...and asbestos and n-bombs and Vioxx and combustion engines and countless other technologies, Kieran. There are many contributors to human suffering but I suggest the main one is the pursuit of $.

Medical science, by the way, is unlike all others since no two human physiologies are the same. But there's only one climate.

Keiran

Thanks for the link, a good article. You should read what the technical papers have to say!

Where did you get the pre-industrial [CO2] of 335 ppm from? You should be using 280 ppm in your maths.

“Acidification” does NOT mean acid. Absorption of CO2 in rain makes it more acid (carbonic acid) and in sea-water makes the water less alkaline (more acidic). It does not make sea-water acid, comprehend?

Carbonates will dissolve in these less alkaline (more acidic) waters, even at a pH greater than 7.

CO2 is a heat trapping gas, it absorbs and re-irradiates heat. As you put energy into a system it warms. A warming atmosphere means more rain and snow – which must fall somewhere. CO2 stays in the atmosphere much, much longer than water or snow.

The oceans are a heat sink.

If you want to play science, you should at least understand basic school chemistry and physics. You have the gall to argue and challenge simple physics and chemistry with real scientists … give us a break!

Gaaawd, this Professor Schpinkee Q&A, says one minute "you're wasted space" and the next he's teach twisting the meaning of “acidification” or parroting something else to do with putting heat into a system. However, he says my link is to "a good article" and i fully concur because it demonstrates brilliantly how pseudo-science in Australia takes hold. It's all about funding at any cost.

Just see how this report creates alarm with all the expedient gosh, golly, geewiz typical scheming ..... e.g. It clearly sucks and misleads with ... "When carbon dioxide sucked in from the atmosphere dissolves in sea water, it forms a weak acid, making the ocean more acidic." because it is not acidic at all but alkaline.

When you have people off their face with CO2 original sin there can be no implied understanding in any report or "technical papers" that this is normal and natural or simply a case of nature self-regulating in this fashion as it has always done and to be expected? When we have long warming periods such as 20thC we know for a fact that the oceans that contain the bulk of the surface CO2, release this gas and when the climate cycle turns down cooler it just gets re-absorbed. Our emissions of this minuscule amount will have next to no effect on the earth’s CO2 quota let alone it’s temperature. i.e. Oceans reaching a saturation point or turning acidic from minute human CO2 release is misleading nonsense.

ps Professor Schpinkee, go find 335 ppm and don't be such a rote learner.

Keiran, your understanding of maths, chemistry, physics and now comprehension is, umm … telling.
Can you shed any more light on your cosmic ray hypothesis to discount AGW? You were much more credible with your cone hat on.

Professor Schpinkee Q&A said at the top of this thread ... "Come up with a better system to disseminate the science other than in popular magazines, shock-jock media spots or the blogosphere." LOL

With this propagandist SMH article I'm simply insisting that scientists honour their profession by seeking to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge obtained through other means. History also teaches us to be cautious of deductive processes like relying on mathematical models or religious bandwagons like AGW as a starting point. It is so obvious that these Australian scientists here are pushing the alarmist AGW pseudo-science bandwagon to secure funding.

Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this political IPCC, and the alarmist bandwagon behind it, is phony. Their whole process is a swindle but perhaps more shocking is how it thwarts and suppresses legitimate scientific inquiry.

Well the word is not now with some exclusive and powerful group but with people who wish to unravel some exclusive knots. Scientists who genuinely believe in their expertise, have with the internet, an easy, economical and excellent platform to communicate their findings, thoughts, hypotheses, etc and to have them examined quite openly.

“I'm simply insisting that scientists honour their profession by seeking to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge obtained through other means”

What non-scientific methods of obtaining knowledge are acceptable, Kieran? And how might a scientist present such non-scientific research?