Perhaps that 20% (more like 3%) of the scientists might bet their credibility back if they were able to answer the following simple question?

If the Earth isn't getting any hotter, why is it that virtually all the world's glaciers and ice shields are simultaneously melting at rates faster than previously observed in geological history?

You would think that even just one of them might be up to the task of reclaiming their credibility by providing a convincing answer to this simple question, but surprisingly none seem up to the challenge. If there is one, please let us know. I have been asking everywhere for a single person to explain to me how this could happen, but alas I'm beginning to feel like Diogenes of Sinope.

If trust is to be the final arbiter of this debate, how could anyone trust a global warming denier who is unable to answer the following simple question?

If the Earth climate isn't getting hotter, why are virtually all the world's glaciers and ice shields simultaneously melting at rates faster than previously recorded in geological history?

Has anyone seen or heard of even a single global warming denier trying explain how this could happen?

Of the 20% (more like 3%) who argue that the Earth isn't getting any warmer, can anyone find even ONE who can explain why, if its not getting hotter, are virtually all the world's glaciers and ice shields melting a rates faster than seen at any time in geological history?

How can ANY global warming denier be taken seriously, if they can't answer this question?

Just give me ONE global warming denier who can cogently explain why, if the Earth isn't getting any hotter, virtually all the world's glaciers and ice shields are simultaneously melting at rates faster than previously recorded in geological history?

I'm beginning to feel like Diogenes of Sinope. I keep asking this question and still haven't found a single global warming denier who is intellectually honest enough to even confront this question, much less answer it with a cogent explanation steeped in geophysics, or any science at all for that matter.

You really shouldn't have pointed to that article to make your point, since the biggest problem that increase in carbon dioxide causes with respect to the oceans is not the temperature but the acidification created by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and its affects on marine life, both invertebrate and vertebrate. A great many marine animals are highly vulnerable to minute lowering of pH, because in early stages of embryological development low pH inhibits the mechanisms these organisms have evolved to produce calcium-based exoskeletons and endoskeletons.

Given that humans obtain about 50% of all protein consumed from the oceans, that is particularly bad news for Homo sapiens. Even if you like to eat jellyfish, which are less susceptible to this problem, you are still in trouble as many jellyfish rely on invertebrates and vertebrates that do use calcium in their skeletons as food.

I have to laugh at your comment. However, since it would appear that being someone who is ruthless and data driven perhaps you could answer a question that I find it remarkable that those who don't believe that global warming is occurring never seem to want to answer or seem simply incapable of answering.

If the Earth really isn't getting hotter, why is it that virtually all the world's glaciers and all the world's ice shields are simultaneously melting at a faster rate than at any time in geological history?

Those who believe that the world isn't getting hotter really better have an answer to this question that is well grounded in geophysics, if they want to be taken seriously. They surely don't have time for popcorn, as long as they leave this question unanswered.

Forget the "good science"/"bad science" arguments.

Can anyone who believes that it really isn't getting hotter explain why, if its not getting hotter all the world's glaciers and ice shields are simultaneously melting faster than at any time in geological history?

It would seem that those arguing that its not getting hotter or all those studies demonstrating that it is is getting hotter are just a hoax, a scam or a conspiracy, have an even larger and more fundamental scientific problem on their hands. If its not getting hotter, why is all that ice melting so quickly?

Hardly, when you consider that the results are typically posted every day online and in the newspapers. Its not as if world temperature data is being kept secret. Are you suggesting that scientists are hiding temperature data from the public? Surely you must be joking.

You missed my point entirely. Many scientists work for the public and it is the public who pays, yet it is typically a handful of capitalists that profit. Why should scientists be expected to share, but not those capitalists who get to profit form the work of others?

Perhaps the solution is for scientists to simply patent and copyright everything themselves. Now that there is electronic publishing, except for reviews is there really the need to pay publishers 7 figure salaries just to gather up the work of others, copyright it, and distribute it with no tangible benefit to the scientists that their work wouldn't gain beyond what they would have received if they published it themselves? Scientists are already doing the reviewing and the editing.

More rapid sequencing and hopefully much less expensive sequencing will greatly improve our knowledge, but the reality is that species identification will always be an issue since there are so many similar species often difficult to tell apart. So care must be taken with the identifications to ensure that the correct name is being attached to the sequences generated. The need for vouchers will be with us for a very long time to come and this may be a good thing, since it will shift the focus from simply obtaining and describing sequences or simply describing morphology toward understanding the functional, ecological, physiological, and evolutionary relationships between the different kinds of data that can be used for identification.

And to make it worse, someone then discovers that many of the original specimens from such a study were not saved and hence the identifications used in the study can not be duplicated, making the study worthless, because no one can be sure from which organism or linneage the sequences were actually collected from.

"Where's the down side?"

Well one area of concern is how the data are used in litigation. Take a particular ecological or molecular study, any that you might think of. Say the data is curated and made available via PLOS or some other archive or entity. Now a good lawyer notices that the data are incomplete, since they do not cite the repositories of any voucher materials that would permit the reidentification of any of the species in the study. None were saved, because it was too costly. Without the vouchers, such studies are essentially useless since a case could be made that the original identifications are suspect or the original tissues were contaminated by the genes of other species not correctly identified. A good corporate lawyer will have an easy time showing any environmental studies are indefensible and incomplete and in now time, there are no environmental studies or laws that can pass a rigorous voucher test. Why weren't vouchers saved? For many of the same reasons most data is not archived for posterity and freely available: the cost in time and effort that is simply unavailable.

Often museums and scientists would love to save the material, but can't afford to do so, since they have become no longer vast collections of well curated and intensively studied materials, but expensive headaches that the public isn't really interested in since they are more fascinated with youtube.com. Perhaps, we will all just be able to watch as humanity bends over and kisses its arse good bye.