Letter: Ocean acidification is just hype

To find an example of a propagandist “scientist” using bogus science and emotional language against human progress and our industrial infrastructure, look no further than the Clark College biology department’s Rebecca Martin. Her March 20 Local View, “We can help combat ocean acidification,” revealed a common theme in media, that the ends justify the means in social engineering — in this case “ocean acidification.”

First they used “global warming” and then “climate change” when the first term was shown as false. The same “Chicken Littles” are now clucking about “ocean acidification.” None of these withstand honest scientific peer review.

Quoting just one of many reviews of the subject in co2science.org: “the linear trend of all the data is actually positive, indicating an overall beneficial response of the totality of the five major life characteristics of marine sea life to ocean acidification, which result is vastly different from the negative results routinely predicted by the world’s climate alarmists. … In conclusion, claims of impending marine species extinctions driven by increases in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration do not appear to be founded in empirical reality, based on the experimental findings.” Print all the data, including peer-reviewed opinions, if you want a newspaper that stands for facts, not just hype and fiction.

Frank Bair, Vancouver. The Columbian, 28 March 2011. Web site.

2 Responses to “Letter: Ocean acidification is just hype”

  1. 1 Jean-Pierre Gattuso 30 March 2011 at 09:59

    Mr. Bair seems to be misinformed. co2science.org is not a peer-reviewed publication. I urge him to consult the science section of this blog to have access to peer-reviewed articles.

  2. 2 greyfox 30 March 2011 at 17:35

    Mr. Bair also seems utterly unaware of the paleohistory of acidification, and the dire consequences of same. If I were he, I would do a little research on a) what happened several times millions of years ago, and why it is important to understand, and b) why the real social consequences of inaction transcendentally outweigh the folly of inaction. All complaints that ‘doing something to avoid future disasters might make the present somewhat more restrained in our lifestyles’ strike me as terrifying. So, Mr. Bair, you would put our children and their children etc in harm’s way because you would have to do without your widescreen tv? Really.

Comments are currently closed.

  • Reset


OA-ICC Highlights

%d bloggers like this: