Sadly, this approach elicits an endless "yes it is. No, it isn't." because it requires more research to verify than most are likely to do. Besides, no credibility can remain to an idea which has predicted near term climate catastrophe for about a third of a century.
However wrong the AGW supporters might be, they do raise a valid point. Since we don't know if there are consequences to our adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, caution suggests we examine ways of removing the carbon should we wish to. And Iron fertilization would be incredibly cheap, quick and easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...
(Short version: iron is not very soluble in ocean water and is commonly a deficient nutrient there. Adding iron causes microscopic plants to multiply. The plants absorb carbon and a significant number sink, sequestering the carbon on the ocean floor. Nor is this just theory. Every part has been observed as natural processes or as experimental results. The overall method has been observed both ways.)
This would solve not only AGW but ocean acidification as well, should either show up.
I'm sure the pH of the ocean will go up as more carbon dioxide is dissolved in it, just like there is less water vapor in the atmosphere as the planetary temperature goes up.
It's a bizarro world for deniers.
EDIT to Kano: You're happy to accept character assassination based on an obviously biased blog--I'm not. If someone believes that the science in a paper is incorrect they should not "publish" the views on a blog--they should publish in a journal, preferably the journal where the original work was published.
Another EDIT: Kano and other deniers are always throwing out "data manipulation." These are people that have no experience working with data in the first place. I would love to pass along some real data to them, perhaps from a medical MRI, and see what they could do with it. I'm quite certain they wouldn't know what to do with it. They'd tell us that there everything in the MRI is the result of "data manipulation". And they'd take the raw data and turn it to something completely useless, like Wallace did.
I believe that Mike Wallace is on to something here, Kano. Should we not like the direction that the global economy is headed then we can just add any data that we think needs to be included. This way the global economy is not as bad as what the economists are telling us that it is. This would solve everything! Oh snap! This would not change anything that is happening in the real world, would it?
Kano, are you trying to tell us that atmospheric CO2 levels are not rising?
Perhaps you are trying to us that our oceans are not this planet's largest carbon sink. Is that what you are trying to tell us?
Perhaps you are trying to tell us that as the oceans absorb more CO2 that this would not lead to an acidification of the oceans. Is that it, Kano? Would that not violate The Laws of Chemistry and The Laws of Thermodynamics? When you violate these laws you will get more than just a verbal reminder.
What is that you are trying to telling us here, Kano? Is it that your repeated, misleading questions and answers border on fraud? Are you trying to see if we would recognize fraud when see it so that you will know how far you are able to push your own form of fraud? I give up, Kano. What are you trying to tell us?
I do think Dr. Sabine's response (inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science) was unprofessional. I might agree questioning motives is not appropriate but questioning quality is appropriate.
the oceans are dying . the earth is dying . humanity is dying .
sure. wuwt is the fraud.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/23/touchy-feely-science-one-chart-suggests-theres-a-phraud-in-omitting-ocean-acidification-data-in-congressional-testimony/
