You know what the message is Joe.

Some people deliberately distort or misrepresent it.

Others do so unintentionally.

In any event, in msm and on sites like this, it's not about the science - it's about political ideology, socio-cultural fervor or religious belief. Not all mutually exclusive I will add.

That is why the vast majority of scientists working at the coal-face stay away from places like Anthony Cox's blog, or those he links.

You're right - it's a free society, we can read and express our opinions anyway we want. However, with that freedom comes a responsibility to not make stuff up.

But, I am an idiot in arms, what would I know :)

Joe,

Sarcastic as ever.

Good old "democracy" and "freedom of speech" in the age of information. They are wonderful entities to fall back on when we want to puff ourselves up.

"....After all, newspapers and TV stations tend to represent certain class and/or political interests..."

Yer darn tootin' they do - and disseminating junk science to maintain the status quo is something we might expect in the information age where discernment, knowledge and truth often take a back seat to entertainment, spectacle and gossip.

I can sympathise with bonmot. It must be frustrating to watch intelligent people with limited scientific training pontificate as if they knew their stuff while buying into conspiracy theories selectively promoted by various outlets representing the "free press".

So true, and well described, Joe... "most of us are not half-wits. We're not puppets... most of us can read between the lines... We can negotiate the minefields."

And we can recognise when some are acting like Cox.

Leo Lane,
Human emissions, your words.
Nutrients in sewage are emitted from humans, that source and others proliferate ocean micro algae.
In my opinion based on long term observation the effect of the total sewage nutrient loading being produced and emitted by humans is significant, not trivial. That total human sewage nutrient load, grey water nutrients included, is not yet being observed and assessed by science, nor is the associated photosynthesis-linked warmth.
Local not global? El Nino and phenomena linked to South American waters and weather in Australia is linked to nutrients and algae.

cohenite,
I think science about algae, seaweed, phytoplankton, cyanobacteria is confusing.
How can micro ocean algae be cyanobacteria while Lyngbya macro algae is also cyanobacteria?

Should science generalize under circumstances of present fish stock and coral devastation worldwide?

Should ocean micro algae single cell plant matter, and calcium carbonate coccolithophore organisms, both be called phytoplankton?
In my opinion, generalization is dangerous especially at this stage as observation indicates micro algae chlorophyll matter has increased in the past say 50 years, while calcium carbonate and/or zooplankton organisms may have decreased during the same period.
The 50 years involves first hand observation of visibility and light penetration associated with film exposure underwater.
Waters generally are now either more green, greener more often, green noticeable sometimes when not previously, etc.
Look for green in ocean surf water. Look for the now muddy green in river water.

Increased ocean micro algae is linked to increased size and number of ocean dead zones worldwide. How can ‘phytoplankton’ algae now be in decline?

The sewage nutrient loading being dumped daily in world ocean food web ecosystem waters is unprecedented. Is there no reaction from the action?

The question of photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant matter as asked, remains unanswered.

By the way, thanks to the OLO site owner for opportunity to discuss these matters.

JF, we are talking about anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Your assertions are irrelevant to this, and seem to be based purely on your personal opinion.

Much of what you put forward has been shown to have no basis, particularly the assertions about coral, but I will ask whether you have any scientific study to justify your rant. You sound like a greeny.

Well, Poirot, the point about democracy and the freedom of speech is that even idiots like me are entitled to express their opinions in a democracy, just as much as a highly intelligent person such as yourself or Bonmot.

What would be your alternative ? That all opinions are disinfected beforehand by a Committee chosen by Big Brother ? That Wrong Opinion-Holders (WOHs) must regrettably be 'sanctioned', 'subtracted' ? Liquidated ?

The older and grumpier I get, the more inclined I am - as a born Socialist, and an ex-Maoist - to take notice of Hayek's proposal that Socialism and Fascism are directly related, and flow into each other, and the attitude of so many who may think of themselves as socialist in some way does verge towards the fascist. Think of the Soviet Union, China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mengistu's Ethiopia and so many other brave 'experiments' in socialism - didn't they all use many of the same tactics as fascists, and similar excuses for the elimination of out-people (different out-people, to be sure), the non-people who did not fit in with the Grand Social-Historical Plan ?

And wasn't the curtailment of the freedom of speech a cornerstone of their mutual policies ?

Very depressing to see 'progressives' opposed to the freeest of expression, Poirot. But historically, not new :(

Cheers,

Joe