In another of their “great” contributions, CO2 science has decided to take issue with a recent publication by Charlie Veron on the critical importance of 350ppm for the survivals coral reef (see here for our writeup at Climate Shifts). The issue seems to focus upon a series of unambiguous statements as to where we stand with respect to climate change and coral reefs – instead suggesting that we read a poorly written piece of pseudo-science penned by an industry shill Craig Idso:
In an article published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin, Veron et al. (2009) go far beyond the normal bounds accepted by most rational scientists, when they emphatically state, not what they contend may occur to earth’s coral reefs as the air’s CO2 content continues to rise, but what they dogmatically declare will happen, as if they were gods, condescending to reveal the fearful future to the rest of us mentally-deficient mortals.
We’ve blogged extensively before about “CO2 Science” (see here) who have deliberately misquoted and paraphrased our own publications to fit their paid agenda. It’s an intriguing aim – maintain ambiguity and doubt regarding the threat that climate change poses to coral reefs to sustain the relative policy inertia in some parts of the United States and other countries. Considering the mission statement of the “The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change” (i.e. CO2 Science) claims that:
“In this endeavor, the Center attempts to separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change…”
They haven’t done themselves any favours here by publishing exactly that: an emotionally charge piece laden with rhetoric.
One Response to Pseudo "CO2 Science"
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Archives
- January 2013 (10)
- December 2012 (2)
- November 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (4)
- July 2012 (4)
- June 2012 (3)
- May 2012 (2)
- April 2012 (4)
- March 2012 (5)
- February 2012 (6)
- January 2012 (3)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (2)
- August 2011 (11)
- July 2011 (11)
- June 2011 (5)
- May 2011 (17)
- April 2011 (6)
- March 2011 (5)
- February 2011 (8)
- January 2011 (9)
- December 2010 (8)
- November 2010 (15)
- October 2010 (16)
- September 2010 (6)
- August 2010 (13)
- July 2010 (8)
- June 2010 (26)
- May 2010 (18)
- April 2010 (26)
- March 2010 (42)
- February 2010 (61)
- January 2010 (24)
- December 2009 (43)
- November 2009 (30)
- October 2009 (29)
- September 2009 (36)
- August 2009 (31)
- July 2009 (33)
- June 2009 (23)
- May 2009 (19)
- April 2009 (21)
- March 2009 (19)
- February 2009 (7)
- January 2009 (19)
- December 2008 (20)
- November 2008 (15)
- October 2008 (8)
- September 2008 (13)
- August 2008 (8)
- July 2008 (12)
- June 2008 (14)
- May 2008 (17)
- April 2008 (11)
- March 2008 (11)
- February 2008 (16)
- January 2008 (11)
- December 2007 (7)
- November 2007 (18)
- October 2007 (10)
- September 2007 (18)
- August 2007 (25)
- July 2007 (18)
- June 2007 (4)






You have to smile at the irony in the crevasse separating CO2 Science’s goal “to separate reality from rhetoric” and their use of rhetoric in their post through repeated satirical religious references to Vernon and his colleagues as “gods” and “The Enlightened Ones” and their pun on the Ten Commandments.