The IPCC writes in the “leaked” SPM
It is very likely that oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 results in acidification of the ocean. The pH 44 (see 7) of seawater has decreased by 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial era, corresponding to a 45 26% increase in hydrogen ion concentration. {3.8.2; Box 3.2; FAQ 3.2}
later they say:
Earth System Models project a worldwide increase in ocean acidification for all RCP scenarios. The 1 corresponding decrease in surface ocean pH by the end of 21st century is 0.065 (0.06 to 0.07)12 for 2 RCP2.6, 0.145 (0.14 to 0.15) for RCP4.5, 0.203 (0.20 to 0.21) for RCP6.0, and 0.31 (0.30 to 0.32) for 3 RCP8.5 (see Figures SPM.6 and SPM.7). {6.4.4}
Here are the figures cited, SPM6C and SPM7D:
Gosh, just look at all that scary, red, burning, “acid”. What they fail to note is that the oceans still haven’t turned acidic at the end of their model projections. The pH has to be below 7.0, and a drop to 7.75 by 2100 still doesn’t qualify by the way the pH scale works. Note also, like the Richter earthquake scale, the pH scale is logarithmic, not linear, a drop of 1 unit in pH equals a ten-fold increase in acidity. So, there would have to be an acceleration for their model scenarios to become true. Note the normal ranges of for rainwater and streamwater flowing into the oceans are far lower than the model projections:
![184phdiagram[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/184phdiagram1.gif)
Meanwhile, while the IPCC is “virtually certain” a call goes out via the X-prize to design a pH meter actually capable of monitoring the projected change. The X Prize Foundation announced a $2 million competition September 9th to spur innovation in the equipment used to measure “ocean acidification”. Here is the announcement. Note what I highlighted in red.
=============================================================
Overview
The Challenge: Improve Our Understanding of Ocean Acidification
The Wendy Schmidt Ocean Health XPRIZE is a $2 million global competition that challenges teams of engineers, scientists and innovators from all over the world to create pH sensor technology that will affordably, accurately and efficiently measure ocean chemistry from its shallowest waters… to its deepest depths.
There are two prize purses available (teams may compete for, and win, both purses):
A. $1,000,000 Accuracy award – Performance focused ($750,000 First Place, $250,000 Second Place): To the teams that navigate the entire competition to produce the most accurate, stable and precise pH sensors under a variety of tests.
B. $1,000,000 Affordability award – Cost and Use focused ($750,000 First Place, $250,000 Second Place): To the teams that produce the least expensive, easy-to-use, accurate, stable, and precise pH sensors under a variety of tests.
The Need for the Prize
Problem
Our oceans are currently in the midst of a silent crisis. Rising levels of atmospheric carbon are resulting in higher levels of acidity. The potential biological, ecological, biogeochemical and societal implications are staggering. The absorption of human CO2 emissions is already having a profound impact on ocean chemistry, impacting the health of shellfish, fisheries, coral reefs, other ecosystems and our very survival.
The Market Failure
While ocean acidification is well documented in a few temperate ocean waters, little is known in high latitudes, coastal areas and the deep sea, and most current pH sensor technologies are too costly, imprecise, or unstable to allow for sufficient knowledge on the state of ocean acidification.
Solution
Breakthrough sensors are urgently needed for scientists, managers and industry to turn the tide on ocean acidification and begin healing our oceans. A competition to incentivize the creation of these sensors for the study and monitoring of ocean acidification’s impact on marine ecosystems and ocean health will drive industry forward by providing the data needed to take action and produce results.
Impact
Making a broad impact—one that reaches far beyond new sensing technologies—is critical to the success of the prize. It begins with a breakthrough pH sensor that will catalyze our ability to measure—and thus respond to—ocean acidification.
Source: http://oceanhealth.xprize.org/competition-details/overview
==============================================================
In the NBC News story I cited about the announcement there was this:
“It is only in the last decade where scientists have begun to study ocean acidification, so our knowledge is really limited still,” Paul Bunje, a senior director with the X Prize Foundation who is the lead scientist behind the ocean health competition, told NBC News.
“But we do know that we don’t know enough, and we don’t have the tools needed to even begin to measure it sufficiently — much less to begin to respond, to adapt to it, to implement local policies that might allow ocean acidification to be less harmful,” he said.
…
The open ocean is acidifying at about .02 pH units per decade, according to according to Richard Feeley, a marine scientist and leading researcher on ocean acidification at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. “That means that you have to have an instrument that you can rely on to be both precise and accurate for a very, very long period of time, so that you can actually see that signal,” he told NBC News.
So, are the IPCC models based on uncertain measurements and an assumed trend? It sure seems so.
It’s like a bad acid trip.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
dbstealey says:
September 26, 2013 at 9:38 pm
Observe Phil.’s verbal tapdancing. For example:
“pH changes when CO2 is added to seawater, alkalinity does not”
OK then, suppose that CO2 is outgassed from sea water instead of being added. According to Phil., his “Say Anything” response implies that only pH changes — never alkalinity!
For once you’ve made an accurate statement, reduction of CO2 changes pH but not alkalinity.
Your problem is that you don’t know what alkalinity is, you should take my earlier advice and find out. Scientists use precise language and definitions, if you want to participate in scientific discussions you should learn it and use it correctly.
Phil says:
September 27, 2013 at 12:31 am
The regular research ship measurements are of pCO2, not DIC
Phil, they did measure DIC during several cruises, together with pCO2, in-situ temperature and several other parameters, imcluding pH on some cruises and total alkalinity on others. See the data quality section in:
http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/ocean_acid/Sabine%20et%20al%202008.pdf
Ferdinand,
You won’t convince Phil of anything, because he BELIEVES in catastrophic AGW. Belief is an emotion, thus logic is impevious. [Note that “SST” was never mentioned, but now it forms Phil’s argument above. That’s called a “strawman”.]
Phil holds a position that requires him to be part of the anti-“carbon” crowd. Otherwise, he risks not just losing friends and colleagues, but likely his next promotion:
“It is difficult to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it.” ~Upton Sinclair
Thank you for your explanation, you are much better educated than I am regarding chemistry [I worked in a Metrology lab for 30 years]. However, the point remains that if the world’s oceans are warming as claimed, then there can only be less CO2 contained in them than if they were cooler. Just as a warming Coke outgases CO2, so a warming ocean outgases CO2.
Therefore, either the climate alarmist crowd is wrong about the planet’s oceans warming, or they are wrong about their so-called “acidification” scare. They cannot have it both ways.
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen on September 27, 2013 at 7:48 am
My apologies. I don’t think we are in disagreement. I believe my comment was accurate but perhaps poorly phrased, as the regular research ship measurements did not include DIC, with emphasis on regular.
If you look at the numerical data packages available here, you will see data from about 37 cruises:
NDP-091
NDP-090
NDP-089
NDP-088r
NDP-087
NDP-086
NDP-085
NDP-084
NDP-083
NDP-082
NDP-080
NDP-079
NDP-077
NDP-076
NDP-075
NDP-074
NDP-071
NDP-067
NDP-066
NDP-065
NDP-064
NDP-063
NDP-062
NDP-060
NDP-057A
NDP-056
NDP-054
NDP-052
NDP-051
NDP-047
NDP-045
NDP-044
NDP-036
NDP-029
NDP-028
NDP-027, and
NDP-004R1
From Sabine et al. 2008:
Of the above referenced 37 cruises only 4 measured DIC (along ~152°W) in zones P16A, C, N and S:
P16C: NDP-060
P16A: NDP-065
P16S: NDP-054, NDP-090
P16N: NDP-090
The data for the zonal section along 30°N (P02) is located here instead.
There does not appear to be any global coverage in the available DIC data according to Sabine et al. 2008 and Dore et al. 2009.
dbstealey says:
September 26, 2013 at 9:38 pm
The CACA spewers can, will & do say anything. They’ve plumbed new depths of anti-scientific dizziness however with the latest lame excuse for GIGO model failure, ie “missing heat is hiding in the deep oceans”, where it would be undetectable.
I’ve decided that Trenberth really is a genius, at deception.
dbstealey says:
September 27, 2013 at 9:26 am
Ferdinand,
You won’t convince Phil of anything, because he BELIEVES in catastrophic AGW. Belief is an emotion, thus logic is impevious. [Note that “SST” was never mentioned, but now it forms Phil’s argument above. That’s called a “starwman”.]
Apparently you are as confused about who is posting here (Phil. and Phil) as you are about Henry’s Law.
By virtue of the reference to SST it is ‘Phil.’ you are referring to not ‘Phil’, what I posted has nothing to do with my beliefs, about which you know nothing, but about accurate representation of the science.
Phil holds a position that requires him to be part of the anti-”carbon” crowd. Otherwise, he risks not just losing friends and colleagues, but likely his next promotion:
The position I hold has no requirement regarding the ‘anti-”carbon” crowd’, your implication otherwise is a complete fabrication on your part (par for the course I’m afraid).
Thank you for your explanation, you are much better educated than I am regarding chemistry [I worked in a Metrology lab for 30 years]. However, the point remains that if the world’s oceans are warming as claimed, then there can only be less CO2 contained in them than if they were cooler. Just as a warming Coke outgases CO2, so a warming ocean outgases CO2.
Here again you show your complete misunderstanding of Henry’s Law, which states that at constant temperature the pCO2 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with the dissolved CO2 in the ocean. The constant of proportionality is termed the Henry’s Law coefficient as described by Ferdinand. Increase the pCO2 in the atmosphere and [CO2] in the ocean will increase. The coefficient has a small dependence on pressure as Ferdinand noted so if the pCO2 is maintained constant and the temperature is increased then some outgassing will occur. However that is not the case in our atmosphere since the pCO2 is increasing faster than the ocean temperature so [CO2] is increasing and outgassing is not taking place. In the last decade the pCO2 has increased by more than 16 µatm which would imply an increase in SST of ~1ºC if it were due to outgassing, clearly this has not happened. Incidentally the surface is where the Henry’s Law equilibrium occurs so SST is the appropriate temperature. Regarding the Coke can analogy I’m afraid you have that wrong too! A closed can of Coke has a pCO2 above the surface of about 3 atm compared with the atmospheric pCO2 of about 400 µatm, consequently when you open a can of Coke the rapid outgassing is due to the vast change in pCO2 above the surface, not the temperature which has a smaller second order effect.
Therefore, either the climate alarmist crowd is wrong about the planet’s oceans warming, or they are wrong about their so-called “acidification” scare. They cannot have it both ways.
As shown above a proper understanding of Henry’s Law shows this statement to be incorrect, the Ocean’s temperature and pCO2 can increase together.
Phil. says:
Apparently you are as confused about who is posting here (Phil. and Phil)…
I wasn’t talking to you, I was responding to “Phil”, without the period.
…oh, you don’t believe that? Well, you’re right, I was commenting about you, and you knew it, too. So did everyone else. But you were looking for a nitpicking way to claim I’m “confused”.
Actually, I was exactly right about you in the Sinclair quote I posted:
“It is difficult to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it.”
Being part of the .edu establishment, you cannot take a true scientific skeptic’s position on human-caused global warming without jeopardizing your position. That’s just the way it is. You want that next promotion or expense-paid trip to Bali? You are less likely to get those goodies if you admit the truth: that there is no testable, measurable, falsifiable scientific evidence proving that global warming is anything beyond natural variability.
Those who hold the cookie jar have used it very effectively to stifle contrary views like that. That is why so many scientists wait until they have retired before speaking their minds. I don’t blame them, either. The blame is entirely on the ruling alarmist clique, which has made the past century and a half of extremely mild global temperatures into a politically charged pseudo-scientific issue. They have two things in common: they all ignore the Scientific Method, and they censor dissenting opinions. Despicable.
So if you claim you can be a true skeptic in .edu without any repercussions, I doubt if anyone will believe you.
dbstealey says:
September 27, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Actually, I was exactly right about you in the Sinclair quote I posted:
“It is difficult to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it.”
Being part of the .edu establishment, you cannot take a true scientific skeptic’s position on human-caused global warming without jeopardizing your position. That’s just the way it is. You want that next promotion or expense-paid trip to Bali? You are less likely to get those goodies if you admit the truth: that there is no testable, measurable, falsifiable scientific evidence proving that global warming is anything beyond natural variability.
Absolute rubbish, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about! As an example such skepticism did my colleague, Will Happer, no harm at all.
I notice that as usual you make absolutely no attempt to address the science on which you are so woefully wrong.
Phil. says:
I notice that as usual you make absolutely no attempt to address the science on which you are so woefully wrong.
If science depended on assertions, you would win the argument.
“It is difficult to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it.”
Will Happer is exceptional, as are many other skeptics…
…but you are no Will Happer.
@Phil.
@dbstealey
According to Takahashi et al. 2009, you are both incorrect (says dot-less Phil as he foolishly steps in between). As I quote below, Takahashi says that SST temperature mostly drops out of the calculations for the range of SSTs in question and that the variable that primarily determines CO2 flux is wind speed, which is estimated with models:
Sweeney,C., Gloor,E., Jacobson,A.R., Key,R.M., McKinley,G., Sarmiento,J.L., Wanninkhof,R., 2007. Constraining global air–sea gas exchange for CO2 with recent bomb 14C measurements. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 21,GB2015.
Errata due to formatting:
should be:
k is proportional to U^n at a given temperature and salinity.
should be:
k = Γ x (U10)² x (Sc/660)^-½
should be:
Tr = 0.585 x α x (Sc)^-½ x (U10)² ……. Equation (8)
should be:
reference Schmidt number(660^½) and
should be:
the product α x (Sc)^-½ is nearly constant
Phil says:
September 27, 2013 at 8:46 pm
@Phil.
@dbstealey
According to Takahashi et al. 2009, you are both incorrect (says dot-less Phil as he foolishly steps in between). As I quote below, Takahashi says that SST temperature mostly drops out of the calculations for the range of SSTs in question and that the variable that primarily determines CO2 flux is wind speed, which is estimated with models:
But I’m not talking about the flux, I’m talking about the equilibrium concentration which depends on the Henry’s Law coefficient which is temperature dependent.
“It is difficult to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it.”
~ Upton Sinclair
Applies to “97%” of .edu staff…
dbstealey says:
September 27, 2013 at 7:40 pm
Phil. says:
“I notice that as usual you make absolutely no attempt to address the science on which you are so woefully wrong.”
If science depended on assertions, you would win the argument.
Actually it depends on the facts which are all on my side, you just have sly comments and run away from the science.
Will Happer is exceptional, as are many other skeptics…
…but you are no Will Happer.
But even he needed my help once. 🙂
He’s also a member of the ‘.edu establishment’ as you put it.
I understood your comments. They are broadly in line with what I was taught also. In general, your arguments seem to be logical and well grounded, but that is not how Climate Science is calculating how much CO2 dissolves or not in the oceans. My comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and I apologize for any misunderstanding. If I understood Takahashi et al. 2009 correctly, the alpha parameter would be related to Henry’s Law and Takahashi et al. clearly state that it is temperature dependent. The Schmidt number would seem to be the dynamic component. Apparently, equilibrium is never reached and the whole process is modeled dynamically. Takahashi et al. claim that certain areas of the ocean function as CO2 sinks during some months of the year and as CO2 sources during the other months. So CO2 is apparently constantly going into and coming out of solution.
In Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean of the Second Order Draft of AR5, Taro Takahashi and Nicolas Gruber are Contributing Authors. On page 3-35, lines 26-29, they state:
In short, the IPCC is basing its assessment of dissolution of anthropogenic CO2 on Takahashi et al. 2009 and Gruber et al. 2009. So my reference to Takahashi et al.’s methodology is on point. The claim that Takahashi et al. 2009 is “independent” from Gruber et al. 2009 is not completely supportable, but that is a discussion for another time. Cheers.
Phil.:
In your post at September 27, 2013 at 9:25 pm you say
I would have agreed if you had said the flux the equilibrium concentration IS AFFECTED BY the Henry’s Law coefficient.
The sea surface zone is saturated by biota and it is not known how they respond to variables; e.g. temperature, nutrients, pH, etc,. But biota affect the CO2 concentration in the layer. Also, that concentration varies with pH which may be affected by variations in sulphate ion concentration that act independently of the carbonate buffer. Please note that submarine volcanoes will add a completely unknown amount of sulphate to the oceans and, thus, the sulphur cycle. Indeed, alteration of surface layer pH by sulphate from submarine volcanism may have changed the CO2 equilibrium with the air to have induced ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed at e.g. Mauna Loa (I think this is unlikely, but it would explain the peak in atmospheric CO2 concentration around 1940 observed in the measurements collated by Beck).
So many assumptions and so little information, but that is the state of carbon cycle science. Sigh.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:52 am
Phil.:
In your post at September 27, 2013 at 9:25 pm you say
“But I’m not talking about the flux, I’m talking about the equilibrium concentration which depends on the Henry’s Law coefficient which is temperature dependent.”
I would have agreed if you had said the flux the equilibrium concentration IS AFFECTED BY the Henry’s Law coefficient.
This sentence does not make sense, I assume there is a typo?
The sea surface zone is saturated by biota and it is not known how they respond to variables; e.g. temperature, nutrients, pH, etc,. But biota affect the CO2 concentration in the layer.
But if they do so the balance is restored from the atmosphere via Henry’s Law.
Also, that concentration varies with pH which may be affected by variations in sulphate ion concentration that act independently of the carbonate buffer.
Sulphate ion is one of the conserved species in the ocean its concentration is constant relative to the other major ions such as Cl-
Please note that submarine volcanoes will add a completely unknown amount of sulphate to the oceans and, thus, the sulphur cycle.
No they don’t, submarine vents and volcanoes are observed to contribute no sulphate to the ocean. E.g. El Hierro: “The degassing of the volcano could be observed from the research vessel Cornide de Saavedra. The composition of these gases was fundamentally CO2 with complete absence of sulfur compounds.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417080336.htm
“4. hydrothermal vents (Table 4-3 from Von Damm et al, 1985). These high-temperature waters differ from seawater in that Mg, SO4 and alkalinity have all been quantitatively removed.”
http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/oc400/Lecture_Notes/CHPT4.pdf
Indeed, alteration of surface layer pH by sulphate from submarine volcanism may have changed the CO2 equilibrium with the air to have induced ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed at e.g. Mauna Loa (I think this is unlikely, but it would explain the peak in atmospheric CO2 concentration around 1940 observed in the measurements collated by Beck).
Clearly not.
So many assumptions and so little information, but that is the state of carbon cycle science. Sigh.
Well this one is one at least that can be dismissed.
I thought this was interesting, and confirms my thoughts that temperature is not nearly the problem we face as global-scale inhibition of the biota in the oceans’ euphotic zone….this is the first time I’ve ever seen this phrased so succinctly:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/what-leading-scientists-say-you-should-know-about-todays-frightening-climate-report/280045/
Yeah, why don’t Al Gore, The Hockey Team, Pachuri etc. even talking about acidification? They brush it off as “global warming’s evil twin” and focus on drowning polar bears, fictional hurricanes etc.
I’d like to see a rumble….Temps on one side of the alley, Acids (like me) on the other….“When you’re a Temp, you’re a Temp all the way, from your first Climate model to your last dying day….”
(BTW, it is the “Scripps Institution of Oceanography,” which is different from the “Scripps Institute”)
Phil.:
At September 28, 2013 at 7:47 am you say
No they don’t, submarine vents and volcanoes are observed to contribute no sulphate to the ocean. E.g. El Hierro: “The degassing of the volcano could be observed from the research vessel Cornide de Saavedra. The composition of these gases was fundamentally CO2 with complete absence of sulfur compounds.”
Oh dear. One observation of one volcano indicates that volcanos don’t emit sulphate!
The region of ocean into which lava from Kiluea flows turns yellow with the sulphurous acids. You get acid burns from touching it.
Do I believe your one report applies to all volcanos or do I believe my own eyes?
Hmmmm. a problem that.
Then you talk about a black smoker and assume the observation of that indicates submarine volcanism does not provide sulphate. Frankly, that strains credibility. Even if it were true of all hydrothermal vents then it would not be true of all submarine volcanism.
And you avoid my point that the surface layer is saturated with biota which emit sulphur (admittedly mostly insoluble DMS).
The remainder of your post is similar.
Richard
I apologise for the formatting error in my post to Phil. Richard
“snarkmania” says:
“dbstealey, you have thoroughly misquoted and misrepresented my initial post and the site that I linked to.”
I did no such thing. When I quote someone, I cut and paste their words. I do that specifically to avoid any confusion, or accusations of ‘mis-quoting’.
Also, I do not recall seeing your name in this thread, so how could I be misquoting you? You wouldn’t be engaging in sockpuppetry, would you? The rules are: one commentator, one screen identity. If you are posting under multiple identities, then it is no wonder you are confused about who is quoting whom.
When you clear up that bit of confusion, then we can discuss your problem.
I posted as Follow the Water.. an older name I’ve used in the past appears to have emerged and that wasn’t my doing.
[WUWT rules: You are allowed one user_id or login. Use only one, stay consistent if you log in from different computers.
Usually, the carbon-based operator interface is responsible for the user’s words. 8<) Mod]
snarkmania,
My apologies then.
Now, about your accusations of ‘misquoting’ and ‘misrepresenting’. How can I be doing either, when what I did was to cut and paste information found in your link — verbatim?
That kind of discussion is done all the time, by just about everyone: a quote is highlighted, then answered. That’s all I did. What is wrong with that?
richardscourtney says:
September 28, 2013 at 10:28 am
Phil.:
At September 28, 2013 at 7:47 am you say
“No they don’t, submarine vents and volcanoes are observed to contribute no sulphate to the ocean. E.g. El Hierro: “The degassing of the volcano could be observed from the research vessel Cornide de Saavedra. The composition of these gases was fundamentally CO2 with complete absence of sulfur compounds.””
Oh dear. One observation of one volcano indicates that volcanos don’t emit sulphate!
I assumed that you knew what E.g. means!
The region of ocean into which lava from Kiluea flows turns yellow with the sulphurous acids. You get acid burns from touching it.
Do I believe your one report applies to all volcanos or do I believe my own eyes?
Hmmmm. a problem that.
Yes you really do have a problem. Your post referred to submarine volcanoes, the last time I looked Kiluea stood 4000 ft above sea level. The discharge of gases directly into cold, frequently anoxic, seawater leads to precipitates of insoluble sulphates and sulfides, note that the Van Damm ref refers to the quantitatively removal of Mg++ and SO4–.
Then you talk about a black smoker and assume the observation of that indicates submarine volcanism does not provide sulphate. Frankly, that strains credibility. Even if it were true of all hydrothermal vents then it would not be true of all submarine volcanism.
Why not, the chemical composition of the seawater is the same, the solubility products of the various salts are the same? I didn’t talk about a ‘black smoker’ I referred to a cite on ‘hydrothermal vents’ in general.
And you avoid my point that the surface layer is saturated with biota which emit sulphur (admittedly mostly insoluble DMS).
By your own admission, not sulphate!
You also fail to address the point that Sulphate has been observed to be a conserved species in the ocean which completely undermines your thesis.
Empirical [real world] evidence shows that the claims of ‘ocean acidification’ are bogus nonsense.
We can add ‘ocean acidification’ to all the failed predictions that are contradicted by empirical facts, some of which are:
• Record low tornadoes
• Record low hurricanes
• Record gain in Arctic ice cover [real increase: 60%+]
• Record Antarctic ice rise continues its decades-long trend
• Burned acreage is well below normal
• Droughts are below historical norms
• Floods are below historical norms
• No changes in the rate of sea level rise
• No evidence of rising Greenland ice melt
• No evidence of rising Antarctic ice melt
• No global warming for 17 years
• And of course, no ocean acidification
In short, EVERY alarmist prediction has been WRONG. Phil. can argue sulphates all day long, but the basic premise he is unable to defend is his Belief that the global climate is acting in an unusual way, or that what is being observed is unprecedented. Neither of those Beliefs is true. They are a narrative of lies, promoted by people with a dishonest agenda. That agenda does not have any room for scientific veracity. It is false propaganda, flogged by people who have something to lose if they tell the truth.