Phil Williamson responds to “Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmism” by James Delingpole, published in The Spectator 30 April 2016
James Delingpole considers that ocean acidification is a scare story that is not only ‘fatally flawed’ but also grossly over-hyped by climate alarmists, for political reasons. To give credibility to these views, information and quotes are given from four scientists (Patrick Moore, Mike Wallace, Matt Ridley and Craig Idso). However, those sources are unreliable: none has relevant marine expertise, and the evidence they provide is either inaccurate or incorrect. Three other scientists (Howard Browman, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine) who do have direct research experience are either mis-quoted or their competence is dismissed. The wider scientific literature is not considered. Overall, Delingpole’s arguments are based on exaggeration, false dichotomy, deliberate selectivity and bravado assertion: almost everything that could be factually wrong, is wrong. Specific errors, with other comments, are identified below for each paragraph of the original text. Example references are also given, as links; many other supporting sources could also be cited.
Continue reading ‘Two views of ocean acidification: which is fatally flawed?’