Sunday, December 05, 2010

Christopher Booker Has No Shame

Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker has such a incorrect, stupid, and dishonest sentence (in an otherwise incorrect, stupid, and dishonest column) that it's impossible to believe it could appear in newspaper at all concerned with its reputation -- or even simple honesty. Booker writes:
"Far from the oceans acidifying, their pH currently ranges between 7.9 and 8.3, putting them very firmly on the alkaline side of the threshold, at 7.0."
This is just unbelievably stupid. I can't even believe even Booker thinks this is an accurate description of ocean acidification, which is, of course, about the ocean's pH getting lower, regardless of its starting point.

As others have noted, "ocean acidification" is not perhaps the most compelling term, especially in a scientifically illiterate world that seems to need every little detail spelled out. But Booker's statement is akin to saying that a temperature increase from -10°C to -5°C isn't "warmer" because it's still below the freezing point.

Shameful..

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Give us a break with your "shame" comments. Of course something that's alkaline does NOT become more acidic with a slight drop, just as something that's frozen but raises slightly in temp doesn't become MORE liquid. It's still frozen!!! It's a chemical process. You tried, but failed on this one.
Marcia Turnquist

Anonymous said...

Marcia are you for real? Nobody can be that dumb.

Dano said...

Marcia, like Booker, is trying to spread disinformation.

Its not being dumb, its having no shame - as David's headline states but text muddles.

Best,

D

guthrie said...

Not at all, this kind of stupidity is commonplace amongst those who think that global warming is a greenie plot to kill humans and destroy the economy. No matter how many times you carefuly explain that acidifying means becoming more acidic, they never get it and insist on making a big deal about it.

Dano said...

My default is these commenters are not real people and instead some Andura Smetacek-type character. Sure, there are those that are this ignorant and make assertive-yet-titanically-wrong comments, but IME far more likely to be a created character to spread FUD. Very common.

Best,

D

guthrie said...

Well, I know about the dangers of extrapolation, but in at least a couple of occaisions, such people do in fact exist and want to do it on their own time, due to their political beliefs. The most infamous example is neil craig, founder of the 10% growth party, who is a real person based in glasgow. Another similar minded person or two I have come across are known to be real through the six degrees of separation thing, whereby I know someone who knows someone who knows them.
That is the beauty of it, why pay someone when there are dupes lining up to do it for free?

(Of course they say the same thing about the likes of us...)

I'm sure the usual suspects write the fud, but once released into the wild it is propagated by volunteers.

Dano said...

I hear you guthrie. But someone that dumb generally does not construct sentences that well (use the Google to find this 'person's babbling). Possible, surely. And I agree that gullible rubes parrot what sockpuppets write. That's the genius of the astroturf agitprop movement.

Best,

D

crf said...

Booker, to his wife, who's making tea:

I told you to BOIL the water, so why are you heating it first!