|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 14, 2010 19:11:35 GMT 1
£azarus, Then go back to the thread and disprove these facts: The OSU scandal: The hatchery had a mortality problem in their oyster larvae. The OSU found it was caused by bacteria. The lead scientist from OSU team appears in the media stating the larvae died due to "ocean acidification". The same scientist gives a presentation to an industry body about "Strategies and modifications for surviving Vibrio tubiashii in the hatchery" The video linked to in the thread clearly stated the problem was bacterial.
You assert these were two different events. Prove it.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 15, 2010 17:00:19 GMT 1
You assert these were two different events. Prove it. I think the onus is on you to prove they are not - after all it is your debunking. But it isn't difficult to tell they are two different event because the video is from 2009 and the report from 2010. The scientists refers to two different problems, a bacteria and acidification The first problem was solved by filtration. The second problems says that the sea water is already filtered.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 15, 2010 19:56:39 GMT 1
£azarus, "THE problem started in 2007" from both the video and the ABC scare story.
I'm sure you have been fossicing around for evidence that there were two events - I have. There is none. Now, wouldn't an IPCC contributing university specialising in ocean acidification (for the IPCC) positively SCREAM about solid evidence of larvae mortality due to acidification?
Answers on a postcard.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 15, 2010 22:06:00 GMT 1
I have made a reply in another thread. The two events are related and the links I gave explain how. So far it is only you that has been found to be telling porkies as you have not shown that this university has either published corrupted science or fabricated anything - your two libellous claims.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 15, 2010 22:50:01 GMT 1
You link to media scare stories as usual £azarus. Could you please post a link to a paper from OSU that supports your assertion and the scandalous, baseless scare stories released by OSU?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 16, 2010 15:58:00 GMT 1
Still noting to support your claims of 'scandalous, baseless scare stories' I see. If you need to believe that then go ahead, just don't expect others to follow.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 17:34:14 GMT 1
Could you please post a link to a paper from OSU that supports your assertion and the scandalous, baseless scare stories released by OSU?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 16, 2010 18:06:00 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 18:41:02 GMT 1
I'll write this even slower: There ...is....no....evidence...published...or otherwise...that...prove...ocean...acidification....caused.....larval mortality....at Whiskey Creek hatchery.
FACT.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 26, 2011 7:48:31 GMT 1
I just had to revisit to my own reply #20 upthread which I gave as an example of a false AGW scare story back in September 2010. "The reduction in phytoplankton/ocean productivity scare?" The authors of that scare story, which was debunked by sceptics at the time of its publication in Nature magazine, have now issued a retraction saying their statements about a putative 50% reduction in oceanic phytoplankton (which in turn accounts for 50% of Earth's net primary production and is therefore HUGELY important to life on Earth) was completely wrong! How refreshingly different! Some honest climatologists. There is hope yet! But you'd have thought Nature's esteemed "peer-reviewers" would have spotted such an obvious looad of bollocks before publication, wouldn't you? Willis Eschenbach did purely on the basis of his lifetime of experience above and below the waves! He is such an entertaining and informative writer. I'm a big fan. Read more from Willis about his accurate dismissal (scoop, in fact!) of the "scare story" here: wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/31/walking-the-plank-ton/wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/25/the-ocean-wins-again/#more-38673Well done, willis! Keep 'em coming.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 1, 2011 9:57:20 GMT 1
I don't buy the marketisation of climate prediction which is being discussed here as a sanction against scare-mongering judithcurry.com/2011/04/30/a-prediction-market-for-climate-outcomes/#more-2741 but this para is a little gem, as Judith Curry agrees. Shi-Ling Hsu Talk is cheap. Predictions are very cheap. In the public world of climate science, talk and predictions are not only cheap, they are frequently valueless, issued as they are by individuals and organizations with self- serving agendas, and on the basis of questionable information. Quality climate science (and reasonable climate skepticism) is mixed with too much ideology to create an ill broth contains very little informational nutrition. [JC comment: wow, I wish I wrote that.]
|
|