Skip to content

Global warming is causing fish to lose their sense of smell!!!

July 24, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

 

More garbage from the Mail:

 image

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5982873/Global-warming-causing-fish-lose-sense-SMELL.html

 

 

There is a pattern here. The author is Joe Pinkstone, who seems to write most of the climate crap for the Mail. Ironically though, the Mail also publishes serious, sceptical articles by the likes of David Rose.

 

 image

https://twitter.com/JoePinkstone

 

According to his blog, Pinkstone is a masters graduate of Science and Environmental Journalism at the University of Lincoln, and his Instagram account tells us he is 22.

Evidently his MA did not teach him anything about proper journalism, that you should always check your facts and not simply cut and paste what someone else has told you.

Unfortunately in the new era of journalism, facts don’t seem to matter and cub reporters, who should be learning their trade properly, are encouraged to print whatever garbage they like.

Advertisements
24 Comments
  1. July 24, 2018 10:04 am

    The BBC loves it! “Ocean acidification” tells you it’s a load of BS.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44925495

  2. John Palmer permalink
    July 24, 2018 10:06 am

    Fishes’ smell always gets worse in hot weather – especially if you don’t put them in the fridge!

    Happily, it doesn’t effect our ‘olfactory senses’ – we can smell bulls**t journalism a mile away – whatever the weather.

  3. Jack Broughton permalink
    July 24, 2018 10:43 am

    The AGW “Fear Campaign” is getting more and more desperate to keep the populace brainwashed. Fortunately, as with other Political Science issues the man in the street has the common-sense that the intelligentsia lack. As Ron Clutz notes on his website, the issue of global warming was regarded as important by less than 3% of a recent poll, unfortunately, they are the powerful group who try to run the world. If it were a real problem the response would be much different!

  4. July 24, 2018 10:52 am

    Surprised this rubbish got through the editorial desk.

  5. A C Osborn permalink
    July 24, 2018 11:03 am

    I don’t know if you bothered to look at the article it is so poor that the Graph Heading says Oceanic CO2 Concentrations when it is actually showing Atmospheric CO2 currently at 400ppm.
    They have the cheek to put it in the “Science” section, however the initial blame must go to the University of Exeter, shame on them.

  6. Tony Budd permalink
    July 24, 2018 11:04 am

    On a slightly related matter: the proposal to reduce speed limits in London could have the ironical effect of increasing emissions off-peak. Car fuel consumption at 20mph (the proposed limit) is around 18% higher than at 30mph (the current limit in most parts), and the same will apply to all other petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles, and probably even hybrids. Sorry, fishes!

  7. tom0mason permalink
    July 24, 2018 11:08 am

    And the Daily Mail just like the BBC prove once again, they are just Scarab beetles of news — initially attractive but then you realize they live in dung.

  8. Coeur de Lion permalink
    July 24, 2018 11:19 am

    The final chapter of David Attenborough ‘s Blue Planet 2 was entitled Acid Sea and recalls the fraudulent last few minutes of the TV programme. Poor David has had no scientific education and is floundering amongst all these con artists. Why, we even had Flooded
    Miami again!!!!

  9. July 24, 2018 11:32 am

    “Pinkstone is a masters graduate of Science and Environmental Journalism at the University of Lincoln, and his Instagram account tells us he is 22.”

    Where to start?
    –He is 22 and therefore has not had any experience at life.
    –“Science and Environmental” sounds not too bad until you come to the next word, “Journalism”.
    –Does “masters graduate” mean he has a masters degree, i.e. MA or MS? Again, he is 22.

    The whole “journalism” thing is the kicker. I suspect that he has had almost no or possibly no actual science courses. What botany, zoology, chemistry and physics background does he have? And throw geology in the mix as you get a sense of earth over millions and millions of years.

    I suspect his “learning” is a lot like those here in “environmental administration” curricula. They learn how to effectively whine and bring law suits and make regulations, but really don’t know anything about things of the “environment.” It is just a word and not something to actually be learned.

    • dave permalink
      July 24, 2018 11:54 am

      “carbon dioxide … is converted into carbonic acid.”

      In sea-water, fewer than one molecule out of every 840 dissolved molecules of carbon dioxide is converted to provide [H+]:

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304420302000105?via%3Dihub

      The others are…not.

      Any fule kno that.

      • July 24, 2018 1:41 pm

        It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for the oceans to become acidic (lakes and rivers are different). To quote Prof. Plimer, “The oceans can only become acidic if the ocean beds run out of rocks – don’t wait up.”
        Reason is basic chemistry (literally). CaCO3 (limestone insoluble rock/sludge on the ocean beds) + H2O + CO2 = Ca(HCO3)2 Calcium bicarbonate – which is soluble and ALKALINE.
        The oceans are therefore what chemists call a buffered solution and remain permanently basic with a pH fluctuating around 8 [7 = neutral, 7 to 1 = acidic, 7-14 = basic; it’s a log scale].
        When CO2 was thousands of times higher than it is today (which was for most of earth’s gelogical past) the ocean were not acidic.
        If you remember your school days’ chemistry. The test for CO2 gas was to bubble it through ‘limewater’, Ca(OH)2. It would go milky Ca(OH)2 + CO2 = CaCO3 (insoluble) + H2O. Then, if you continued to bubble CO2 through this it would clear again:
        CaCO3 + H2O + CO2 = Ca(HCO3)2 (as above).

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      July 24, 2018 12:29 pm

      An “expert” in Law, Politics, Economics or Environmental-“Science” is just a person who says what they want him to say and sounds to know what he is talking about: ideally with a Wizard of Oz Certificate.

    • Broadlands permalink
      July 24, 2018 1:06 pm

      MS or MA? More like the smell of BS? Nothing is acidic until it gets below pH of 7.0

  10. Malcolm permalink
    July 24, 2018 11:44 am

    The world of Science that I inhabit is ruled by the code “We seek the truth”.

    Academic science seems more often, but not totally, to be ruled by “We seek the money”.

    I am told we live in a post truth world – the evidence is growing that this statement is true!

  11. Athelstan permalink
    July 24, 2018 12:46 pm

    “a masters graduate of Science and Environmental Journalism at the University of Lincoln”

    I couldn’t possibly comment, hey ho.

  12. Kelvin Vaughan permalink
    July 24, 2018 12:54 pm

    I can’t smell anything under water.

  13. Europeanonion permalink
    July 24, 2018 1:43 pm

    What is truly concerning is the confidence with which correspondence assert that AGW is a proven, accepted phenomenon. In the Times today: ‘Climate change hits birds far harder than mammals’. An unproven science that then becomes a positive assertion by adoption and not proof; a mere convention amongst those of a certain temperament which, in that article, ignores reality but creates faked news in place of any real science that might come-up with a unarguable attribution.

  14. July 24, 2018 2:40 pm

    Technically they can claim that a movement from alkaline towards pH 7 is “acidification”, but the amount they claim is within natural variation:

    IPCC WGI 2007 stated that “the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean, so the ocean remains alkaline”. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are turning to acid.

    The claim that “ocean acidity” has increased by 30% since before the industrial revolution was calculated from the estimated uptake of anthropogenic carbon between 1750 and 1994, which shows a decrease in alkalinity of 0.1 pH unit, well within the range quoted by IPCC.

    “The consequences of changes in pH on marine organisms are poorly known (see Section 7.3.4 and Box 7.3). For comparison, pH was higher by 0.1 unit during glaciations, and there is no evidence of pH values more than 0.6 units below the pre-industrial pH during the past 300 million years (Caldeira and Wickett, 2003). A decrease in ocean pH of 0.1 units corresponds to a 30% increase in the concentration of H+ in seawater, assuming that alkalinity and temperature remain constant.”

    “Acid Seas – Back To Basic”

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/acid-seas

    http://oceanplasma.org/documents/chemistry.html

    “Carbon dioxide can react with water to form bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

    CO2 + H2O –› HCO3- + H+ –› CO32- + 2H+

    These reactions control the acidity (pH) of seawater.

    Organisms use carbonate ion and calcium ion to make calcium carbonate shells, which sink after the organisms die to form calcareous sediments.”

    The buffering capacity of seawater is massive.

    • Jim Ross permalink
      July 24, 2018 4:53 pm

      “IPCC WGI 2007 stated that “the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean, so the ocean remains alkaline”.”

      Indeed, but what they did not say was that the pH of surface waters can vary by that much at a single location every single year! Limited data are available, but see, for example:

      https://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/GAKOA (be patient waiting for plots to appear)

      I assume that the phenomenal removal of CO2 early in every April at this location is the initiation of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but that’s just a guess on my part. Similar behaviour can be seen at the sites M2 and Iceland, whereas equatorial sites are very different.

      • dave permalink
        July 24, 2018 6:32 pm

        “…pH…”

        The half-educated, young people who now write much of the rubbish, and the fully uneducated people who read it, are merely running through a catechism; they have to believe in every word of it, even if they do not know the actual meaning of some of the words.

        http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/09/10/what-the-public-knows-and-does-not-know-about-science/

        Although the above specifically concerns the USA, studies show the public elsewhere in the world – anyplace with multi-year, universal, compulsory education – scores similarly. They have a certain “concrete” knowledge, such as a six-year old can grasp (e.g. the middle of the earth is ‘hot’). But any question which involves a little understanding of how things actually work, flummoxes the majority of them.

        53% of people with POST-GRADUATE degrees do not know that water boils at a lower temperature in Denver than in Los Angeles! Which I interpret as showing they do not know what “boiling” is, and they do not know that they do not know.

        The truth is that science is too hard for ordinary people and it is also too hard for most scientists.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      July 25, 2018 1:12 pm

      The article headline states ‘acidic oceans’ and ‘become more acidic’ both of which are lies.

  15. ben Dussan permalink
    July 25, 2018 1:44 pm

    This appears to be more a bunch of smelly opinions expressed as facts.
    As it is said in the USA, thus far, this case smells like a case of bs and ms.….

  16. Ed Bo permalink
    July 25, 2018 7:55 pm

    Pinkstone even looks like cub reporter Jimmy Olson of the Superman comics. That might be a good way of referring to him going forward…

  17. July 29, 2018 5:19 pm

    Don’t single-out the Mail.
    The Indy (reporter Josh Gabbatiss) carried this story too. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-fish-smell-ocean-acid-carbon-dioxide-find-food-global-warming-a8460421.html

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: