Rob (Geologist)

1. they add hydrochloric acid (HCl, because salt water has a lot of chloride ions already). This shifts the pH baseline in the Bjerrum plot above to the left, producing more CO2 in a more acidic environment. It is a scientific fraud because it also produces less of the CO3 ion instead of more, resulting in abnormal dissolution of shell.
2. they bubble CO2 through the water, thereby essentially increasing the left-hand side of the equilibrium equation. Although this reflects the real-world more than trickling acids through the water, it is still a scientific fraud because the water is not given time to form more of the CO3 ion.

In all experiments the enriched water is flowed through the experiment, never giving enough time for an equilibrium with the calcium-rich environment which increases CO3. In other words, the experiment does not allow the water to buffer the enriched water. Neither method reflects the real-world situation, and this is scientific fraud.

Of course this is nothing new to oceanographers. They’ve been a thorn in the AGW side for years now with their data and facts and all. The “Ocean Levels Rising” scenario attributed to AGW, that really only amounts to a ~1cm a year, has in large part been attributed to a net positive gain of ocean floor as a result of underwater volcanic activity (do you think it might affect ocean temperature too?). Hard as they try to sell us on the melting icecaps nonsense. Sound science beats pictures of hungry polar bears any day. Imagine that, Nobel Prize winning scientists that can’t figure out that your glass of water WON’T overflow if the ice in it melts, but WILL overflow if the bottom of the glass is raised.

Thank god for geologists and oceanographers. And their underwater cameras. Get your fiddles ready. This Rome is starting burn…

Reading comprehension is important here.

“…active underwater fumaroles pumping out virtually pure CO2…”

If you don’t understand “fumaroles”, then the rest of the following debate would escape your understanding as well.

Cheers from America.

You have sharp eyes! If you look closely, you can see an Exxon executive emitting flatus. Yes, right there, in the lower corner.

Which means, of course, a significant component is methane as well. And likely even octane!

The price of paranoia is eternal vigilance, maintain the fort!

And how do we know it is O2?
The diver could have disturbed anoxic sediment… or his buddy just swam by (given the spacing in 1).

C’mon people.

I don’t think the Enviro’s purposively lie at all, it’s rather the case of supporting a deduced theory whose starting point is not based on empirical fact.

No one observed anthropogenic global warming, it was a postulate advanced on the misunderstanding of what “absorption” means in terms of radiative gases. They actually believe that CO2 absorbs heat, like a sponge absorbs water. Having mutually agreed on this understanding to be a self-evident fact, the rest falls into place in a logical manner – the whole AGW theory is cantilevered on the original assumption that doubling atmospheric CO2 causes a temperature rise.

And now that temperatures are not rising, but CO2 is still increasing, the next ploy is to invoke ocean acidification.

Deductive science is really technically sophisticated religion. All deductive paradigms start with a non-empirically derived assumption, whether it is climate sensitivity or God, and when everyone agrees on it, contraditing it is nigh well on impossible.

If it were truly a science, the contradictory facts should prompt changes in the theorey. That his does not occur simply confirms that AGW is a technically sophisticated religion.

They were always lying about this ocean-acidification racket. Clive Hamilton has just confessed to having taken a fraudulent position the whole way through. Fundamentally this is a pandemic of lying.

They were always lying about this ocean-acidification racket. Clive Hamilton has just confessed to having taken a fraudulent position the whole way through. Fundamanetally this is a pandemic of lying.