Something Smells Fishy: Allegations of Fraud in Ocean Acidification Research

While on tour in Australia in 2010, my friend, David Archibald said to me “Ocean Acidification is the last refuge of the climate scoundrels”. It appears he may be right. It also appears that James Cook University has a real research integrity problem, that Dr. Peter Ridd has pointed out, and got fired for daring to say it.

Kip Hansen covered this last week, but it deserves another bump because members of the scientific press are taking notice. From Science Magazine:

Does ocean acidification alter fish behavior? Fraud allegations create a sea of doubt

Members of the Clark group say they will soon publicize the alleged data problems on PubPeer, a website for discussion of published work. And they say they thought long and hard about whether to discuss their concerns with a reporter while investigations may be ongoing. “In my experience, whistleblowers, myself as well as others, are shamed for talking to the media before an investigation has concluded misconduct,” says Josefin Sundin of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, the last author on the Nature replication paper. “But why is that? If an investigation even takes place, it can drag on for a very long time. If you know that data have been fabricated, why is it considered the right thing to do to stay silent about it for months and even years?”

Something smells for sure.

Full story here.

5 33 votes
Article Rating
81 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Terry
May 10, 2021 8:13 am

This is pretty remarkable. Are we witnessing the start of increased scrutiny of global warming science. Looking for a comment on this by David Attenborough –

Latimer Alder
Reply to  Terry
May 10, 2021 8:57 am

Try doing the same for ‘the 6th mass extinction’

Seems to be pretty much complete vapourware

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Terry
May 10, 2021 9:04 am

I would be willing to bet that the “whistleblowers” would say something to the effect of: “We’re already concerned enough with the tremendous problem of ocean acidification, and the entire climate crisis, that we don’t need others fudging the data…”

Is that a strawman argument? Yes. But we’ve seen it happen so often.

mikeworst
Reply to  Terry
May 10, 2021 9:28 am

It has been a long time coming, but yes I think a reckoning is coming in the next few years.

Abolition Man
May 10, 2021 8:36 am

Anthony,
Are we witnessing the first large cracks appearing in the edifice of Climastrology? One can only hope that the Lame Stream Media will have to start reporting some of the troubles within GangGreen, to avoid falling to Baghdad Bob type irrelevancy!
This would have been nice to have earlier for Peter Ridd’s sake, but maybe justice will prevail! It is more important than ever to keep pushing back against the propaganda and lies of the alarmists. With the hard work of you, Charles and all the great contributors; we might just see the end of this hoax in the near future!
Thank you, for being a leader in the battle!

Barnes Moore
Reply to  Abolition Man
May 10, 2021 9:45 am

We can only hope. There are now 3 recent articles, including this one, highlighting issues with this nonsense:

Where’s the Lithium? NYT Notices a Lot More Lithium Needed for Biden’s Electric Vehicle Push – Watts Up With That?

Finally They Admit Renewables Are Terrible For The Environment – Michael Shellenberger (substack.com)

Is the media starting to wake up? Doubtful, but we can only hope.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Barnes Moore
May 10, 2021 1:07 pm

Here’s a story in Massachusetts where a professor admits that building solar farms to meet the state’s net zero bill will result in destroying forests- a fact I’ve been yelling about here for exactly a decade: https://www.telegram.com/story/news/2021/05/03/clark-university-solar-power-massachusetts-audubon-society-rhode-island-deforestation/7413814002/

Latimer Alder
Reply to  Abolition Man
May 10, 2021 10:01 am

As the costs of ‘Net Zero’ come home more to people’s individual pockets rather than being just some abstract piece of government budgetting, surely they will be looking for deeper reassurane that it is based on something better than a jerk circle of climatologists a la Climategate.

I think the political pressure to really kick the shit our of this stuff will come from John and Jane Doe as they see their wealth and comfort go up in smoke (sic)..

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Latimer Alder
May 10, 2021 1:08 pm

and when they see their neighborhood swamped with solar and wind “farms”

They don’t generally mind as long as those “farms” are many miles away- but when a government decides to go net zero- they have to be everywhere.

Reply to  Latimer Alder
May 10, 2021 1:29 pm

Casualties on the road to net zero

https://www.riteon.org.au/netzero-casualties/

No Name Guy
May 10, 2021 8:37 am

Well, this goes to show how useless “peer review” is. Only independent replication, you know, ACTUAL use of the scientific method, can show what is true and correct, and can reveal what is false or shoddy. In this case, it would appear that someone tried to independently replicate the original paper and couldn’t, thereby likely falsifying the original hypothesis. Boom…actual science.

No Name Guy
Reply to  No Name Guy
May 10, 2021 8:41 am

I’ll add this thought: Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a rich person out there who would fund attempts to independently replicate “groundbreaking” research? Take the original papers, and see if someone else, using the actual published methodology, can get the same results. And publish the outcome, regardless of results. And do this across a broad range of topics – not only climate (which I would predict will have low replication), but materials, psychology (again, I’d expect low replication), medicine, etc

Reply to  No Name Guy
May 10, 2021 10:27 am

rich person out there who would fund attempts to independently replicate “groundbreaking” research?

That person exists, called The Taxpayer, who subsidises universities and colleges expressly for this purpose; testing, verifying and thereby advancing science.
Instead they spend it on rainbow flags and lessons in racism.

Reply to  No Name Guy
May 10, 2021 1:30 pm

See the John Arnold Foundation.

Wharfplank
Reply to  Rafe Champion
May 10, 2021 5:48 pm

Leftist…

Latimer Alder
Reply to  No Name Guy
May 10, 2021 9:54 am

Simple question I keep on asking

‘What guarantee of quality/correctness comes with ‘peer-review’?

And to paraphrase Dear Old Phil of Climategate

‘They’ve never answered.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry

Last edited 1 month ago by Latimer Alder
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Latimer Alder
May 10, 2021 1:12 pm

Isn’t the purpose of peer review to examine of the authors followed reasonable practices- that is, it looks like it MIGHT be right- not to indicate that the paper is correct? If so, then bragging that any research has been peer reviewed shouldn’t impress anyone. Likewise, the fact that some work hasn’t been peer reviewed doesn’t mean it’s not right.

Doonman
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 10, 2021 6:52 pm

Finally, someone that realizes the true meaning of peer review.

It’s supposed to be a gateway that eliminates nonsense and nothing more. All part of saving ink for the publications for the most part.

Whenever anyone asks me if something I point out that questions their argument is peer reviewed, I ask them who reviewed Newton and Einstein. Then they get irritated and claim science was different then. Then I agree with them, but they still never realize the actual logical hole they’ve dug for themselves.

michael hart
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 11, 2021 4:13 pm

Yes, Joseph Zorzin. This is something rarely explained to the general public, even if the media person writing actually understands it.

Peer review is merely a hurdle to indicate that the author(s) have taken a few basic steps to make it look like they are ‘educated’ in the field. This usually just means
1) Using the same language and terminology as others deemed to be competent.
2) Having a correspondence address which is usually an acceptable University or Institution.

If you are already well established in the field then you can publish pretty much any speculation without results, before others with the same ideas do the actual work required to prove it. And you get the credit.

If you don’t meet the two requirements above then you can forget it, however correct or brilliant your arguments are. Over the years, it’s been a bit sad reading some climate sceptics output, thinking they have any chance at all of being taken seriously.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  No Name Guy
May 10, 2021 10:11 am

Didn’t it say that the Clark Group would publish in the PubBeer website? Wouldn’t that be Beer Review? Did I read something wrong there?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  No Name Guy
May 10, 2021 10:46 am

Modern, so-called “peer review” is actually a ‘gate-keeping’ activity, to help maintain the reputation of the publishing journals, by (hopefully) weeding out purveyors of the equivalent of “perpetual motion machines.” Unfortunately, it also eliminates truly controversial research that might lead to breakthroughs! If the publishing industry we have today were dominant in science 100 years ago, Einstein would have had difficulty getting published. Similarly, J. Tuzo Wilson (Alfred Wegner’s Bulldog), would have had difficulty getting published on Plate Tectonics!

MAL
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 10, 2021 4:43 pm

“Similarly, J. Tuzo Wilson (Alfred Wegner’s Bulldog), would have had difficulty getting published on Plate Tectonics!” They did have trouble getting it published, as I understand it they sat it for twenty years.

Wharfplank
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 10, 2021 5:52 pm

Peer review is now a gatekeeping exercise that’s for sure… to maintain the Leftist orthodoxy and more importantly to smear those views that do not “conform”

Caligula Jones
Reply to  No Name Guy
May 11, 2021 6:50 am

Yes, peer review has become useless.

But never underestimate how useful and powerful pal review is.

And they can’t deny the evidence we’ve all seen: they admit to keeping all opposing views out of the review process.

DMacKenzie
May 10, 2021 8:38 am

Call them “Climate Liars” at every opportunity…put them on the defensive…make them prove their numbers are replicable…”extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”…fair is fair…after all, their usual counter-argument is calling you a ‘denier’ and not allowing you a platform to debate them.

JJK500
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 10, 2021 11:04 am

Yes, indeed. “Climate believer” is much too polite and accommodating for these frauds/shills. “Climate liar” or “climate alarmist” is much more deserving.

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 10, 2021 8:38 am

The sprats are coming home to roost.

Doug S
May 10, 2021 8:46 am

The fraud, government funding and the push toward global communism is so strong now that these kinds of revelations may not amount to much. Here in the United States we have the big media companies shilling for the democrats, covering their crimes and protecting their political agenda. Climate Change is firmly implanted in the uneducated population now as both a religious symbol and political imperative.

I appreciate the few strong and honest individuals willing to risk their livelihoods and stand up for the truth but it appears to be an almost insurmountable task to dislodge “Climate Change” as a serious concern for uninformed people.

Anon
May 10, 2021 8:49 am

Ocean Acidification fundamentally RELIES on putting the “cart before the horse”.

The assumption is that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic.

However, if you adhere to the school of thought that increasing temperature warms the oceans and this outgasses carbon dioxide (and that the anthropogenic component is dwarfed by ocean outgassing, such that we saw nothing from the Mona Loa monitoring station during the lockdowns), then in reality, the phenomenon that is really going on is possibly the reverse: OCEAN BASIFICATION. Or acidification ascribed to something other than Carbon Dioxide.

Furthermore, the idea that we have a reliable pH record of the world’s oceans is simply absurd. Beckman patented the first pH meter in 1934 in the midst of the Great Depression, which was followed by World War II and the Cold War. And the environmental era didn’t take off until Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, in 1962, with EPA coming into existence in 1973. So who was concerned enough to take these ocean measurements? And given the fact that the global temperature record is so spotty, which only required reading a thermometer, think about how much more difficult that would be with pH meters, trained personnel and the sampling involved. So, what are they basing their trendlines on?

Maybe NASA now has a pH satellite aloft?

decnine
Reply to  Anon
May 10, 2021 8:59 am

I guess it would be possible to pour a lot of litmus into the ocean and have a satellite measure the colour?

Editor
Reply to  Anon
May 10, 2021 9:19 am

Maybe NASA now has a pH satellite aloft?

Is that a tongue-in-cheek comment or can pH be remotely sensed?

Anon
Reply to  Ric Werme
May 10, 2021 10:01 am

Maybe that will be revealed in the upcoming Theranos litigation? 🙂

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Anon
May 10, 2021 10:38 am

The solubility of gasses in liquids is not a school of thought.
It is bedrock physical chemistry.
And so is diffusion across a concentration gradient.
It is not an either/or thing.
That is just non-scientific muddling.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Anon
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 10, 2021 7:12 pm

The “school of thought” line was not in reference to the solubility of gasses, but as to whether the oceans are, on net, currently taking up or releasing carbon dioxide. Some posit (Al Gore does not) that temperature leads carbon dioxide. So, as the planet/oceans warm, solubilized carbon dioxide will move from the hydrosphere to the atmosphere. And as a result of the loss, following the logic of the alarmists, the pH of the oceans will therefore increase rather than decrease. And if we confine ourselves to the hyperbolic linguist sandbox of the alarmists, the opposite of acidification would be “basification”. Sorry if that was not clear. 🙁

Last edited 1 month ago by Anon
hiskorr
Reply to  Anon
May 10, 2021 7:52 pm

It was.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Anon
May 10, 2021 10:46 am

Definitions:
Acidification- The process of making or becoming an acid.
Basification-The process of making or becoming a base.
Neutralization-The process of making or becoming neutral.

None of these apply.
The ocean will not ever become acidic.
It is already basic, so cannot logically become one.
It will not become neutral either, so that one does not apply.

What may happen is that the pH may go up or down very slightly.
However, the amount of variation already present over space and time in the oceans is already far larger than any changes that could plausibly occur.

Fighting bullshit with crappier bullshit is unlikely to be a really effective counter argument or case to make.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anon
May 10, 2021 10:49 am

So, what are they basing their trendlines on?

Computer models! The historical data have been ignored.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Anon
May 10, 2021 1:16 pm

“Or acidification ascribed to something other than Carbon Dioxide.”

How much might be due to the vast amount of pollutants going into the sea from rivers? Do those who pitch the ocean acidification consider that?

jtom
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 10, 2021 3:45 pm

No pollutants are necessary. Rivers are naturally slightly acidic. The Amazon is acidic, delivering huge amounts of water into the Atlantic. Guess where the greatest fisheries are. Where the Amazon flows out into the Atlantic, because of the amount of nutrients it carries. Fish can tolerate slight acidity. It was thought that corals can’t, but one of the largest coral reef systems in the world was recently discovered there, happily existing where models said it couldn’t.

Tom Abbott
May 10, 2021 8:53 am

I hope someone puts the nail in the coffin of Ocean Acidification because I’m tired of hearing about it. 🙂

It’s a non-problem.

beng135
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 10, 2021 10:43 am

Agree, and add to that scaaarrryyy sea-level rise, sea-ice, polar bears, and a litany of other so-called but fabricated “problems”.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  beng135
May 11, 2021 3:09 am

“Fabricated problems” is right! This is Alarmist Climate Science.

observa
May 10, 2021 8:56 am

High time to cancel the abuse of James Cook’s good name methinks or provide a cure for the scurvy crew.

fretslider
May 10, 2021 9:01 am

How do you like your data, fried or boiled?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  fretslider
May 10, 2021 9:15 am

Poached.

H.R.
Reply to  fretslider
May 10, 2021 9:32 am

It seems the researchers producing the data are being grilled.

Oldseadog
Reply to  fretslider
May 10, 2021 10:28 am

All seems a bit scrambled to me.

beng135
Reply to  fretslider
May 10, 2021 10:44 am

Over-cooked.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fretslider
May 10, 2021 10:50 am

And, would you like flies with that order?

Climate believer
Reply to  fretslider
May 10, 2021 11:00 am

Raw.

jtom
Reply to  fretslider
May 10, 2021 3:47 pm

Actual data for climatologists, whether fried, broiled, or poached, is always rare.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  fretslider
May 10, 2021 7:05 pm

Transmogrified

Scarface
Reply to  fretslider
May 11, 2021 12:36 pm

made-up

Editor
May 10, 2021 9:17 am

At the last climate conference I attended, Bob Carter was there (RIP, he is missed) and mentioned that it was tough to refute some of the acidification claims in ways the general public could readily understand. In particular, explaining bicarbonate buffering is tough, even for people who remember high school chemistry.

Fish Fraud, on the other hand, is a lot easier. JCU should be severely embarrassed, but near as I can tell, their officers don’t understand the controversey, but they can afford the best lawyers in Australia so it doesn’t matter to them.

I assume this won’t be part of Ridd’s upcoming court hearing, as that is a wrongful dismissal issue and not directly about crappy science.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Ric Werme
May 10, 2021 9:53 am

Not so clear. The wrongful dismissal was for criticizing shoddy GBR research. This is beyond shoddy and is GBR related, so arguably relevant to the probity of his criticism.

Editor
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 10, 2021 10:03 am

At the very least, this ought to bring in several new people willing to make a big stink. 🙂

Hmm. We need a Cartoon by Josh for this, he may be drawing one this minute. I haven’t sent him any money lately, well past time to fix that.

Richard Page
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 10, 2021 10:36 am

Michael Mann was involved in at least one James Cook U/GBR paper – let’s hope he gets caught up in the net as well!

GregK
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 10, 2021 9:06 pm

No.
The wrongful dismissal was for criticizing shoddy GBR researchers.
He wasn’t sufficiently collegial ie he wasn’t prepared to put up with bullshit

markl
May 10, 2021 10:18 am

So called “scientists” wanting recognition have found that studies confirming the horrors of AGW get published, noticed, and quoted. When caught misrepresenting anything in their “studies” the common retort is to attack/shame the accusers instead of the data and the MSM is happy to help them. Lies will eventually come to light every time and the clock is ticking on the AGW scam.

dk_
May 10, 2021 10:20 am

“Mr. President, If climate science was settled, why under President Obama did the National Institute of Health and National Science Foundation spend U.S. taxpayer funds to study the Great Barrier Reef instead on developing a SARS vaccine to prevent the COVID 19 epidemic?”

“Follow up: Is the Department of Justice or the Department of State investigating why NIH and NSF have participated in the coverup of scientific fraud by Australian James Cook University?”

“Will the State Department be requesting a refund of the U.S. dollars spent for the fraudulent research at James Cook?”

“How much of U.S. Climate and Foreign policy is based on fraudulent claims by foreign fake science institutions?”

If anyone hears any of those questions asked at the Best Little Whitewash House in D.C., let us all know.

Last edited 1 month ago by dk_
Phil.
Reply to  dk_
May 10, 2021 11:50 am

dk_

 May 10, 2021 10:20 am
“Mr. President, If climate science was settled, why under President Obama did the National Institute of Health and National Science Foundation spend U.S. taxpayer funds to study the Great Barrier Reef instead on developing a SARS vaccine to prevent the COVID 19 epidemic?”

Well the SARS outbreak occurred during the Bush presidency and spontaneously resolved itself after a regional outbreak, the research done at that time did lead to the rapid development of vaccines for COVID-19 however.

clipe
Reply to  Phil.
May 10, 2021 2:59 pm

“Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

dk_
Reply to  Phil.
May 10, 2021 3:45 pm

Except that under Obama care, the government was enough to take care of all our health concerns. And after SARs, the Bush NIH was charged (by the Congress, where Obama was then Senator) to find a vaccine to prevent the next outbreak from becoming an epidemic, which they did not. President Obama used executive orders, his pen, and his phone, to redirect funding of U.S. agencies to climate, racial, and cultural issues. Then ignored the warning provided by the inability of government public health agencies to stop the spread of Ebola.
None of which should have allowed him to escape responsibility for causing the redirection of dedicated public health research funding to climate superstition, or allow the agencies to cover up the fraud.

Last edited 1 month ago by dk_
Editor
May 10, 2021 10:43 am

It’s well worthwhile to take the time to read https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/does-ocean-acidification-alter-fish-behavior-fraud-allegations-create-sea-doubt

Some of points that resonate with this old Climategate watcher include:

But he [fish physiologist Timothy Clark] didn’t get the same results at all. Placed in the flume, fish would start to explore their surroundings, but they rarely had the strong preference for one side or the other that Dixson and Munday reported, and amping up the CO2 did not make a difference.

The brazenness of the apparent deception shocked Jutfelt. “It really triggered my skepticism about science massively,” he says. “Before that paper, I could not understand how anyone could fabricate data. It was inconceivable to me.” Now, he began to wonder how many other papers might be a total fantasy. The experience also taught the group that, if they were ever to blow the whistle again, they would have to bring a stronger case right from the start, Clark says. [This was regarding a paper that claims microplastics have similar effects on fish larvae as they claim CO2 does.]

Others have criticized the paper as needlessly aggressive. Although Clark and his colleagues didn’t use science’s F-word, fabrication, they did say “methodological or analytical weaknesses” might have led to irreproducible results. And many in the research community knew the seven authors take a strong interest in sloppy science and fraud—they had blown the whistle on a 2016 Science paper by another former Ph.D. student of Munday’s that was subsequently deemed fraudulent and retracted—and felt the Nature paper hinted at malfeasance. The seven were an “odd little bro-pocket” whose “whole point is to harm other scientists,” marine ecologist John Bruno of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill—who hasn’t collaborated with Dixson and Munday—tweeted in October 2020. “The cruelty is the driving force of the work.”

Munday calls the allegations of fraud “abhorrent” and “slanderous,” and a JCU spokesperson says the university has dismissed the allegations after a preliminary investigation. (Munday retired from JCU in April and has moved to Tasmania, but emphasizes there is no connection between that timing and the allegations.)

But multiple scientists and data experts unconnected to the Clark group who reviewed the case at Science’s request flagged a host of problems in the two data sets, and one of them found what he says are serious irregularities in the data for additional papers co-authored by Munday.

I suspect that even JCU won’t be able to salvage some of the careers of people involved with this mess.

DaveW
Reply to  Ric Werme
May 10, 2021 4:11 pm

It is a long read, but absolutely worth it. Very detailed and balanced bit of investigative journalism. Very rare these days. Thanks Anthony for providing the Full link and to Ric for repeating it.

Of special note are how universities immediately brush back any complaints with a shrug or produce a quick and dirty exonerating ‘review’, how journals are uninterested in technical comments pointing out obvious flaws (or papers with negative results), how colleagues are quick to offer support to suspected fraudsters, and pretty much the full gamut of problems that have contributed to the replication crisis.

Smart Rock
May 10, 2021 12:30 pm

“In my experience, whistleblowers, myself as well as others, are shamed for talking to the media before an investigation has concluded misconduct”

Face it, “investigations” nearly always find no evidence of misconduct, because that is the easy solution and does not rock the boat. Talk to the media, please, as often and as loudly as you can.

In any event, the mainstream media will keep on quoting the papers, even after they are discredited and retracted. The truth must not get in the way of the message.

2hotel9
May 10, 2021 1:42 pm

Since coral reefs are doing exactly what they have always done, except when humans run some ocean going vessel into them(causing a problem) there is no f**cking problem.

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  2hotel9
May 10, 2021 2:03 pm

Or… you know… do the whole thermonuclear bombing thing on them… Even then they’ve recovered in a few decades.

2hotel9
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
May 10, 2021 2:56 pm

I actually know people who worked on Bikini and Enewetak during the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s and they were shocked to find they were not the radioactive death fields TV keeps screeching they are. Life. It is pretty hard to kill.

rah
May 10, 2021 1:58 pm

A Lie Too Far? In todays world where day after day we are bombarded by lies, I’ll believe it when I see it.

chickenhawk
May 10, 2021 2:06 pm

Something fishy this way comes…

As an unregistered fish psychologist, I find that most of my patients rarely if ever complain about the CO2 in their watery abodes, but rather suffer from persecution delusion, the feeling that someone is out to get them.

Tony Taylor
May 10, 2021 3:42 pm

I don’t think David Archibald is right. Ocean Acidification is not the last refuge of the climate scoundrels. Climate scoundrels will always find another issue to exaggerate.

H. D. Hoese
May 10, 2021 4:58 pm

I was a NIPCC consultant reviewer on Aquatics based on knowledge gained from graduate school among researchers carrying on marine gas studies for productivity measurements. Also spent may decades measuring various parameters including pH, learning how difficult it is to actually acidify sea water. Also have done plume and similar studies with fish and understand how difficult it is to be certain that other organic and inorganic materials are not actually being confused or active.The literature is vast and complex, homework lately not so much.

NIPCC was more focused on coral reefs, wanted them to go farther as the most productive waters in marine waters have the greatest pH variations, a few including near real acid. Many fixes offered are now for less productivity

Wharfplank
May 10, 2021 5:31 pm

“0cean acidification” is right up there with the Scripps study claiming the spray from breaking waves spread the covid in the ocean into human lungs

Pat from kerbob
May 10, 2021 6:59 pm

Does such a flustercluck come soon enough to help Ridd in his fight?

GregK
May 10, 2021 9:00 pm

The oldest known fish,Metaspriggina walcotti, was out and about 518 million years ago during the Cambrian period.
https://theconversation.com/the-oldest-fish-in-the-world-lived-500-million-years-ago-27710

The atmospheric CO2 was about 4500ppm. That didn’t stop fish avoiding predators, evolving or generally behaving like fish. If it had there wouldn’t be any fish.

Caligula Jones
May 11, 2021 6:53 am

Funny how sites like Retraction Watch never have any climate-related retractions, corrections, etc.

Its the one perfect science…

john harmsworth
May 11, 2021 8:18 am

“Pressure to publish”? Nonsense! A choice to produce garbage science can’t be excused as anything but nefarious intent.

Mickey Reno
May 11, 2021 9:36 am

Of course, anyone who claims to be a scientist who also promotes the wrong idea that peer-review somehow implies scientific validity MUST be condemned in the strongest terms as anti-scientific. But moreover, we need to tear down the incentive system created by publication journals themselves. It’s time to go to online publishing of all government funded science, with open review, and end the paywalls and gate-keeping that journals now employ. They have long since lost their usefulness, and charge libraries and universities buttloads of money for subscriptions, and they extort graduate students to pay to publish, when no such payment would be needed in an open, online database for all science papers. University libraries should encourage their own students to publish online and to forego the “prestige” of once-but-no-longer-prestigious journals. Then, replication can once again resume it’s rightful role in the science process, free to all auditors and scientists wishing to build on the work of others.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mickey Reno
May 11, 2021 10:34 am

There is no excuse for making taxpayers pay to read research funded by taxes!

jon2009
May 14, 2021 4:17 pm

Good luck to them.
The history of whistleblowers shows truth is secondary to other considerations for bureaucracies.

%d bloggers like this: