by James Delingpole 29 Aug 2016
Of all the climate “science” scams I’ve helped expose, about the worst has got to be Ocean Acidification.
The very name is a lie: no our oceans are not turning acid; still less are our corals and marine life under any threat of dissolving in what the New York Times once hysterically described as “our deadened, carbon-soaked seas”.
Yet still this junk-science scare story refuses to lie down and die because there are so many vested interests determined to prop it up.
Here is the latest egregious example. Published at The Marine Biologist (“the magazine of the marine biological community”) it purports to be a damning refutation of one of my many articles calling out the Ocean Acidification lie.
There was a time when I would have just ignored it: the guy who wrote it – one Phil Williamson – is the embodiment of Upton Sinclair’s dictum that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Not only is Williamson based at the “University” of East Anglia – aka Climate Alarmism Central, heavily featured in the Climategate scandal – but since 2010 he has been paid as Science Coordinator of the UK Ocean Acidification research programme. This project has received around £12.5 million of UK government funding, most it provided by the Natural Environment Research Council (for which conveniently Williamson also works).
But to ignore articles like Williamson’s is, I have learned from experience, a grave mistake. Like an untreated wound they have a nasty habit of going septic. They need to be cauterised lest they turn gangrenous.
Here are some examples of what I mean:
— Daily Climate (@TheDailyClimate) August 28, 2016
The Spectator published a piece by James Delingpole on the acidification of our oceans. Guess what, it was rubbish! https://t.co/MjihyIhcO8
— Sunny Hundal (@sunny_hundal) August 27, 2016
— Simon Cook (@glacio_cook) August 27, 2016
— (((Greg Jenner))) (@greg_jenner) August 27, 2016
Do you see how these memes metastasize in the liberal-left echo-chamber?
I mean, you expect this kind of crap from DeSmog Blog – a Soros-funded alarmist site; from Graham Readfern, a Guardianista hack on a life mission to prove that denialists are a bunch of evil deniers; and from Sunny Hundal, a painfully stupid left wing blogger. You also fully expect it to be shared by people involved in the climate change industry, as a kind of mutual self-esteem-boosting exercise.
Where we need to start worrying, though, is when this nonsense goes mainstream.
That last tweet from Greg Jenner, for example. Yes – as a popular TV historian he probably qualifies as a member of what I’d call the Wankerati: the left-liberal media chattering classes. But for all that he’s a decent, reasonable guy – not aggressively political, not a rabid environmentalist, not aboard the climate change gravy train or anything like that.
Yet on the basis of Williamson’s piece, this decent, reasonable guy has made up his mind that the science behind Ocean Acidification is solid and that the only people questioning it are – to use his words – “untrained opinionistas.”
And the problem is there will be many others like him. Which is why, of course, Williamson wrote his rebuttal in the first place and took so much trouble over its presentation, giving it the look and feel of a proper scientific paper. He knew exactly what he was doing by playing the “more science-y than thou” card, because he and his kind have been playing it very successfully for years.
“Scientists say…”. It’s amazing what powerful magic this formula can effect on otherwise well-educated, intelligent, skeptical people.
It never occurs to them that there as many chancers and charlatans with science degrees as there are with arts degrees. Nor that scientific research, being often dependent on the values and aims of those who are funding it, is prone to corruption and politicisation. Nor yet that science is more than capable of going down completely wrong alleys for any number of other reasons, from human error to the domineering arrogance of a few influential individuals.
Consider, for example, Noam Chomsky, the subject of Tom Wolfe’s latest book Kingdom of Speech. For fifty years – his position assured by his fashionably left-wing politics – Chomsky dominated the field of linguistics to such an extent that almost nobody dared question his theory that language is hard-wired into our brains.
Think about this: a half century in which one field of scientific study was entirely in thrall to the theory of one individual. How many tenured professors is that? How many PhDs? How many undergraduates? How much money in research grants? All of it – it has since emerged – to no useful purpose whatsoever. As Wolfe explains in his book, Chomsky had formulated behind his Harvard desk a theory which a researcher in the field – one Daniel L Everett, formerly an acolyte of Chomsky’s – was finally able to prove be fatally flawed.
Yet if you’d expressed skepticism towards Chomsky in that fifty year period, how do you think you would have been received in all the linguistics faculties promoting Chomsky’s theories? What kind of a hearing do you think you would have had in broader intellectual circles if you tried to take on the reputation of a man everyone had come to accept unquestioningly as the cleverest thinker in his field?
This, unfortunately, is how bad scientific ideas get to survive long past their sell-by dates.
Not that Ocean Acidification is nor ever was really about “the science”. Partly it was dreamed up as a way of hoovering up some of the vast quantities of government research grant available for anything vaguely connected with “climate change”; partly, as a pals’ make-work scheme for otherwise unemployable environmental science and marine biology graduates from places like the “University” of East Anglia.
Mainly, though, Ocean Acidification was invented to serve the same purpose as the Siegfried Line did for the Germans in the Second World War: that is, as a fall-back position for when all the other plans failed.
Remember that “climate change” represents a global industry worth around $1.5 trillion – all of this expenditure predicated on the notion that man-made carbon dioxide is a problem because it causes catastrophic global warming. Now clearly if – as seems to be increasingly likely – CO2 turns out to be just a harmless trace gas whose influence on climate is marginal, then an awful lot of vested interests are going to be heavily out of pocket. Hence the appeal to the vast climate alarmist conspiracy of Ocean Acidification: the handy theory which ensures that even if global warming doesn’t happen, there will still be plenty of snout-space at the trough for all those rent-seekers, crooks, greed-heads, scamsters and shills involved in the “decarbonisation” industry.
You see now, I hope, why it’s so important that we squash Williamson’s paper in much the same way I’ve been squashing the giant browny-orange slugs which have been invading my vegetable patch of late.
Williamson – and dozens, if not hundreds of environmental scientists like Williamson – have got away for far too long and have wasted far, far too much of our money perpetrating a junk-science scam which should have been killed off long ago. It matters not a jot whether they are doing it out of cynicism or honest ignorance: the net result is just the same.
From Australia to the US to the UK, there are university departments devoted to studying this crap, teaching impressionable students that this made-up shit is real, and thus creating a whole generation of Ocean Acidification mini-mes ready to go out into the world, eager to persuade government funding agencies and lefty funding bodies like the Rockefeller foundation that still more needs to be done in this vital field.
And actually, no, more doesn’t need to be done. If we’re going to pay these virtually unemployable marine biology graduates to do something, at least let it be something that has a semblance of usefulness, like maybe how to prevent crown-of-thorns starfish gobbling up coral reefs or how to prevent great white sharks from eating so many swimmers in Western Australia or how to discourage cute whales from having their sonar disrupted by offshore wind farms and ending up dying on beaches. (Banning offshore wind farms would be my solution: but hey, what do I know? I’m not a “marine biologist”)
Anyway, this is where you come in, my learned friends. Think of this as a crowdsourcing exercise – a peer-to-peer review publication.
What I’m going to do is post up Williamson’s paper, with some of the criticisms I have so far, some of them my own, some from people who really know the field in some detail like Patrick Moore. Then, in the comments section, what I’d like you guys to do is help me nail every one of Williamson’s “rebuttal” arguments. These I can then incorporate into the body of my piece.
In this way, we’ll end up with a counter-rebuttal far more thorough than Williamson’s rebuttal. And if anyone ever tries to say: “Actually Delingpole’s criticisms of ocean acidification were comprehensively dismissed by the experts” – all we need do is refer them with a hyperlink to my article.
Ready to do some banana-slug squishing? (Or salting if you prefer). Good. Wait till I post up the first draft of my counterblast to Williamson. Then we can have some fun!