The outcome of the Referendum highlighted the reaction against experts and provides a significant challenge to the whole science and technical community. The need to respond to misinformation effectively are growing.

Phillip Williamson, UEA: ‘At the end of April, The Spectator published an article on ocean acidification by James Delingpole.   Unfortunately it was classic pseudo-science, purporting to give reasoned arguments and evidence whilst being scientifically incorrect in very many ways.  The online version of the article (at http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/ocean-acidification-yet-another-wobbly-pillar-of-climate-alarmism/) has continued potential to misinform and mislead.  UK scientists didn’t notice it until recently; when they did, detailed comments were drafted and sent to The Spectator editor, since the magazine claims to “uphold strict standards of accuracy”.  Lacking any response from that magazine, those comments have now been published online by The Marine Biologist, with the following citation:  Williamson, P. (2016) Two views of ocean acidification: which is fatally flawed? www.mba.ac.uk/marinebiologist/comments-on-ocean-acidification-yet-another-wobbly-pillar-of-climate-alarmism-by-james-delingpole/

Dr Phillip Williamson, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia. Norwich NR4 7TJ

Tel +(0)1603 593111, Mobile +(0)7749092287