Looks like ocean acidification was made up too

The supporters of global warming theory always come up with new doomsday scenarios, usually when the last one failed.

The latest one that is pushed hard is ocean acidification as a result of global warming…except it looks like it is as fraudulent and Michael Mann’s hockey stick.

James Delingpole explains:

Ocean acidification is said to be caused when excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by the sea, reducing its pH levels to make it more acidic.

But, as Watts Up With That reports new evidence unearthed by an inquisitive graduate student suggests that “ocean acidification” may be a scientific fraud to rank with the great “man-made-global warming” scare.

At the centre of the scandal is NOAA, the US federal scientific agency which measures and researches changes in the oceans and atmosphere, and which maintains one of the temperature datasets used to measure “global warming.”

One of NOAA’s departments – the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) – also happens to be one of the mainstays of the alarmist narrative about “ocean acidification.”

A 2004 paper by two of PMEL’s senior oceanographers – Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine – is often cited in support of “ocean acidification” theory and is reproduced, in simplified form, at NOAA’s website.  It also formed part of testimony that Feely gave to Congress in 2010, again to the effect that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing a reduction in seawater pH.  

It warns:

“The impacts of ocean acidification on shelled organisms and other animals could negatively affect marine food webs, and, when combined with other climatic changes, could substantially alter the number, variety, and health of ocean wildlife. As humans continue to send more and more carbon dioxide into the oceans, the impacts on marine ecosystems will be direct and profound.”


“The message is clear: excessive carbon dioxide poses a threat to the health of our oceans.”

However, it now seems that the paper’s certainty is at best misplaced, at worst outright dishonest. Not unlike Michael Mann’s discredited Hockey Stick graph it appears to depend on cherry-picked data and misleading projections in defiance of real-world evidence.

The alleged fraud was uncovered by Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience now working towards his PhD at the University of New Mexico. While studying a chart produced by Feely and Sabine, apparently showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels, Wallace noticed that some key information had been omitted.

Mysteriously, the chart only began in 1988. But Wallace knew for a fact that there were oceanic pH measurements dating back to at least 100 years earlier and was puzzled that this solid data had been ignored, in favour of computer modelled projections.


When Wallace emailed his query to Feely and Sabine, however, he found them less than helpful.

Sabine replied that it was inappropriate for Wallace to impugn the “motives or quality of our science” and warned that if he continued in this manner “you will not last long in your career.” Having provided Wallace with a few links – all of which turned out to be useless – he concluded his email by saying “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.”

This response, again, calls to mind the behaviour of Michael Mann in response to queries from Steve McIntyre about where to find the raw data for his Hockey Stick. Mann was similarly obfuscatory, rude and dismissive.

Undeterred, Wallace eventually got hold of the instrumental records which Feely and Sabine had chosen to exclude from their graph of doom and plotted a time series chart of his own, covering the period from 1910 to the present.

His results were surprising. What they suggest is that global acidification is a figment of Feely’s and Sabine’s imagination: there has been NO reduction in oceanic pH levels in the last century.



Whoopsy. Looks like they’ve been busted making stuff up again.

Wallace says: “Oceanic acidification may seem like a minor issue to some but, besides being wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate change’.”

He adds: “In whose professional world is it acceptable to omit the majority of the data and also not disclose the omission to any other soul or Congressional body?”

I wonder when the world will start prosecuting some of these fraudsters.


– Breitbart


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Ratchette

    What can I say ?
    Phoney, phoney, phantasy, phraud.

  • steve and monique

    So these experts have found a new way to keep funding coming.

    • Ratchette

      Yes ‘Where there’s muck there’s brass’

  • cows4me

    The lie must continue at all costs, the people must believe at all costs. Let’s be honest the scum pushing this crap care not a jot about the climate. It’s a very desperate attempt to subjugate the western world to huge taxes and rules that will enslave the people to a crocked cabal of Marxist dictators. The top ranks of these tossers are evil to the core and the vast proportion of their followers are brainwashed useful idiots. I’ve probably spent 98% of my working life outside and i can tell you the climate is changing, it changes all the bloody time. Our leaders are weak and useless, the pushes of this crap should be told to sling their hook and find a real job.

    • Ratchette

      Spot on. It’s just part of a bigger UN scam, Agenda 21. Don’t waste time by google-ing Agenda 21 & attempting to read the document. Go instead to youtube and select a short video.
      Agenda 21 started mid 1990’s. It is takeover by stealth. Not ‘top down’ which would be far too transparent, but bottom up, implemented by town councils. . A good example is Auckland’s unitary plan based on Agenda 21 and implemented by ‘stealth’ by lying len & his council puppets. I guess PDB is eye-ing a nice job in NY with UN when we finally get rid. A job with helen will be convenient for len, especially so now that he has sold his life style property.

  • andrewo

    This made my day! Thanks

    (I wonder if we’ll see this reprinted in the Herald or on TV…)

  • Another Middleagedwhiteguy

    beware of the green-tongued wussels – they are toxic all year round

  • Benoni

    It is hard to believe that normal professional people would collude in such a massive fraud on science as this appears to be. I still find it hard to believe that any responsible good person could perpetrate this lie. Is it possible there is another more rational explanation to to this “piltdown man” type environmental fraud?

    • kehua

      Simple, follow the money trail, endowments, scholarships , bequeathments and straight out Company bribery. We pay, you give us the results we require.

  • david

    I was responding to correspondence on the “silly beliefs” blog, where John, the owner, asks “why would so many scientists conspire to mislead” and its a good question. Party it is the growth of advocacy in the scientific community where scientists have got fed up with being in the back room and ignored, and have been encouraged to speak out. The problem is that in the back room with your colleagues, admitting you were wrong in the light of new evidence is expected and lauded. Once you have become a public advocate, admitting you are wrong becomes much harder. And scientists are human as we all are – we all seek out evidence that supports our beliefs. I am sure the first evidence of global warming alarmed researchers and their warnings were genuine and justified. Then just when their cries started being heard, counter-evidence started coming in. Instead of saying “wait – we may be wrong” they started digging a hole …