Dumb like a cruel, rich, bloated, shortsighted, uncaring, corporate faux.

We should continue to Occupy the World and hold spontaneous Shame Them Demonstrations to idiots like this wherever they occur. Citizen video online.

I swear its time to ask what do you know and what have you learned for the People's benefit? Sadly, I don't think they will cough up much but pressure on is the next directive for a dying empire! Live to see another day.

Collapse of shrimp has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. As recently as last year studies were showing highest toxicity to life at base of food chain from Corexit 9500. Would you rather flog dire warming predictions of the future ( want a deal on a crystal ball ? ) than have a look at the poisoning which has been plaguing the Gulf of Mexico ?

The old "the sooner we die the sooner we get to heaven" syndrome.

http://www.climate.gov/n...co-and-ocean-circulation
http://oldephartte.blogs...-search-corexit_931.html
There's lots more on corexit in sidebar link lists and old posts. YouTube is wild when searching for health complaints from people living in the area.

John Farnham said @ 4:

Collapse of shrimp has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. As recently as last year studies were showing highest toxicity to life at base of food chain from Corexit 9500. Would you rather flog dire warming predictions of the future ( want a deal on a crystal ball ? ) than have a look at the poisoning which has been plaguing the Gulf of Mexico ?

For one, we've covered the shrimp collapse in the Gulf of Mexico and the other effects of Corexit for some time, in a fair bit of detail in the Green News Report, etc.

That said, the collapse of the shrimp species in the Gulf of Maine is not based on "dire warming predictions of the future", but on the current collapse of the species there right now, died to warming waters, as discussed in the article I linked to in the article UPDATE above (which, in turn, links to the actual scientific report which cites it).

Unless you are suggesting that the species collapse in the Gulf of Maine is related to the Correxit sprayed in the Gulf of Mexico, or that there is some other reason for it, the unprecedented ocean warming and acidification is not a "crystal ball" issue, despite what seems to be an interest of yours in marginalizing the very real, very right now effects of global warming. If it's because of your political leanings, or something, I'm sorry. But that doesn't change the scientific facts as they exist.

" If it's because of your political leanings, or something" If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, hm ?

The stocks have collapsed before. That is significant. Partial attribution is made to AGW. Are you riding on that ? I merely note it's thin beer. Rather nobody is claiming to have a handle on the situation.
The collapse of plankton - starving shrimp - would be cause enough for decline. And looking at that reminded me of effects of corexit 'upstream' on the most minute life forms .
Is there any reason to think one guess any better than another - when that's all that they are ?

We will continue to disagree on AGW. I find it absolutely wild that people continue to clamour online while in the 'real world' you hear nothing...except derision should you bring up the topic. It does not help that even IPCC 'assessments' ( read up on the process of generating those synopses for some eye openers about dysfunctional protocols ) are exaggerated by environmental awareness branded 'reports' that are little more than yellow journalism. In any case there is little effort to appreciate how poorly models perform even when there is some reason to think the process of forming them is comprehensive and impartial rather than conforming to specified prior acceptable results.
On a water world with the brief timelines of observation and sparseness of measurements one real bugaboo should not be overlooked : not just water as clouds and snow and changing albedo but as a reservoir of incalculable amounts of heat and motion. Anyone who has lived by water knows what a radiator it is. In fact, lack of water in the air - desert - is a cause of susceptibility to wild temperature swings.
It was ignoring such simple facts that threw glaciation projections astray : direction and moisture content of winds aloft.
When I was a boy I read about The Boy Who Cried Wolf and Chicken Little. When I was older I heard about Malthus and about other vital concerns.
I still have many, but also still consider the source.
In the geopolitics of energy lies would be the least of offenses. The 'Axis if Evil' would be the first to agree.

Uh, OK John... if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance...

....dazzle them with word salad.(Except for the dazzle part.)

yep dumber than a box crap. be proud of your gubmner maine.. yuk yuk yuk

John Farnam said @ 8:

The collapse of plankton - starving shrimp - would be cause enough for decline. And looking at that reminded me of effects of corexit 'upstream' on the most minute life forms .
Is there any reason to think one guess any better than another - when that's all that they are ?

And the "collapse of plankton" is attributed to warming and ocean acidification, so maybe I miss your point? But its interesting that you're certain Corexit is responsible for shrimp collapse in the Gulf of Mexico (because scientists told you as much), but AGW isn't responsible for shrimp collapse in the Gulf of Maine (even though scientists told you as much.)

Confirmation bias sure does lead to some swell cherry picking for you deniers, eh?

even IPCC 'assessments' ( read up on the process of generating those synopses for some eye openers about dysfunctional protocols ) are exaggerated by environmental awareness branded 'reports' that are little more than yellow journalism.

Barring any actual evidence to support that assertion, you just made a yellow "comment". For the record, if anything, the IPCC report(s) are extremely conservative. So not sure what this "exaggerat[ion] by environmental awareness branding 'reports'" nonsense is even supposed to mean.

In any case there is little effort to appreciate how poorly models perform even when there is some reason to think the process of forming them is comprehensive and impartial rather than conforming to specified prior acceptable results.

Also, a whole bunch of BS in row (shy of any evidence to support your silly claim.)

The rest of your comment is little less than many words that, actually, don't appear to say anything at all, so I won't bother responding. Good luck though! Seems you're rather adapt of convincing yourself of anything. The Fossil Fuel companies playing you for a stooge are much obliged!

" the IPCC report(s) are extremely conservative"
Certainly they can be represented as such : and have been. Did you miss out on the part where none of this forecasting can be validated except by claiming success at 'hindcasting' ? And that by using fudge factors of magnified specified effect on water energy transmissions to achieve the desired results.
Where did you see that shrimp die off was attributed to climate change ? It was listed as a likely contributory factor. In any case, I have no issue with climate change. It's been doing that forever.
What I do question heartily is the proposition we can ignore unknowns in our rush to conclusions.
Certainly it is an odd consensus of scientists that ignores uncertainty. Such is the foundation of arriving at reasonable conclusions. You do not get to shortcut the process by claiming the elect wise people by themselves fulfill the requirements for questioning suppositions.

john farnham @13--

You use a lot of words to say very little.

Believe what you need to. I believe you're not paying attention in a most suicidal way.

Is that what you call it when a chap says somebody who represents he can foretell the future because he can foretell the past is trading on your gullibility ?

No.

That's what I call it when someone doesn't acknowledge scientific consensus, what he's probably observing with his own senses, something besides his own bias.

From the IPCC report:

(emphasis added)

The degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific
understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible,
probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Confidence in the validity of
a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory,
models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement1. Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in a
finding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment2. Where appropriate,
findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased...

"It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed since the mid-20th century."

Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
understanding of the climate system.

Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in
the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.

etc., etc., etc.