Global Warming is Opinion

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, scherado said:

Let's see what happens when I type your name in the entry field on the ignore page....there we go.

Welcome to the club! As a new member you are entitled to one (1) free drink of your choice.

28 minutes ago, scherado said:

I began to boycott that site when I read ludicrous political content. I decided that I wouldn't waste any time attempting to determine what was true or false; zero.

I thought it might be because it said something that disagreed with him. "I know, I'll put it on my ignore list".

[Klaynos]

For anyone who is interested these links and their  references are worth reading. 

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/08/02/seven-years-after-nature-pilot-study-compares-wikipedia-favorably-to-other-encyclopedias-in-three-languages/ 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Scherado, adding people to ignore doesn't make for a very good discussion. 

Everyone, could we all get back to the topic?

[Ken Fabian]

Scherado, you have offered nothing except your opinions. Certainly not anything that even indicates the basis for that opinion. No references, no links, no reasons or reasoning. Not any qualifications that would show you are capable of doing a genuine critique of climate science. The US National Academy of Sciences, UK's Royal Society have had people with relevant expertise and deserved reputations for competence and probity look closely at climate science - you don't get to be Fellows in these institutions without. Lacking that competence myself I have no hesitation in taking their carefully considered conclusions ahead of your opinions.  Yet even without that level of competence I have not found it that hard to gain a broad understanding. And develop the capability to differentiate unfounded opinion from that of people with genuine expertise.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, scherado said:

Let's see what happens when I type your name in the entry field on the ignore page....there we go.

Here we go again! How many does that make?  I would reciprocate and put him on ignore, but sometimes a good belly laugh is worth it.

[scherado]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

Scherado, you have offered nothing except your opinions. Certainly not anything that even indicates the basis for that opinion. No references, no links, no reasons or reasoning. Not any qualifications that would show you are capable of doing a genuine critique of climate science.

Quite. All my opinions and judgements are based upon my critical analysis skills, which may include exquisite referent analysis and knowledge of Micheal Mann's legerdemain.

Do you know anything about Micheal Mann's legerdemain? I'm being kind here.

1 hour ago, Klaynos said:

Scherado, adding people to ignore doesn't make for a very good discussion.

It's my health that is top priority, if you get my drift.

[Area54]

35 minutes ago, scherado said:

Quite. All my opinions and judgements are based upon my critical analysis skills, which may include exquisite referent analysis and knowledge of Micheal Mann's legerdemain.

Do you know anything about Micheal Mann's legerdemain? I'm being kind here.

No. You are being evasive. An acceptable response would have been to provide references, links and well founded reasons to justify your opinions. Changing the subject may well fool fools, but I doubt it will slip past many here.

[Strange]

45 minutes ago, scherado said:

Do you know anything about Micheal Mann's legerdemain? 

It's an invention of denialists?

47 minutes ago, scherado said:

All my opinions and judgements are based upon my critical analysis skills

[studiot]

21 hours ago, rangerx said:

I agree on this point and only somewhat on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is very good for referencing most common knowledge facts, but it's not without errors. Hence ought to be cross-referenced for accuracy rather than outright dismissed by mere virtue of it's presence. The suggestion it's entirely wrong across the board is just another example of denial.

The same goes for conspiracy theorists and climate deniers that science itself is a conspiracy of compliance and nefarious indoctrination. Deniers endlessly suggest data is fudged to further agendas and students are fed talking points by their handlers.

Bare with me for a few moments and I'll get to where this is critical to climate change toward the end, because if I can figure it out... anyone should be able to understand.

My entire career is based upon challenging the status quo. I'm a pearl farmer. For more than a hundred years, there's been a myriad of myths, supposedly irrefutable science and secrecy surrounding the industry.

When I was just a child of eight (early 1960s), while at a family reunion at a resort lake in central Canada, I discovered freshwater mussels and was mesmerized by the rainbow iridescence of their shells . My mom wore pearls, her mom wore pearls and her mom wore pearls, but all of them and my father told that pearls only came from Japan and was a closely guarded secret. To that end I said hah! and promised myself I would endeavor to unlock those secrets. Historically, most natural pearl beds were long diminished, if not decimated. Nobody left to interview, next to no publications available. Just biology text books explaining basic shell structures. By the late 1970s, black  and south-sea pearls were being cultivated in Australia and Pacific Islands. Most of my inquiries were ignored. The few I had gotten were met with "too cold up there" or "no pearl bearing species" exist in my area. I didn't accept that. I was certain, if it can grow a shell, it can grow a pearl, even though I'd yet to understand why, or how.

Soon after I graduated, I moved to the Pacific side to get a job as a deep sea diver, harvesting geoducks. Being a seasonal thing, I branched into collection of other species for labs. Paralytic shellfish poisoning (red tides) and fecal coli-form counts. Acorn barnacles for spinal cord research, mussels for underwater adhesive glue, octopus growth rates and the list goes on and on. I found my first pearl eating a plate of fried mussels. While cooking destroyed it's surface quality, I gained a clue to where they formed in the animal. Doing random surveys on reefs, I discovered other pearls. Over the years, I discovered thousands of pearls. From those discoveries, patterns emerged. Using this data, I could now begin target areas of high incidence. It soon became apparent that a simple grain of sand causing a pearl was not as simple we were led to believe. I started pushing grains of sand into every and any part of the mussel, but almost always failed. By almost, I discovered, that getting an object between the mantle and shell resulted in a pearl like formation, but were stuck to the shell.

Mollusks seem like simple creatures, but in reality are quite complex. While a clam is a clam is a clam in how they grow, they have markedly different traits in their behavior, habitat and appearance. However, the function of the mantle is pretty much the same across the board without expanding on the difference between pterioda and pteriomorphia (namely pearl oysters and mussels).

One fine day, I got a tiny bit of leaked information from Japan. My source ended up being charged and convicted (even shunned) for divulging it, because the then standing Diamond Standard prohibited any Japanese citizen to reveal any aspect of pearl culture technology to non-nationals, without strict conditions and permission. It was a patent by a supposed author of the Mise-Nishigawa procedure of a tool called a cell needle. I asked myself, why would pearl culture use a cell needle? By going back to the drawing board, I would strive to find the cells in question. The mantle was where pearls and shells formed, hence deduced epithelial cells might be implicated, after all, the natural pearls I had found were surrounded by them. A pearl sac, if you will, but still at a loss as to onset. I became more proficient with microscopy and instruments over time, then began placing grains of sand and shell into the epithelium, but no longer at random. Instead in recorded positions for later reference. Low and behold, I got a few pearls to grow, but no great numbers. Examining the scruffy successes, I concluded that pearls grow in the epithelium if it's perforated in a manner similar of preventing scarring in human skin when getting stitches. The cells needed to multiply and divide, bridging the gaps created by the incision. It happens in nature when shells get damaged and break. New shell material bridges the gaps. I solved one problem, but had another greater problem. My pearls were tiny, misshapen and had no value as gems. I knew I was still missing something important.

Then another fine day a few years later, I caught an octopus for dinner. It was missing one and a half tentacles from what seemed like a predator attack. While I was cutting it in the sink, my knife contacted a hard object and out popped a near perfectly round 7mm pearl. Now I'm really confused. How does an animal that does not have a shell create a pearl? Microscopy reveal the pearl was nearly identical in structure to a Butter Clam (Saxidomus gigantea). It was then, I had my eureka moment.

An octopus is a mollusk. All mollusks have green blood (copper based as opposed to iron in most animals), hence most mollusks have compatible tissue types. Octopus eat clams. The pearl was found less than a centimeter from the beak. During his meal, a tiny piece of the clam's mantle tissue lodged itself in the healing scar of the octopus and formed a pearl. The cat was out of the bag and the secret of pearl culture was revealed. Today's cultured  pearls are the result of an epithelial trans-graft from a donor to a recipient. Color and structure is determined by the donor, not the recipient. The recipient is merely a surrogate.

Almost the entire premise that a pearl is formed by an "irritant" is nonsense. Irritation causes inflammation. Inflammation causes disease and other stresses. Disease and stress causes mortality. The only example where it may be the case, I have already described as my first result. A grain of sand in the extrapallial space. But that's not a pearl as we know them. Most pearls are cause by parasites, physical damage or auto-immune disease. Only a tiny fraction of one percent are the result of grains of sand. Today's cultured pearls are grown by placing a small piece of mantle tissue from the donor over top of a shell bead nucleus them placed within connective tissues and the bloodstream of the host mollusk's gonads. This allowed the cells to keep living, multiplying and dividing to form a pearl sac and subsequently higher success in productivity.

Now, what does this have to do with climate change you ask?

Well, it's very simple really. In my area, I do free range pearling for both natural and cultural pearls. I have had tenure for twenty four designated marine stations since 1983. Over the years, I've noticed changes in the mussels, especially at the perimeter of the beds. What were once thick, vibrant shells are now thin egg-like shells. Most I can crush by hand, opposed to the top of the reefs where doing so is not possible, unless with excessive force which can cause lacerations... even amputations.

All living things need calcium. Mollusks uptake calcium and carbonate ions from water. In times of quiescence, low salinity, freezing temperatures mollusks do not eat and if they do, only ingest small cell organisms. As their soft tissues need calcium, they are able to "revert" from building shells to dissolving them with naturally formed acids then re-metabolizing the solution. It leaves distinctive signatures on the inner lining of the shells. and can be measured for thickness, rate and duration. Like the rings of a tree, a mollusk has growth periods. In my area, they grow actively for ten months then go into a two month semi hibernation-like period. This gives the distinct signature of nine visible layers per year. 10 -1=9 After all, the last layer is reabsorbed.

But that's not what's happening on the lower fringes of the biomass of the intertidal zone. The lower in levels, the longer the submersion. The longer the submersion in a gradually lowering ph is measurable against those on the top of the reef. The evidence is clear, because the reefs are dying, slowly. The radius is shrinking, even though the greater number of animals present do not appear affected. They are, but to a lesser degree. California mussels have no commercial or recreational value in my area. Some by sewage some by natural toxins. They are full of sand, tiny pearls etc. and break teeth. Other than a few sea stars, they have no predators. Even in the past few years, sea stars had mass mortality by a densovirus, but are slowly recovering. Yet reef decline is still accelerating.

I have one marine station that adds valuable data to my research. An island of shells, created by winds and tides from the reef below. Archaeological surveys present data of shell size and thickness. The deeper I go, the shells get thicker, even though they've degraded slightly. I don't need a lab, I don't need elaborate measuring tools other than a caliper to observe and record the evidence. Even a layperson I take there for the first time can clearly see the difference with their own eyes and no tools. It's that obvious.

So in closing, Japan has experienced a catastrophic decline in their biwas (lakes) because of this problem. Rising temperatures, lower ph and every consequence that results such as disease, parasites and lack of oxygen. Pollution is also a factor, but not singularly underlying. Not one Japanese pearl farmer denies climate change and human involvement in their destruction. Only one lake remains in production out of dozens in the past. After nearly a century of protectionism and productivity, does anyone in their right mind think that Japan would needlessly end one of it's greatest industries to tout a liberal conspiracy?

Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, no matter how it's created. Man made carbon dioxide is not inert, no matter how many times or how loudly a person denies it's effect on the marine environment. The more you create, the the greater it's dissolved in water creating carbonic acid, hence the lower the ph our oceans become, preventing carbonate from be utilized in animal recruitment. It's that simple. A child can figure that out.

The assholes that claim that climate change is a hoax to deprive working people of their jobs, are the very people who are depriving people of their jobs by their ignorance and ideology. Period.

 

Thank you for sharing that history and (including personal) information with us. +1

[scherado]

44 minutes ago, Area54 said:

No. You are being evasive. An acceptable response would have been to provide references, links and well founded reasons to justify your opinions. Changing the subject may well fool fools, but I doubt it will slip past many here.

Changing the subject? I do believe that the title of this thread is the subject. Do you know what thread you are in?

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, scherado said:

Changing the subject? I do believe that the title of this thread is the subject. Do you know what thread you are in?

The topic of discussion is whether Global Warming is Opinion. It is not a solicitation of opinions about global warming.

[iNow]

9 hours ago, scherado said:

Let's see what happens when I type your name in the entry field on the ignore page....there we go.

At this rate, you'll be ignoring everyone who posts here, seeing stuff only from those who never engage. 

[swansont]

6 hours ago, scherado said:

Quite. All my opinions and judgements are based upon my critical analysis skills, which may include exquisite referent analysis and knowledge of Micheal Mann's legerdemain.

How about presenting some of that critical analysis in your posts? (along with the facts that support it)

Any actual study of relevant science? 

[CharonY]

7 hours ago, scherado said:

Quite. All my opinions and judgements are based upon my critical analysis skills, which may include exquisite referent analysis and knowledge of Micheal Mann's legerdemain.

Considering your tendency to ignore dissenting views, which are crucial to critical analyses, I will carefully raise my doubts here.

 

7 hours ago, scherado said:

Do you know anything about Micheal Mann's legerdemain? I'm being kind here.

I assume you misspelled the first name wrong (twice) and mean Michael Mann?. And even so there are quite a few Michael Manns to sift through.  Regarding the topic I assume you mean Michael E Mann who became the focal point of attacks that ultimately proved to be baseless? If so I will double down on my doubts.

[scherado]

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

Regarding the topic I assume you mean Michael E Mann who became the focal point of attacks that ultimately proved to be baseless?

Yes, the man from Penn State, where a relative attends as I type. She still doesn't know who he is, which I can't explain.

I don't recall reading anything about his actual falsification of data being "proved to be baseless." Would you care to share that "proof"?--of course, I mean persuasive evidence, as proofs are the domain of mathematics.

I repeat, would you care to share that persuasive evidence that he didn't falsify data?

Let's be clear: I was being kind when I used the word "legerdemain".

Are you aware that Mr. Mann has failed to present any evidence in the 5-year-long legal case being adjudicated in, I think, several courts between him and Mark Steyn?

[Area54]

18 minutes ago, scherado said:

I don't recall reading anything about his actual falsification of data being "proved to be baseless."

You should broaden your reading patterns, in that case. This wikipedia page has an adequate summary and enough links to get you started. Let us know if you  have difficulty with any of it.

[scherado]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

You should broaden your reading patterns, in that case. This wikipedia page has

I don't acknowledge anything from wiki-pee-D-uh as legitimate. A friend who teaches high school does NOT allow it to be a primary source, but does allow it as secondary. I told him he should reconsider.

Edited October 7, 2017 by scherado

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, scherado said:

I don't acknowledge anything from wiki-pee-D-uh as legitimate. A friend who teaches high school does NOT allow it to be a primary source, but does allow it as secondary. I told him he should reconsider.

It's dangerous indeed to acknowledge anything as legitimate (especially if it's correct) lest it makes one seem foolish.

[John Cuthber]

35 minutes ago, scherado said:

I don't acknowledge anything from wiki-pee-D-uh as legitimate. A friend who teaches high school does NOT allow it to be a primary source, but does allow it as secondary. I told him he should reconsider.

I guess your high school teacher friend can count to two- which seems to put them one up on you.

[Area54]

34 minutes ago, scherado said:

I don't acknowledge anything from wiki-pee-D-uh as legitimate. A friend who teaches high school does NOT allow it to be a primary source, but does allow it as secondary. I told him he should reconsider.

That's perfectly OK with me. I have no objection to you remaining ignorant. I admire consistency.

[scherado]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I guess your high school teacher friend can count to two- which seems to put them one up on you.

Have a nice day.

[CharonY]

@sherado thanks for clarifying that you obviously did not follow the story at all. Saves significant amount of time if one does not have to assume that an actual discussion is possible.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, scherado said:

Yes, the man from Penn State, where a relative attends as I type. She still doesn't know who he is, which I can't explain.

I don't recall reading anything about his actual falsification of data being "proved to be baseless."  

How can that be considered an exhaustive rebuttal? Just because you are not aware of something does not make it true or untrue. If you think his assertions are baseless, it's up to you to provide evidence, or debunk it yourself.

 

[scherado]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How can that be considered an exhaustive rebuttal? Just because you are not aware of something does not make it true or untrue. If you think his assertions are baseless, it's up to you to provide evidence, or debunk it yourself.

It is not an exhaustive rebuttal. What it is, is a damned good  rebuttal, The court case between Mann and Steyn is most illustrative (9.8 on Euphemism Meter.)

9 hours ago, scherado said:

Let's be clear: I was being kind when I used the word "legerdemain".

Are you aware that Mr. Mann has failed to present any evidence in the 5-year-long legal case being adjudicated in, I think, several courts between him and Mark Steyn?

 

[beecee]

On 10/6/2017 at 8:25 PM, scherado said:

Quite. All my opinions and judgements are based upon my critical analysis skills,

Your critical analysis skills, "claims" here and elsewhere, are more likely a figment of your imagination. On another forum I once participated on, we had a member who called himself "The God" and when this moron's many anti scientific errors were pointed out to him, he often claimed "I am never wrong"  

Onto the subject matter, a couple of years ago I remember watching a movie length documentary called "Chasing Ice": Outstanding photography and was the recipient of the Emmy award in 2014. I recommend anyone that has not seen it to make an effort. It's stunning visual photography and the overwhelming empirical evidence and science as presented is excellent. https://chasingice.com/

It certainly convinced a couple of previously sceptical mates of mine and one has turned a complete circle and is now a member of Greenpeace. 

Edited October 8, 2017 by beecee

[Essay]

13 hours ago, scherado said:

I don't recall reading anything about his actual falsification of data being "proved to be baseless." Would you care to share that "proof"?--of course, I mean persuasive evidence, as proofs are the domain of mathematics.

Though not persuasive, I was aware of the report’s online controversy, and my impression of what actually happened was mostly formed through occasional updates from the mainstream science journals.  If I recall correctly:

Somebody questioned part of the hockeystick data, which had been adjusted to compensate for the effect of the “recent” rise in CO2 on tree growth.  That happens in science—where somebody will challenge some data or methods or conclusions—and it’s the way science is supposed to work.

The work was examined and reviewed, as is normally done in science, and Mann’s accounting for recent tree-growth changes was found to be valid. And those changes were also verified later by other researchers.

Due to the controversy, that subset of data under scrutiny was removed from the final, as well as updated versions, of the hockeystick graph.  But even when the questioned data was removed from the final report, the overall shape of the graph remained the same—as a hockeystick.  Did you know that?

Though questioned, the famous graph was never invalidated in the real world.  And it remains valid to this day in the world of verifiably-sourced information.  Other reconstructions of temperatures over the past few millennia show a similar hockeystick pattern—as do graphs of our greenhouse gas emissions.

~