DescentBB

the lithosphere may emit directly into the atmosphere at least 600 Mt CO2/year (about 10% of the C source due to deforestation and land-use
exchange), an estimate we still consider conservative.\"

Well, if I have down the numbers correctly that's still only more than 2% of the anthropogenic emissions (see last page of your paper).

woodchip wrote:From which I referenced your post earlier:

not sure I understand you, Woody. You brought up Latif first with your link to the Daily Mail article. The thing you just quoted was my response to *your* earlier post (the article where Latif sets the record straight). Again, I didn't bring up Latif --- You did.

Pandora wrote:

woodchip wrote:From which I referenced your post earlier:

not sure I understand you, Woody. You brought up Latif first with your link to the Daily Mail article. The thing you just quoted was my response to *your* earlier post (the article where Latif sets the record straight). Again, I didn't bring up Latif --- You did.

My bad. Guess I didn't go back far enough.

Pandora wrote:

the lithosphere may emit directly into the atmosphere at least 600 Mt CO2/year (about 10% of the C source due to deforestation and land-use
exchange), an estimate we still consider conservative."

Well, if I have down the numbers correctly that's still only more than 2% of the anthropogenic emissions (see last page of your paper).

Well, lets post a couple other items from the abstract:

"Adding the
known output from active volcanoes (Table 1) and
gas vents (Table 2), the total geological CO2 emission
in Italy would be in the order of 20–60 Mt/year, 5–
15% of the national anthropogenic emissions"

So in one country we see a possible 15% influx of co2 from natural sources. Or we can look at:

"Assuming a geological flux of 1 to 10 kg m 2
year 1 for this area, the global non-volcanic CO2
output would be in the order of 10 squared–10cubed Mt/year."

So here we see upwards of 1 gigaton of co2 being introduced by non volcanic biogenic sources. Not so insignificant anymore and the climate models do not factor it in:

"an amount no longer negligible in a refined global C-budget modelling. Based on the conservative estimates used, this figure should be considered a lower limit."

Hmmm...lower limit. I'll let you the reader define what those two words imply. So as I have been trying to point out, there needs to done a lot more work on how much nature and how much man kind are putting into the atmosphere. Which brings up another thought, if so much is unclear as to min/max values of biopogenic introduced co2's, how is the data being massaged...er "tabulated" to show what man is causing? How are the measurements being taken? Are there also min/max extrapolations and the warmers are using the high end values in their models? More later

Pandora wrote:
But this is not the only reason for the credibility problem of climate science. There *is* a widespread and well funded smear campaign against climate science that is, however, camouflaged as a grassroots movement of climate sceptics.

Well the problem of credulity lies with the promoters of climate warming. Perhaps if they were more forth-coming on their data and how it was used, the sceptics might be more forth coming. It is little things like the Himalayan glacier melting lie and how it was used by the UN IPOCC. Then we now have:

"The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 004936.ece

Lies and obfuscation seem to be the imprint of the climate warming crowd. Is it any wonder we are skeptical? Will all this be like the acid rain rant by environmentalists of 30+ years ago?

Woodchip wrote:Adding the known output from active volcanoes (Table 1) and gas vents (Table 2), the total geological CO2 emission in Italy would be in the order of 20–60 Mt/year, 5–15% of the national anthropogenic emissions.

Oh come on, this is cherry picking now. Italy has freaking many volcanoes and vents. The GLOBAL volcanic/lithospheric emissions are important. And the paper quite clearly says that they are still only more than 2% of the anthropogenic emissions, even if this number is conservative.

So here we see upwards of 1 gigaton of co2 being introduced by non volcanic biogenic sources. Not so insignificant anymore and the climate models do not factor it in.

Well, the paper is from 2002. Are you sure that the models don't factor it in? Also, have you checked whether any other papers have subsequently proven this claim wrong? Third, is there any increase in volcanic output that coincides with the recent warming?

how is the data being massaged...er "tabulated" to show what man is causing? How are the measurements being taken? Are there also min/max extrapolations and the warmers are using the high end values in their models?

Yeah, I know, they are all frauds and liars.

woodchip wrote:Well the problem of credulity lies with the promoters of climate warming. Perhaps if they were more forth-coming on their data and how it was used, the sceptics might be more forth coming.

LOL. NASA has tried that. When McIntire found a very inconsequential error it was blown out of all proportion. Climate change is lie, they are fudging the data, etc.

It is little things like the Himalayan glacier melting lie and how it was used by the UN IPOCC.

Which lie? The IPCC f*cked up there, but it is certainly isn't a lie. Note that a climate scientist and IPCC reviewer was the first to point the error out. Also, note that it was not in the Working Group 1 report ("the scientific basis"), was not put into the Synthesis report (the summary of the whole 3000 pages), and not in the Summary for policy makers. If it were maliciously used by the IPCC you would think they would give it a more prominent position.

The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 004936.ece

Do you have a primary source for this? Have been reading this as well, but can't find anything definate. The story seems to originate from one Jonathan Leake, but he only says "from reading the emails, the ICO believes that ..."

Lies and obfuscation seem to be the imprint of the climate warming crowd.

So, if there are a few who fucked up or were not ethical, the whole 'crowd' is evil? [edit:]And as far as I know, the FOIA request in question concerned EMAILS not data.

Pandora wrote:
So, if there are a few who **** up or were not ethical, the whole 'crowd' is evil? [edit:]And as far as I know, the FOIA request in question concerned EMAILS not data.

Care to re-think that?:

"A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced."

"Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue."

"Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-­Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up"."

And to be fair:

"The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... es-chinese

It is interesting that ever since the email scandal we are getting more and more info on how the climate warming game was played.

This just keeps getting better. Headline:

\"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995\"

\"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.\"

\"And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.\"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nised.html


So the head cheese of the global warming cult has come out and said global warming is a fraud. Care to comment now Pandora?

haven't forgotten, Woody, just traveling and extremely busy right now. I'll comment more when I am back.

Again, double check your sources. Jones has been quite misrepresented. For example, with regard to the 15 year trend he said that there is a positive trend that is close to significance, but that 15 years is still too short a time span. Also the other statements your article attributes to him are not accurate. Don't have time to look into this closer right now, though, so apologies for this hit and run post.

edit: here's what Jones actually said:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Quite close still is not \"statistically significant\".
Then we have to look at where some of the temp. data recording devices were placed:

\"John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and once a ranking member of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the temperature records have been compromised and cannot be relied on. The findings of weather stations that collected temperature data were distorted by location. Several were located near air-conditioning units and on waste-treatment plants; one was next to a waste incinerator. Still another was built at Rome's international airport and catches the hot exhaust of taxiing jetliners.\"

All in all, the climate warming scandal is just that as more and more of the skeptics data is being made public. Trying to defend bad, politically motivated science will not magically make it acceptable.

woodchip wrote:All in all, the climate warming scandal is just that as more and more of the skeptics data is being made public.

Oh well, the skeptics are really riding the wave of the email scandal. But you are mistaking making lots of noise with actually having a point.

"John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and once a ranking member of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the temperature records have been compromised and cannot be relied on. The findings of weather stations that collected temperature data were distorted by location. Several were located near air-conditioning units and on waste-treatment plants; one was next to a waste incinerator. Still another was built at Rome's international airport and catches the hot exhaust of taxiing jetliners."

This might be a valuable argument if
a) the misplacement would actually affect the temperature record. It does not. People have actually looked at this and found that the badly placed stations let it appear cooler rather than warmer, if anything. Google Menne et al., 2010 --- t hey are actually using Antony Watts (sceptic par excellance) station ratings for their analysis.
b) the satellite records would not confirm the warming trend (but they do). So there are many independent sources of information verifying the conclusion. So Christy is spewing FUD (if he has not been misrepresented, what would not surprise me).

woodchip wrote:Quite close still is not "statistically significant".

the actual significance level is quite important. It tells you how likely it is whether the apparent warming trend is just random noise.

Standard significance is typically .05 (so we can be 95% sure that the warming trend is not just noise). If the actual signidicance level is .07, for example, it will not be called "significant" but the basic math is the same. We can be 93% sure that the signal is not just noise.

And again, if there is no significant result it does not mean that there is no warming trend, or that the warming has stopped. It means that there may be one that we can't *detect* over such short time frames. And of course, we do detect it if we pick a longer window...

Problem is it is not only Christy but the head guru Jones saying the warming scam is just that...a scam. While there may be \"some\" data that points to a \"possible\" warming trend, there is no longer a conclusive agreement that the warming is even occurring. While I understand the Algore crowd promoted the illusion and was hoping to make a lotta denaros off a Inconvenient Ruse, fact of the matter there is no longer enough evidence to promote cap and scalp policies. Perhaps Big Al should give back his Oscar and his Nobel Peace Prize and instead be awarded a plastic trophy for con man of the decade.

Heh, I heard $500 million denaros last year...

woodchip wrote:Problem is it is not only Christy but the head guru Jones saying the warming scam is just that...a scam.

not sure where you got this from. Read his actual BBC interview, not what the sceptic noise machine makes of it. Here's the part of his quote the deniers like to omit:

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

So, no, he did not not at all say that gw is a scam or that it has stopped in 1995. The only way someone could conclude something like this from his interview is either:
a) he is completely dishonest.
b) he doesn't have any idea of statistics.

While there may be "some" data that points to a "possible" warming trend, there is no longer a conclusive agreement that the warming is even occurring.

That's so wrong its not even funny. There is nothing in the data that would support that the warming has stopped or that it is not occuring. We only need a certain amount of time to detect it. The warming signal is clear and significant for 20 and 30 year time frames. Going 15 years back is too short, at least when using the CRU database, which does not record from the 20% of the warmest regions of the earth (the far north). But have a look at GISS, for example, that covers this area, and you'll find your significant warmign signal even with 15 years. Similarly, if you include deep ocean warming (that is not included in either GISS or CRU) you find the clear warming signal over 15 years.

Woody, here are some updated on the last few issues you raised.

Woodchip wrote:"The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 004936.ece

Turns out this is misreading of the relevant documents. The ICO officer just stated that the emails suggest that an offense has been committed (deleting of emails), but that the investigation is still in process.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/pre ... nse+to+UEA
By the way, the reporter you quote this from (Jonathan Leake) has a long history of misinterpretation/faked citations. He even wrote once that Richard Dawkins would support a book on Astrology! He even misrepresents the climate sceptics when their claims are not strong enough for his tastes. Let me know if you want some links.

Next one:

woodchip wrote:Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

To which i replied that no station were dropped, but that conversely the data of some stations is simply not available yet. Moreover, since temperature changes over time are the issue and not absolute temperature, it should not matter whether the stations are in cool or warm locations.

Two guys - one sceptic and one warmist - have now done the number crunching, and --- surprise!!! --- both find independent of one another that the fewer stations in recent years do not increase the warming trend (if anything, the fewer stations make it appear colder than it really was).

Summarized here:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/ef ... tion-data/

This episode clearly shows how the denial industry operates. Find something that *seems* weird in the data, point it out with much fanfare and proclaim fraud, but don't tell people the underlying reasons. Most of all, just show them a possible error, but not how it affects the data when you do the actual number crunching --- otherwise it would be revealed as the hot air that it really is. And all this funded by a right wing think thank...

And you are sure you are not being had?

\"Blizzards have hit the French Mediterranean coast amid warnings of up to 20 inches of snow in Northern Spain on Tuesday. \"

Sure you are not being had?

Because there is bad wheather somewhere? Is this all you got?

edit: just to give you a global perspective: Note sure what GISS and HadCrut say but according to the UAH satellite index, this February was the second warmest February on record.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/ua ... #more-9733

Somewhere? We had record snowfalls all over the US, Britain and China. Now we have Blizzards in the Mediterranean areas. I suppose when we are buried in 500 feet of snow and ice you will still be dragging out data showing how warm the planet is getting.

These regions are still not the world. Again, look at the global perspective
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/giste ... 00&pol=reg
if the links works it should show January 2010 temps by GISS on a map of the world (Feb not available yet). As you can see there are some quite focal cold regions but most of the world is warmer than 1995 (isn't this your new favourite baseline period?)

Haven't we gone over how the data collecting stations themselves are suspect?

no they are not. Read my posts above. Several people have now looked at this (including some skeptics) and they do NOT find any higher warming on the so-called bad stations --- in fact, if anything, people find the reverse. The 'bad' stations show less warming than the good ones. If you threw them out you would have even more recent warming.

Moreover, the link I posted above goes to sattelite data, which are not affected by any bad stations. Actually, the link goes to a record that is curated by a skeptic (Dr. Roy Spencer) --- even he finds record warmth this February.

This whole 'bad sations are causing the warming' meme is just nonsense without a leg to stand on. You can see this in Anthony Watts (from Watts up with that fame). He's the main guy claiming that bad stations would inflate the warming, but he hasn't published any data supporting this for several years, even though it has been promised for all this time. In fact, he is now threatening to sue people who want to do these analyses using his station ratings --- I wonder why?

Well now that you brought up Dr Spencer, you may want to read here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

While he may say Feb was the \"warmest\" the question is by how much and how bad was the data used:

\"Also, as some pointed out, the UHI (Urban heat Islands...my insertion)warming will vary with time of day, season, geography, wind conditions, etc. These are all mixed in together in my averages. But the fact that a UHI signal clearly exists without any correction for these other effects means that the global warming over the last 100 years measured using daily max/min temperature data has likely been overestimated. This is an important starting point, and its large-scale, big-picture approach complements the kind of individual-station surveys that Anthony Watts has been performing.\"

In short, there seems to be problems by having temp. sensors located around population centers of LOW density rather than of high density. Spencer points out that \"This is important because most weather observation sites have relatively low population densities: in my data-set, I find that one-half of all stations have population densities below 100 persons per sq. km.\". While I have not digested all that is in my link, there does appear to be a built in bias for more rapid temp. increase due to low density areas experiencing a more rapid temp. increase with a little population increase as opposed to a larger density area needing a much higher population increase...at least according to Dr Spencer.

Also as to Feb. Spencer also states: \"Since the errors are largest in February (almost 0.13 C), we believe that February is the appropriate month to introduce v5.3 where readers will see the differences most clearly.\" The following graph shows how removing the errors affects averages:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... s_v5.3.pdf

Feel free to point out if I am in error as to my understanding Of what Dr Spencer is trying to impart.

Not quite sure if I understand what you want to say, but if I understand correctly you are throwing together two things:

While he may say Feb was the \"warmest\" the question is by how much and how bad was the data used:

February being the 2nd warmest is derived from his satellite data, which is NOT affected by the heat island effect. So what you write below does not change anything about Feb being the 2nd warmest. Your quote below refers to the surface station data:

\"Also, as some pointed out, the UHI (Urban heat Islands...my insertion)warming will vary with time of day, season, geography, wind conditions, etc. These are all mixed in together in my averages. But the fact that a UHI signal clearly exists without any correction for these other effects means that the global warming over the last 100 years measured using daily max/min temperature data has likely been overestimated.

Everybody knows that there is an urban warming effect and it it is already corrected for (i.e. the temperature record subtracts this effect from the data). People who has looked at the analysis (e.g. by comparing warming in rural and urban stations) finds that GISS overcorrects, if anything. That is, they remove more from the warming trend than can be attributed to urban warming.

See for a recent attempt, here:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/in ... hi-signal/
(from Lucia's Blackboard --- my favorite skeptic blog: they really look at the data and not just sling allegiations around)

woodchip wrote:"Since the errors are largest in February (almost 0.13 C), we believe that February is the appropriate month to introduce v5.3 where readers will see the differences most clearly." The following graph shows how removing the errors affects averages:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... s_v5.3.pdf

Feel free to point out if I am in error as to my understanding Of what Dr Spencer is trying to impart.

Well, as far as I can tell from this chart, removing the errors still shows February as the second warmest. It is the 2nd warmest no matter how you look at it (in the UAH satellite record --- as I said, GISS and HadCRUT are not in yet). If I remember correctly that was exactly the point of the link I posted above.

By the way, read this with regard to why high snow fall does not automatically equal very cold temperatures; it can also come from high water vapor content.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-re ... rming.html

update: GISS february data is in; they also show this February as the second warmest in the recorded temperature history.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/gi ... n-january/

i can't believe this thread is still going.

Do we need to go back through the thread collecting every single claim by Woodchip & co, and then write becide them all the correction:, whether it be to correct a quotemine by quoting the FULL quote, or whatever.

I mean holy ★■◆● man. I just read through the first 2 pages, there are nothing but woodchip repeating some quotingmined quote he probably heard from FOX, a rightwing blog, or some other demonstratably dishonest source. Followed by Pandora giving the correct quote in context and effectively making one wonder about the honesty of whoever did the original quotemine in the first place.

And yet the thread continues on for 8 pages?
Woodchip - just how many of these quotemined quotes do you have to be corrected on before you realise that you have bad sources - and actually start to fact-check this ★■◆● YOURSELF? If i were in your position in the first 2 pages alone i would have seen this thread as a personal embarrassment to my own ability to rationally absorb and audit information - i would have been angry that i was so dishonestly manipulated by my sources - and after sending angry emails to said sources - i would would change said sources to something more reliable!

But not you woodchip, you just keep going, seemingly oblivious... is it cognitive dissonance? Holy ★■◆● man, WHAT EXACTLY IS IT THAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Is there no cure to your STUPIDITY?!
20 pages here we come.

I challenge any rational person to read the first few pages of this thread and not come to the exact same conclusion.

Perhaps Roid you should try reading more than 2 pages and try to comprehend the whole issue. Pandora says the data is good. I say only to a point and that any data massaged to favor a political viewpoint is no longer good. You got something specific to add please do so. Otherwise stop trolling.

but you did not provide any evidence for any massagin of data. You pointed to some allegiations of fraud that later on turned out to be misunderstandings of the science or clear dishonesty.

e.g., claim: NASA drops inconvenient stations to inflate the warming. truth: he station data has not come in yet, and the missing stations actually show a bigger warming trend than the ones that have come in.

e.g., claim: Trenberth is saying the warming has stopped. Truth: he has saying we need a better system that also includes ocean warming to detect it on shorter time scales.

e.g., claim: Jones admits warming has stopped. Truth: he says we cannot detect it reliably on short time scales (15 years), but that it is close to significance even on short time scales.

These three points were demonstrable falsehood promoted by the deniers. And these are just three examples of the stuff we talked about in this thread. I think Roids point is valid: do you really want to go on trusting these sources?

Pandora wrote:
e.g., claim: Jones admits warming has stopped. Truth: he says we cannot detect it reliably on short time scales (15 years), but that it is close to significance even on short time scales.

Heh, so you want to dictate policies like Carbon Tax based on a statement like the above? Close to significance? What the heck does that mean? It means the data taken so far has no real meaning other than some potential for future acknowledged warming in maybe a hundred years if warming keeps trending upward. Next year we could start seeing the absence of solar storms and for the next 40 years experience a cooling trend. If you are going to base your science on "significance" then you should go buy Interplay stock 'cause I hear there is a significant chance they will produce another Descent game and it will be a run away best seller.

The "crappiness" of the warming promoters is exhibited by:

Stephen Schneider wrote:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some roadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that
means being both."

I guess scaring dupes like Roid is how good science is carried out. Or:

Quote:
"Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Again, lets scare and then lets keep out any refutation that a monster lurks under the bed. Your reply Pandora was to read the emails in full and that the skeptics work was crap. Care to point where that is said instead of having us take your word for it?

I just wanna say I was being cracked on for my knowledge of the Carbon Tax for a while. (damn conspiracy theories, anyway.)

woodchip wrote:Perhaps [...insert name of your choice ...] you should try reading more than 2 pages and try to comprehend the whole issue. ... blah blah ... stop trolling ... blah ...

{observes there are 8 or more total pages hashing and re-hashing the topic}...

All that hash, rehash, back pedal, restate, accuse, blame, and misinterpreting ??? Only if the person doesn't have any life to live for.

woodchip wrote:

Pandora wrote:
e.g., claim: Jones admits warming has stopped. Truth: he says we cannot detect it reliably on short time scales (15 years), but that it is close to significance even on short time scales.

Heh, so you want to dictate policies like Carbon Tax based on a statement like the above?

Carbon Tax was not the issue. The issue is that your sources have willfully misrepresented Jones' views. Do you not see this?

edit: lets clear this point up first before we move to other issues. Can I have a clear statement of you whether you agree or not that your sources have misrepresented his views? The same goes for the other two examples I raised above.

Pandora, Let me repost this graph to remind you and all your warmer buddies out there how specious the man made global warming scam is. After looking at the graph please tell me:

1) If we are warmer or cooler than we were for the last 8,000 years

2) If man caused the warming for the last 8,000 years

3) By looking back a 1,000 years would you say we are in a cooling period or a warming period

As even Jones admits, a scant 15 year period of time does not offer a \"significant\" time period to detect if warming or cooling is going on.

As to whether statements from the emails were highlited, yes they were. Does it change the fact the involved scientist were playing to a agenda, no it does not.

So you are completely sidestepping the issue whether your sources (or you, I don't know) have presented accurate accounts of the three examples above? Does truth in reporting (even to us here on the BB) not matter at all?

And while we are at it, we have to look at the willy nilly urge to fix things. On the one hand we have the \"Fixers\" proposing to spread iron fertilizer on the oceans to stimulate algal growth which in turn the algae would absorb more CO2. Upon investigation, the increase in algal growth would generate toxins that:

\"Now researchers have shown that the algae increase production of a nerve poison that can kill mammals and birds.\"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8569351.stm

So in two words I will sum up the whole idiocy of trying to manipulate mother nature so even our Aussie lover boy Roid can understand...Cane Toads

Pandora wrote:So you are completely sidestepping the issue whether your sources (or you, I don't know) have presented accurate accounts of the three examples above? Does truth in reporting (even to us here on the BB) not matter at all?

Are you saying the graph is a hoax?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=10783