Global warming deniers, can you also deny ocean acidification?

Clell Adams wrote:

To OP: Just thought about this: Have you reduced your own carbon footprint? Explain if you have.

I installed new windows in my home, I use a netbook most of the time, I eat a lot less beef than I used to, I drink water from the tap instead of bottles, I cold wash my cloths, and I replaced all my lights with cfls.

Also I'm going to post this again:

There is no evidence of conspiracy.

I'm not very political, but I take a step back from those who are hysterical, particularly about the so called end of the world.

The people crying doom will leave this earth first. The earth will be fine. Get over yourself.

TCB wrote:

Also I'm going to post this again:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66627120100707

There is no evidence of conspiracy.

That's great you posted that link again. Once again, is that a panel you can trust? I say no. The persons on the panel have a clear conflict of interest.

If you can't point to another article that uses another set of criteria for evaluating the mails were not hiding stuff, then you can't say the panel's decision is worth a carbon credit (aka a three dollar bill). This is the way things are done now. You must not take an articles word for it without another source that seems to be from a truly different source.

You can look at the sources if you wish.

"Three investigations into the affair were initiated in the UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July.[9] The CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, stood aside temporarily from his post during the reviews, then was reinstated in a new position as Director of Research after the reviews cleared him of the most serious charges.[9][10] The investigations concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice and Jones was cleared of any scientific misconduct[11]. They reported that while sharing of data and methods was in line with common scientific practice, it was desirable that there should be greater openness and information sharing.[12] The Select Committee report concluded that "the scientific reputation of Jones and the CRU was untarnished""

TCB wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

You can look at the sources if you wish.

"Three investigations into the affair were initiated in the UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July.[9] The CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, stood aside temporarily from his post during the reviews, then was reinstated in a new position as Director of Research after the reviews cleared him of the most serious charges.[9][10] The investigations concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice and Jones was cleared of any scientific misconduct[11]. They reported that while sharing of data and methods was in line with common scientific practice, it was desirable that there should be greater openness and information sharing.[12] The Select Committee report concluded that "the scientific reputation of Jones and the CRU was untarnished""

Thanks for that link. I will look at that and try to ignore any wikipedia bias in light of this article about wikipedia having many articles edited on the subject.

Every ounce of credibility climate change research had was completely diminished with the leaked emails. Just throw that link away. They had their chance to present true research, but only had motives to decieve. Now we are supposed to believe a new panel that was probably paid by Al Gore to clean up the mess.

Ocean Acidification is just the new wave of propaganda as Gore and co. wave and laugh in their private jets.

Is it good to recycle and clean the environment? Yes

Is it worth forming a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT? No.