[Ed. – You’d think the most technologically advanced generations in history were a bunch of idiots, if you went by the things we uncritically swallow.]
In a remarkable piece in the UK Spectator, James Delingpole lays out the evidence suggesting that the ocean acidification “Threat” is just as fraudulent as global warming, and that it was, in fact, invented from data that required careful excision, just as the warmists had to “hide the decline” in order to produce the infamous “hockey stick graph” that fored the core of Al Gore’s Oscar-winning (and fortune building) An Inconvenient Truth.
First referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, it has since been endorsed by scientists from numerous learned institutions including the Royal Society, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the IPCC.
That timing is quite suggestive. As Delingpole notes, it was just about this time that the failure of the models to predict the actual temperature record, that showed no warming, was starting to embarrass the crisis-mongers. So the doomsters cooked up another back-up scenario, because the first one wasn’t working. …
But just a second:
According to Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, long one of ocean acidification theory’s fiercest critics, the term is ‘just short of propaganda’. The pH of the world’s oceans ranges between 7.5 and 8.3 — well above the acid zone (which starts below ‘neutral’ pH7) — so more correctly it should be stated that the seas are becoming slightly less alkaline. ‘Acid’ was chosen, Moore believes, because it has ‘strong negative connotations for most people’.
It’s true: less alkaline sounds a lot less scary than acidification. Acid eats away stuff, doesn’t it. Of course, alkaline doesn’t connote good consequences either. I think of “alkaline deserts” if I have to come up with an image. But in fact, given that pH 7 is neutral, less alkaline would be the scientific way to describe the process that is supposed to be underway, and that we are supposed to be fearful of.