ocean acidification’.

    It did indeed seem to be remarkable that if I want to see some observational demonstration of ‘global warming’ then I can look at a number of different datasets held by a number of different places (GISS, HADCRUn etc).

    They contain data going back hundreds of years in some cases, cover a fair chunk of the globe’s surface and are updated and published for all to see on a regular basis., My estimate (details on request) is that there are 150,000+ observation years of data, covering 3000+ locations and consisting of between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 individual observations.

    We may argue about the details of the data and how it has been collected and processed, but there is no argument about the fact of its existence.

    But when it comes to looking for observational OA data the story is very very different. I first started looking because every review paper I saw just showed the same pH graph of some pretty ropey observations (only 100 datapoints, six year gap in the middle) made at Hawaii. That these seemed to be the only data there was was a bit troubling. We know already that seawater varies pretty widely around the world..(look at a global pH map to see this) and so measuring a supposedly ‘global’ phenomenon from just one site is about as good as trying to measure ‘global warming’ from just my back garden thermometer.

    A bit more tracking down showed the data from the Canaries and BATS (Bermuda) as well. To which we can add Tatoosh Island (Washington State). Some believe that we should add a fifth dataset of proxy-determined estimates as well.

    But nobody has yet shown that there is any more observational data of ‘ocean acidification’ than those five data source I have listed above.

    Its a total of 113 observation years, taken over five sites only and with a total of fewer than 30,000 observations. Please take just a second to compare and contrast these numbers with those I gave above for ‘global warming’.

    This week, on this very blog and with the help of your co-blogistas we did a little exercise looking for more data.. And we didn’t find any.

    You can shout and scream ad stamp your feet until you are blue in the face that I am to stupid to find it or too ignorant to know it and that I’m not a climate scientist or am a denier or whatever torrent of unnecessary abuse springs so easily to your lips…but none of it changes anything unless you can come up with more data.

    Saying ‘it must be there’ and ‘everybody else has found it’ – but without actually producing it – seems to be the new party line here. All you have to do is produce it to prove your case and then you would have secured tangible evidence of at least one of the awful sins you accuse me of – having lousy search skills.

    But the longer the stream of accusations goes on – without the data – the more evidence that I am right is accumulating. More and more people are looking for it – .no doubt all coming at the quest from slightly different angles – and more and more aren’t able to find it

    Will you be the one to uncover it – and so have the satisfaction of a public triumph?

  64. #64 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @brad keyes

    Thank you for your remarks about Oreskeism.

    I will be sure to draw them to the attention of all the little molecular and ionic beasties joggling about in the air and sea.

    I’m sure that they will in future be able to arrange matters so that the overall outcome of all their individual interactions adheres with the expectations of ‘the fellowship of experts’.

    Though one wonders how they got on for the millions of years before such a fellowship existed. Perhaps they just did their own thing?

    And the coming into existence of ‘the fellowship’ was a sort of Schrodinger’s Cat moment – nature changed her ways because enough ‘experts’ thought she should?

    Somehow I’m not so convinced.

  65. #65 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @mike

    ‘Also, Latimer, may I be so bold as to suggest you also made a mistake in asking the Deltoid weirdos to a meet-and-greet over a beer?’

    Nope. No mistake. Happy to meet anybody over a beer. Just so long as they are prepared to share views (however divergent) in a civilised way.

    I’m reminded of a remark by a very senior Met Office guy who steeled himself to come to a public lecture by a leading sceptical commentator and then joined us all in the pub afterwards. After a convivial evening with views robustly but politely exchanged he remarked ‘if only we’d done this a lot more ten years ago we’d all have been spared a lot of grief’.

    And it also banished a few stereotypes. As two unknown guys walked in I immediately identified the neatly dressed, 3 piece suited well groomed commuter as a Deep Sceptic and the unkempt. dishevelled, ponytailed and bearded one as the True Believer.

    But – like many predictions based on inadequate data – I was wrong. The dishevelled guy was the Sceptic and the commuter type the True Believer.

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    January 25, 2013

    Until then I’m happy to argue my point with anybody at all.

    Do you expect anyone other than you to believe that? (Ok, we’ll make exceptions for your acolytes. They are clearly persuadable via simple counter-factual assertions.)

    So you’ll argue your point with anyone. Well, except…

    I gave my answer here.

    You seem to have missed the other 2 questions which have been repeatedly posed, particularly the 3rd one which still appears to apply even if you bravely assert “I have no idea what will happen” in response to #1. So you won’t argue your point on those fronts.

    So you’ll argue your point with anyone, except on a couple of fronts. Well, and except for those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong and claim to have good reasons. You most certainly won’t argue your point with those “anybodys” or rebut their reasons – you’ll simply assert they are wrong on the basis that your argument is correct.

    So you’ll argue your point with anyone, except on a couple of fronts, and except for those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong. Well, and except for in the literature – you won’t argue your point there either, even though if you’re right you’re sitting on a significant contribution to science.

    So you’ll argue your point with anyone, except on a couple of fronts, and except for those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong, and except for in the literature. Well, and you won’t argue your point against the points made by other scientists who say you are wrong for reasons other than the only methodology you deign to consider. You won’t argue those points based on their data and methodology.

    So you’ll argue your point with anyone, except on a couple of fronts, and except for those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong, and except for in the literature, and except for the scientists who don’t confine themselves to the only methodology you’ll deign to notice. Well, and except for anyone wanting to discuss the best inference from all the evidence to whatever confidence level is appropriate. You won’t debate that position relative to your point because you refuse to offer any best inference, let alone a confidence interval.

    So you’ll argue your point with anyone, except on a couple of fronts, and except for those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong, and except for in the literature, and except for the scientists who don’t confine themselves to the only methodology you’ll deign to notice, and except any debate about best inferences and appropriate confidence levels. Well, and …

    It’s a really good thing you didn’t choose debating your point as a career. Skewering strawmen with their hands tied behind their backs doesn’t pay much.

  67. #67 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @lotharsson

    Saying things many times doesn’t make them any truer…

    As to BBD’s questions 2 and 3, they both follow on from 1 having a definite answer.

    Which I confess I cannot give. There has not been enough real world data collected for me to give an opinion.

    Why do you have so much difficulty in accepting this simple statement?

  68. #68 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @lothrssson

    ‘Well, and except for those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong and claim to have good reasons. You most certainly won’t argue your point with those “anybodys” or rebut their reasons – you’ll simply assert they are wrong on the basis that your argument is correct’

    If they can come up with the observational data that proves their case, I’ll happily concede.

    Please draw their attention to this blog – or ask TL to start another thread and we can do it in public in the open right now. Bring it – and their data – on!

    (Warning I will be away from blogging from Monday lunchtime (72 hours from now) for three days. Apart from that my time is pretty much yours bar a social engagement this evening)

  69. #69 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘ those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong and claim to have good reasons.’

    Since I have only made one claim – that there is not enough observational data to demonstrate that OA is a proven scientific fact – it is difficult for me to guess what constitutes the ‘several’ in your remark.

    Please explain.

  70. #70 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    Latimer:

    “Until then I’m happy to argue my point with anybody at all.”

    Lotharsson:

    “Do you expect anyone other than you to believe that?”

    Lotharsson, please don’t take offence at what I’m about to say. And try to suppress the high-school debate instinct for half a minute.

    It’s your immediate, reflexive resort to personal denigration as in the exchange I’ve just quoted (which is literally a random example) that can’t fail and haven’t failed to push passing readers in the direction of gravely doubting the claims of the catastrophist camp to which you belong, particularly when said passersby haven’t yet have come to a firm view on the climate for themselves.

    The amusing part (though not so funny for the human race, I suppose) is that on the slim chance that you’re actually right about the climate, your unrelenting, robotic nastiness is so repellant that you’re only making popular “action on” climate change less feasible than it already is, one passing reader at a time. You’re hurting your own side and, assuming for the sake of argument that it’s identical with the side of the Earth, you’re hurting said planet!

    Surely that’s occurred to you or, failing that, been pointed out to you at some point.

    (In fact I know it has. I’ve seen people valiantly trying to get this through to you.)

    One has to wonder why you keep at it. Seriously mate, you’d achieve more “for the climate” (as hard as it is for me to type that with a straight face) by forgetting to pay your ADSL bill next month.

    I hold out no particular hope that I’ll be the one who finally gets through to you, but please believe that I’m well-meaning. You’ve always done your utmost to be a prick, but I can’t help believing there’s some bizarrely misdirected decency behind it all. A long way behind it, perhaps, but still—I think you’re salvageable, and it’s in that spirit that I send this comment forth, rolled up in a bottle upon the tossing waves of cyberspittle.

    As for my own contribution to the cruor and saliva on this blog, though I won’t deny enjoying it, I’m not exactly proud of myself for doing as the Romans do, even if somewhat more victoriously than the mean Roman. I really should take a shower and relocate. Like I said to Latimer yesterday in a slightly but not completely different spirit, it would be nice to see you in the outside world, hopefully a better person than you seem here and now.

  71. #71 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    Oops, I mangled the syntax of that last sentence, but hopefully it’s obvious that I wasn’t having a go at Latimer there.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    January 25, 2013

    Saying things many times doesn’t make them any truer…

    Yes, I know. I keep pointing that out to you and you keep repeating unsubstantiated claims.

    As to BBD’s questions 2 and 3, they both follow on from 1 having a definite answer.

    Ah, my mistake! An answer of “I don’t know and I’m unwilling to submit a best guess either” to (1) does mean that you don’t need to answer (2) or (3).

    So I think we’re in agreement that you really don’t have much to claim, other than “I reject almost all of their methodology and data and assert on that basis that their conclusions are unsubstantiated”.

    Although I’m sure you wouldn’t put it that way.

    If they can come up with the observational data that I will deign to notice that proves their case, I’ll happily concede.

    FIFY.

    So in other words you will not do so unless and until they conform to your notions of valid data. You still haven’t been able to give a fair account of why they come to their conclusions, which strongly suggests you don’t know or don’t comprehend – and certainly can’t rebut them. As far as I can tell you simply reject all methodologies except one you specify, (perhaps) reject (or de-emphasis) any conclusion bearing any of a whole swathe of confidence levels between “no fucking idea” and “very very sure”, and positively assert that there is insufficient data to be quite sure acidification is occurring – despite having had it demonstrated that you were not competent to find various caches of relevant data, and that your speculations as to why acidification might not occur are apparently severely uninformed.

    Since I have only made one claim – that there is not enough observational data to demonstrate that OA is a proven scientific fact – it is difficult for me to guess what constitutes the ‘several’ in your remark.

    I’m guessing you haven’t read their FAQ. Or you can’t remember what you claimed. Or maybe you just can’t count.

    You’ve claimed that “neutralisation” is the correct term, and “acidification” is not.

    You’ve speculated that buffering and the effects of certain types of rocks may be sufficient to stop acidification due to rising CO2. They call bullshit on that claim.

    You claim that it’s plausible that continuing acidification won’t occur with continuing CO2 concentrations. They call bullshit on that claim.

    And that’s apart from “acidification is already occurring”.

  73. #73 Vince Whirlwind
    January 25, 2013

    ‘Experiments and Observations Rule OK’

    Exactly the same kind of crap the shit-for-brains insisted in order to deny Continental Drift for decades right up until the 80’s.

    That statement reveals you to be utterly inept.

    Your knowloedge and understanding of Ocean Acidification is not based on any personal expertise, it is quite simply based on ideology and denial.

    One organisation that does have the expertise you lack, says this:

    The oceans of the world naturally act as a reservoir for carbon dioxide (CO2) and have absorbed about one-third of the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions during the past 200 years (Sabine and others, 2004). Although this net oceanic uptake of CO2 may have moderated the rate of anthropogenic climate change, this uptake has caused rapid and unprecedented changes to ocean chemistry, reducing pH of surface waters and leading to a series of chemical changes collectively known as ocean acidification. Ocean chemistry and the changes caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 are well understood and can be precisely calculated,…

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3058/

    So, the experts say it’s real, and one failed chemistry student who gets his “information” from crank blogs disagrees.

    Being in the business of analysing data for a living, it takes me all of about 50 nanoseconds to decide with 99.9% confidence that Latimer can safely be ignored in favour of those who purvey honest, expert advice on this issue.

    How many times do you have to drop an apple out the window before you accdet that gravity is real?
    Your argument is a nonsense, and the relevant authorities directly contradict your obviously uninformed opinion.

  74. #74 Vince Whirlwind
    January 25, 2013

    As for Brad, he must surely be used to personal denigration in all aspects of his life by now?

  75. #75 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘So in other words you will not do so unless and until they conform to *scientific* notions of valid data.

    Corrected that for you.

    You can infer and expect and imply and hope all you like. But until you go out and actually measure it, that’s all you’ve got. Inferences, expectations, implications and hopes.

    Fair enough…but don’t misrepresent them as ‘proven scientific fact’. They’re not.

  76. #76 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    ‘ this uptake has caused rapid and unprecedented changes to ocean chemistry, reducing pH of surface waters and leading to a series of chemical changes collectively known as ocean acidification’

    And if and when they can show that the data on which the statement ‘reducing pH of surface waters’ is widely and soundly based on many different sites over a long period of time, then I’ll be content that this is an accurate statement

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    @Johnny Drama:

    “As for Brad, he must surely be used to personal denigration in all aspects of his life by now?”

    No, I manage to reserve it for wankers like you. You’d be surprised how nice I am to nice people.

  78. #78 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    @Latimer:

    ‘Experiments and Observations Rule OK’

    @Drama:

    That statement reveals you to be utterly inept.

    Argh. I’m trying to quit this place and you go and leave low-hanging stupidberries like this dangling in the wind. For the love of God think before you type, Drama!

  79. #79 Jeff Harvey
    January 25, 2013

    Gee, Jennifer Maharosy is Director of Environmental Policy at the neoliberal/neoconservative think tank Institute of Economic Affairs. I wonder if her denial has anything to do with her own far right political views or is it just a coincidence?

    Come on Chammy. You can do better than this. Maharosey is a shill. If she wanted to come across as being an independent thinker, she wouldn’t touch a right wing think tank with a mile-long barge pole. But these deniers just can’t help themselves. I just wonder what cozy little earner being on the payroll of a think tank is.

    Brad and Latimer: neither of you has managed to explain why the vast majority of the world’s scientists, along with every Academy of Science in every nation, agrees with the IPCC conclusions including the threat posed by ocean acidification linked with greenhouse gas emissions.

    Can’t answer that little tidbit can you? Oh yeh – let me guess- there’s a vast left wing/UN orchestrated conspiracy in which all of these bodies and the scientific community are joint conspirators. They’ve pulled the wool over the eyes of the corporate media as well as governments the world over.

    I’d also like to ask why, Latimer, you haven’t published your stunning rebuttal in a major scientific journal. If you can prove that the evidence linking atmospheric C02 and declining ocean pH levels is bogus, or at least unproven, then you can join Maharosey and get paid big bucks by a whole coterie of right wing free market advocating think thanks.

    Yet you deniers/downplayers never address these relevant questions. You act all holier than though, as if these debates are confined to a few blogs. On blogs, you are all big men or women, standing up for the integrity of science. You can ridicule Mann, Hansen, Santer et al. with impunity. You don’t have to defend your ‘science’ at a conference venue or in the peer-reviewed literature. That”s why none of you (including shills like Maharosey) stick to the blogs. She knows damned well that if she threw her kindergarten-level understanding of science into the broader scientific arena, it would be shot down immediately. On her own blog she can write whatever garbage she likes because she doesn’t have to defend it from bonafide experts. Besides, like Bjorn Lomborg, her intended target audience are laypeople like you, brad, Chammy, (I won’t include Mike because he’s a bottom feeder) and SD. YOu all want to believe in the tooth fairy and people like Maharosey, Nova, Delingpole, Watts, McIntyre, Curry etc. are playing the tune for you. Not for the scientists with years of expertise in the field.

  80. #80 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    General observation.

    For a bunch of people who claim to be ‘scientific’ many of you don’t seem to have the faintest idea of what science is and how it progresses.

    it is driven by observations of the real world. Not by the qualifications of ‘experts’ or the ‘consensus’ of the Great and the Good.

    And yet you all seem to have an absolute terror of actually looking at data…preferring instead to spray quotations around with the implicit idea

    ‘this guy is an ‘expert’ so he must be right’.

    I’ve asked you many times to describe what you think science is and how it is done. But the best that you can come up is this pitiful appeal to authority

    ‘So, the experts say it’s real, and one failed chemistry student who gets his “information” from crank blogs disagrees’ (‘Vince Whirlwind’)

    I don’t get my information from ‘crank blogs’. I get it from the published literature – as you should know by now if you have read and understood anything I have written over the last three days. Indeed you (VW) were kind enough to assist in the crowdsourcing literature search effort on Tuesday

    And if you happen to be passing this way (SE England) and can drop the ‘attitude’ for a bit, I’ll be happy to show you both my Bachelor’s and Master’s degree certificates in Chemistry. You can then ring the University – and if you like my old thesis supervisor – to confirm. He’s over 70 now but still hale and hearty as an Emeritus Fellow.

    And this is where your lack of knowledge of science lets you down. For even if I were a complete impostor..with no qualifications at all and no background, it wouldn’t affect the discussion about the existence of the data one little bit.

    It ain’t there, nobody has been able to produce it and no amount of shouting and screaming about ‘me’ will change that.

    ‘Science by consensus’ isn’t a topic I recognise. Nor ‘science by qualifications’ And nor, to the best of my recollection, does Mother Nature.

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    January 25, 2013

    Final point: when you two guys write up your rebuttal for Nature Climate Change, I’d be interested in reading the draft.

    I am worried that I will be waiting until hell freezes over (no pun intended). Our most infamous denier – Jonas N on his own asylum thread – behaves in exactly the same way as you Latimer, with the exception that you are more polite (good on you). But what he does is make big claims at rebutting the AR4 conclusion in the IPCC/2007 document, arguing that the 90% figure is not based on empirical observations. He’s been pounding the turf with this nugget for more than a year, in the meantime suggesting repeatedly that Hansen, Mann, Trenberth etc. (as well as me) aren’t ‘real scientists’, even though old Jonas has no scientific background whatsoever and has never published a paper in any format anywhere.

    I also ask him why he doesn’t write up his stupendous arguments and share his wisdom with the world in a peer-reviewed journal. Like you, he then defers, obfuscates, and switches. He claims that he doesn’t need to do this because the whole world realizes (or should) that he’s right.

    Truth is Latimer and Brad, you won’t win any scientific arguments here. Its you who has to prove the world’s most esteemed scientific bodies are wrong, and not the other way around. I said the same thing to Jonas. His only riposte was that the decisions of these National Academies may have been reached without full consultation of the membership. No proof provided, but that was/is his escape valve. What’s yours?

  82. #82 Jeff Harvey
    January 25, 2013

    https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/3180/22-4_feely.pdf?sequence=1

    OK Latimer. Go through this 2009 article point by point and tell us all here where the authors get it wrong. I suggest you keep copious notes, because you are going to need it for your rebuttal in the scientific literature.

    Wait – you are writing a rebuttal aren’t you? If not, why not?

  83. #83 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    So I think we’re in agreement that you really don’t have much to claim, other than “I reject almost all of their methodology and data and assert on that basis that their conclusions are unsubstantiated”.

    Remember Latte’s “All Froth, no Coffee” mantra: YOU MUST DISCUSS.

    Pointless discussion, because Latte isn’t doing a discussion for any other reason than to discuss.

    Like Joan, Latte isn’t even a denier. They’re merely trolling.

    If it weren’t for the fact that the denier blogs will banhammer anyone not toeing the party line and nobody on their side will even blink an eyelid, they’d both be trolling the denier blogs under different socks.

  84. #84 Jeff Harvey
    January 25, 2013

    Conclusion of study:

    “The oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO from the atmosphere is decreasing 2 the pH and lowering the CO32– concentration and CaCO3 saturation states of aragonite and calcite in the upper ocean. Ocean acidification is expected to result in a pH decrease of ~ 0.3–0.4 units rela- tive to pre-industrial values by the end of this century”.

    Given the number of studies cited in the article, I am satisfied with this. End of story.

  85. #85 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    “Brad and Latimer: neither of you has managed to explain why the vast majority of the world’s scientists, along with every Academy of Science in every nation, agrees with the IPCC conclusions including the threat posed by ocean acidification linked with greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Jeff,

    1. It’s MAROHASY. To put it another way, it’s MAROHASY.

    2. In rê “the vast majority of the world’s scientists”:

    No, I can’t possibly explain why something you’ve simply imagined is true is true.

    A more interesting (and literally infinitely more tractable) question is how and why a scientist, such as yourself, came to believe a completely unevidenced and prima facie unlikely rumour like that in the first place. Maybe it’s because of Lolita, but I must admit to a prejudice that entomologists are pretty bright. So I bet if you turn your net inwards, as it were, you can catch some interesting answeroids at the very least.

    And since you’re comparatively extremely polite, I’m all ears.

    3. Nor do I have any insight into the “thinking” of decorticate, decerebrate, anencephalic entities like Academies of Science. (Contrary to what we were told in childhood, there is such a thing as a stupid question, a good example of which would be any question about the psychology of things that lack nervous systems.)

  86. #86 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    The reason for the horde of obvious idiots is because Joan’s shitting over this blog isn’t working any more, so they’ve had to recruit (or sockpuppet) new idiots to bury the science blogs under their crap and force people to leave out of disgust.

    Tim, as long as he’s left out of it, doesn’t give a monkeys.

  87. #87 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    No, I can’t possibly explain why something you’ve simply imagined is true is true.

    Ignore it, Jeff.

    This is entirely to make you waste your time.

    NWOR the lot of them.

  88. #88 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @jeff harvey

    ‘I’d also like to ask why, Latimer, you haven’t published your stunning rebuttal in a major scientific journal. If you can prove that the evidence linking atmospheric C02 and declining ocean pH levels is bogus, or at least unproven, then you can join Maharosey and get paid big bucks by a whole coterie of right wing free market advocating think thanks’

    Let’s get the crap out of the way first.

    1,. No idea who ‘Maharosey’ is. The relevance to this discussion has passed me by.

    2. I’m not very interested in ‘big bucks’ however funded. So I think I’ll decline that offer thanks.

    I spent my commercial career in ‘Big Bucks Land’ in IT . Been there, done that, got many Tshirts and I’m delighted to be out of it – hopefully for ever.

    Up until the start of this discussion earlier this week I just had a sneaking suspicion that all was not well in the land of acidification data. But as the week has gone on – and more and ,more people have tried ever more semantic and abusive and weird ways to defend ‘the consensus’, the more my suspicions are confirmed.

    Because the counter to my simple observation ‘ there is not enough observed data to claim that ‘ocean acidification’ is a proven scientific fact’ would be so simple – to produce the data – that nobody has yet done so simply reinforces my idea that it isn’t there.

    As to writing a paper for a ‘learned journal’, I’d need some help from an experienced hand. Would any of you guys like to volunteer? The other slight difficulty I see is that it would need to prove a negative – that the data isn’t there. I can’t recall reading many papers that do so, since publishers and reviewers are mostly more interested in new positive results rather than negative ones. Again, some guidance from an experienced author would help. Any volunteers?.

  89. #89 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    “Final point: when you two guys write up your rebuttal for Nature Climate Change, I’d be interested in reading the draft.

    I am worried that I will be waiting until hell freezes over (no pun intended). ”

    I don’t know Latimer’s career situation but since I’m neither a climate scientist nor a Master’s Squash champion with an interest in climate science, I’m not gonna be the one who brings you in from the cold there pal. My advice: dress for the next few Solar Minima.

    As an aside, you were “arguing” a lot better (if that’s what you’re attempting) yesterday. Lift your game Jeff.

  90. #90 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    Yawn.

    More shit in the ocean.

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    “Its you who has to prove the world’s most esteemed scientific bodies are wrong, and not the other way around.”

    a. What exactly do you presume I disagree with these brainless torsos about?

    (Just in case you were confused, I think I “confessed” at one point to being Latimer, but that was what we Aussies call taking the piss. We’re 2 different people.)

    b. If there is some disagreement then, technically Jeff, it’s precisely “the other way round.”

    That’s their job, to the extent that mindless bodies can have jobs.

  92. #92 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @jeff harvey

    ‘OK Latimer. Go through this 2009 article point by point and tell us all here where the authors get it wrong. I suggest you keep copious notes, because you are going to need it for your rebuttal in the scientific literature’

    Too easy.

    The article you refer to only cites four sets of observational data of pH change and only shows a graph of one. And just about every other review article just shows the same set

    But thank you for citing the article, It is an excellent illustration for my case. The most respected and widely cited review articles do not cite more than a handful of datasets. And they are all the same handful.

    And I’d ask you once again to read what I have actually written…not just to leap into some woolly thinking ‘he’s a ‘denier’ so he must be arguing a and b and c’ and go charging off after imaginary red herrings. Its a waste of both of our time s – yours to worry about it in the first place, and me to rebut the unfounded accusations afterwards.

  93. #93 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    All is eerily calm on the Liquid Lothario front. Dare I hope that my heartfelt overture (or the even more affecting recent messages from Latimer that I’ve just spotted) may have caused you some quiet reflection, son of Lothar?

    If only that, it was worth it. We really don’t have to be cunts to each other if you choose otherwise. (Excuse my Shakespeare.)

  94. #94 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    Addendum – end of para 4

    ‘…the same handful. And it is beginning to look as though the reason these same datasets are the chosen few is because that is all there is.

    There’s no need for me to ‘make copious notes’ about the rest , since that is the only point I am making.

  95. #95 BBD
    January 25, 2013

    Latimer

    You claim (this page: # 57; # 58) to have answered the questions I asked you (for the fifth time) here. Your response was:

    I have no opinion as to what *will* happen.

    The questions were:

    1/ Do you argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further? Is this what you believe? Yes/no.

    2/ If no, please explain *why* robust, fundamental theory with copious experimental confirmation is an unreliable predictor of what to expect.

    – Be sure to explain *why* you think the fundamentals of chemistry will not apply in this case.

    3/ Please explain *why* average ocean pH will *not* continue to fall as CO2 concentration increases if pH is *not* already so low that further reduction cannot be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Obviously, you did not answer the questions. You evaded them.

    I do not accept your claim of uncertainty (# 67) that we are unsure about (1), as there is ample evidence that average ocean pH is >8.1. Nor do I accept that a trained chemist can be agnostic about (2) and (3).

    In order to be agnostic you must *deny* the validity and consequent predictive power of the fundamental theory underpinning the chemistry involved. You must further *deny* the validity and consequent predictive power of the exhaustive experimental confirmations of the theory that have been carried out under laboratory conditions.

    How can you – a trained chemist – do that?

    Please explain your reasoning by answering all three questions that I have repeatedly asked you here.

  96. #96 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    @Wow:

    Yawn.

    GO TO BED.

  97. #97 guthrie
    January 25, 2013

    Hey, vince, please read up on the history of continental drift, ‘cos you’re a bit out of line.

    – — –
    ‘Experiments and Observations Rule OK’

    Exactly the same kind of crap the shit-for-brains insisted in order to deny Continental Drift for decades right up until the 80′s.
    – – – – – –
    Whilst I appreciate that Latimer is wrong on many things, continental drift isn’t really the way to combat him. What actually happened was that at the time, the ruling paradigm of what went on was that the continents were masses of light rock which sort of floated/ scooted across the dense heavy basalt which underlay the oceans. Remember 100 years ago they didn’t have our drilling capabilities.
    So what Wegener proposed was that these continents were scooting about under certain gravitational and other influences. However he neglected to actually calculate or got it totally wrong, and basically there was no way that they could possibly move in that fashion. Most people accepted that continents could move, but not in the way he proposed. Some agreed it did appear that Africa and S America etc had been joined together once, and the evidene was pretty good for that, but his theory of how was rejected because it couldn’t work.
    By th 1930’s or so work was going on on the idea that continents moved around the earth due to upwelling plumes of hot magma from the core.
    Thus by the 60’s when they found the Atlantic ridge and such, everything was in place for it all to fall into place.
    Maybe it’s an american thing, but my lecturer at uni in the 90’s in Scotland had learnt his geology in the 60’s or so, and had no problems at all with modern continental drift and it seems British geologists were converted rapidly.

  98. #98 guthrie
    January 25, 2013

    The real reason “Experiment and observation rule okay” is total mince is because theory is also necessary for successful science.
    It’s actually more like a giant ffeedback circle of observation, theory, experiment, observation, theory and so on.

    And one of the tests of a useful theory is that it makes predictions which can be tested and builds on top of previous known theories such as the absorption of gases by liquids.

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    @Latimer:

    For a bunch of people who claim to be ‘scientific’ many of you don’t seem to have the faintest idea of what science is and how it progresses.

    Latimer, this has to rank (in the annals of brilliant understatement) alongside that comment at WUWT[?] wherein you tentatively nominated a certain shoulder-themed gladiator pit as “the pettiest and nastiest corner of the climatosphere” or words to that effect. (I wish I could find it again—you nailed the superlatives.)

    ¡Chapeaux bas, maître!

  100. #100 Latimer Alder
    January 25, 2013

    @guthrie

    ‘And one of the tests of a useful theory is that it makes predictions which can be tested and builds on top of previous known theories such as the absorption of gases by liquids.’

    Sure. Absolutely agree.

    And when the theoretical predictions of ‘ocean acidification’ have been thoroughly tested by experiment, then we’ll all be happy. (or not as the case may be).

    But it hasn’t yet been done. Five very short (<20 years) datasets isn't enough to confirm that the theory is right. Anymore than five short (<20 year) datasets of back garden temperatures would be enough to confirm global warming.

    And a quick calculation shows that if we did record just the daily max/min readings from each of those five thermometers for the twenty years we'd collect more observational data about temperature than we have for the entirety of 'ocean acidification'.

Current ye@r *