Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

newhaul claimed he directly linked to NASA graphs. He did not. The NASA graphs do not have the additional red graphics.

I did link to the original graphs .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You're not alone.
According to Wikipedia:
"Some writers and organizations choose to consistently replace some words with others as part of their editorial policy, with occasionally unforeseen results. For example, the American Family Association chose to replace all instances of the word "gay" on its website with the word "homosexual".
This caused an article about US Olympic sprinter Tyson Gay to be littered with confusing sentences such as,
"In Saturday's opening heat, Homosexual pulled way up, way too soon, and nearly was caught by the field, before accelerating again and lunging in for fourth place".

Just think what this could do with our long-cherished tradition of always having plenty of Mt. Gay rum onboard!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

My conclusion is any information from notrickzone should be considered just false on its face.

That conclusion is supported by these assessment.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/40...rming-is-myth/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sc...-warming-myth/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...No-Tricks-Zone

Zeke Hausfather agrees.

https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/...571392?lang=en

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I did link to the original graphs .

Your initial post did not show the NASA graphs, it showed the doctored graphs.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2946955

And you reposted it.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2947087

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Hello Newhaul,
Here is another ocean acidification study not requiring the artificial addition of hydrochloric acid.

Ocean acidification is having major impact on marine life


And the deniers just keep denying -- but that's okay, because they express their thoughts in their own words rather than borrowing the words of someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

If you're so convinced about the correctness of your "real" science over the science that you categorize as skeptical or denier (dismissive perhaps?), then why not try debating it with actual scientists who have such "fake" views? Jack can help you find their websites, but please do report back to us. I would love to see how it all goes down.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your initial post did not show the NASA graphs, it showed the doctored graphs.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2946955

And you reposted it.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2947087

If you defined "doctored" it might help explain what the controversy is about. No editorializing please.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I have no desire for originality. Basically, I'm a very dull and uneducated person.

And yes, I totally understand your extreme dislike of science that challenges your desire to deny AGW.

Maybe dull, but my impression is definitely not uneducated. Your frequent lumping in all "deniers" as a single entity notwithstanding that is.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

If you defined "doctored" it might help explain what the controversy is about. No editorializing please.

here is the specifics I will post both versions of each graph jack can't seem to figure out .
It made sense to everyone else .

[dennismenace111]

What if the science deniers are wrong? Is it worth the risk?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by dennismenace111

What if the science deniers are wrong? Is it worth the risk?

the agw alarmists have been proven wrong so many times in their various models and predictions

[stevensuf]

You know, originally i was concerned about which anodes to use, if the ph was changing

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

You know, originally i was concerned about which anodes to use, if the ph was changing

the correct anode entirely depends on where you are fresh or salt water and what metal you are protecting.
Not really dependant on Ph of the water specifically .

[dennismenace111]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the agw alarmists have been proven wrong so many times in their various models and predictions

Past performance is no guarantee of future accuracy....Again, What if they are wrong? Is it worth the risk? Should we bury our heads in the sand and say it cant happen? Or should we assume it will and do everything we can now to prepare or correct the situation?

You wouldnt venture out on the ocean without preparing for disaster saying your boat wont ever sink... boats have been crossing the oceans for thousands of year without sinking. Designers said the Titanic was unsinkable.

But some are willing to say that the scientists are wrong... it cant happen or we cant prevent it.

Some will say that its big money scare tactics... well if you look closely, even bigger money from fossil fuel industry is saying its false science...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

here is the specifics I will post both versions of each graph jack can't seem to figure out .
It made sense to everyone else .

You posted the ones on the right which look like the ones posted on Tony Heller's blog.

https://realclimatescience.com/rewri...ricas-history/

The links you posted are also identical to Tony's.

The ones on the left are from NASA.

Do you still stand by this claim?

Originally Posted by newhaul

jack the charts I posted are direct from NASA. I even provided the links to the NASA web pages for them.

Debunk NASA or debunk NASA your choice or just admit they changed the data .

Has nothing to do with tony Heller

Even though he is correct .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by dennismenace111

Past performance is no guarantee of future accuracy....Again, What if they are wrong? Is it worth the risk? Should we bury our heads in the sand and say it cant happen? Or should we assume it will and do everything we can now to prepare or correct the situation?

You wouldnt venture out on the ocean without preparing for disaster saying your boat wont ever sink... boats have been crossing the oceans for thousands of year without sinking. Designers said the Titanic was unsinkable.

But some are willing to say that the scientists are wrong... it cant happen or we cant prevent it.

Some will say that its big money scare tactics... well if you look closely, even bigger money from fossil fuel industry is saying its false science...

the cost benefit analysis has been done and the benefit does not justify the cost both in financial terms , quality of life terms and just out and out cost of lives the world over .

Besides we are back to the cooling part of the cycle .