To start with Dan, that is actually lying by the selection of terms.

There is some very slight reduction in the alkalinity of the ocean. They have so far to go before they even get near to neutral, to talk of acidification is choosing to try to use scare tactics to exaggerate a totally non problem. The whole argument is one developed by carpet baggers, looking to justify research grants to prove a fallacy, & is totally dishonest.

ant,

So you reckon that the German government are climate deniers as well as they are building HELE coal generation to balance out the renewables? The Chinese and Japanese too?

The cost of renewables is coming down, but still needs huge subsidies and back up. While batteries are becoming cheaper, they are still a long way from being viable on a large scale.

There needs to be a war fraught for the ownership and control of the oceans.
The motivation for that war must be set in its salvation from abuse!

Chinese have declared the war in the South China Sea. They among all contenders must be roundly defeated, or we all die a death with the dying oceans!

Ant

I see that the word of the 'scientist' is infallible to you. Unfortunatley thinking people question. The numerous false, inaccurate, failed false model reveals your faith as non scientific and untrustworthy. Since creation the climate has always been changing. We have had a massive flood and towns wiped out by fire. IN fact man's morals or should I say immorality has affected the climate more than your mythical perception.

mhaze

Cosmic rays and sun activity has been posited many times in the past influencing climate and shown not to be the case.

I'm aware that a particular denier site has spruiked the role of the sun and cosmic rays.
Are you able to provide a reliable source, I used Google Scholar and came up with one study, though it took some effort to find it.

Deniers argue that there is comparatively little CO2 in the atmosphere; Carbon 14 is extremely rare in comparison to CO2.

mhaze, you are abusive towards Cook et al, and misrepresented their study; they provided a supplementary document to show how they arrived at their conclusions.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112017/thanksgiving-family-climate-denial-global-warming-science-answers?utm_source=InsideClimate+News&utm_campaign=e3b8abd787-Weekly+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-e3b8abd787-327850601

Quote:

"Some of the misinformation that creeps into the doubters' discussions are the lingering leftovers of years of deliberate peddling of misinformation, often by fossil fuel interests."

Also,

"The national climate report found "no convincing evidence" of this. Solar fluctuations "have been too small to explain the observed changes in climate" in the past 60 years."

The National Climate Report was a very major report published at the end of 2017.

A scientist comments on Svensmark's latest paper:

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/12/no-supernovae-arent-changing-earths-climate/

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

Quote:

"A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere."

I think the point of the thread is that there are a plethora of bogus studies being published with respect to global warming with dire predictions and the media laps this up.

The consequence of this is that as the more extreme predictions fail to occur, many people simply stop listening. The other consequence is that electrical power is becoming vastly more expensive, and less reliable which for most people reduces disposable income, and destroys jobs.