"Analysis of Alarmism: Ocean Acidification"

Article/opinion piece.

Click here for document.

The most outstanding underlying assumption by this author is that human induced global warming is a lie perpetuated by scientists to scare the public - the reason why scientists would want to scare the public is not given. The author is sceptical about whether the problem of ocean acidification exists, and is also distrustful of the validity and accuracy of computer models used by scientists. Several factual claims are made without primary evidence given to back up his conclusions, including that the International Panel of Climate Change, a respected global organization, is "wrong." The author also makes a very weak, ad hominem attack on a scientist that presents research contradicting the author's beliefs. The author provides two graphs that have no cited sources, and generally provides no evidence or solid reasoning throughout the article.

I do not think this author's viewpoint is balanced, especially as a proclaimed "Doctor of Science," his tone is far from scientifically neutral and it seems his own personal observations and biases act in the place of real evidence. The author's use of language is fairly emotional - presumably in order to elicit an emotional rather than logical reaction, using words like "ludicrous" and descriptions like "outrageous and incorrect" to convince readers of his opinion.

"Ocean Acidification and Corals"

Opinion piece by "Watts Up" Skeptical blog.

Click here for document.

The main point of this author's piece seems to be a protest of the use of the word "acidified" to describe the state or future state of the ocean, as he insists on a literal interpretation of the word. It seems the author is conflicted between asserting that the effects of acidification will be negligible or that it does not exist at all. Further reading seems to show that the author believes CO2 is increasing, but it is not human caused, and will be a net positive for the earth. The author uses historical information (that has no citation) as evidence that acidification will not be a problem today. The author also equivocates the effects of an atomic bomb to that of ocean acidification, stating that if the marine life survived after a bomb it will be fine under conditions of acidification.

The author's viewpoint does not seem balanced, and his reasoning and evidence are weak - submitting to fallacies such as proving one thing and concluding another, as well as the use of red herrings to lead his point around in a non-linear fashion. The use of language was loaded with assumptions, and the writing seemed written for a captive audience of like-minded thinkers.

"Microdocs: The Acid Ocean"

A "microdocumentary" by Stanford University.

Click here for the document.

The underlying view and unstated assumption of the author is that humans are putting CO2 into the atmosphere. The author gives physical examples and demonstrations as evidence for his assertions. He also acknowledges the sceptical view that his claims do not "sound like a lot" but goes on to explain his reasoning in a logical fashion. The written portion of the article is cited, with both academic and popular sources - among these sources are highly esteemed scientific journals such as "Science" and "Nature." Neither the video nor the writing seem to address the concerns of the sceptical/denier community - but the article seems to be acting as a basic information provider rather than a debate.

I think that the viewpoint of this author is more or less balanced, as the sources of information are credible and the tone of the piece is not one of persuasion, but rather education. Ideas, reasons, evidence and conclusions are presented in a linear and connected manner so that logic can be followed. Language is not styled as opinion, but presents information and evidence first and conclusions afterward - there is no personal voice in the written section of the article, and there are no grand assertions or shocking predictions for the future.

"Acid Oceans" - "Key Effects of Climate Change"

A BBC article.

Click here for the document.

As part of a series on climate change, this article exhibits the view that climate change is anthropogenic. The perceived problems of ocean acidification on different kinds of marine life are broken down into sections, where they are discussed mostly in layman's terms. There are no citations or references, even for the source of diagrams, which seem quite professionally done - one has a watermark source from the International Panel on Climate Change. The topics and tone of the article are educational, with no personal voice attached to the writing.

I find the viewpoint to be less than scientifically balanced, as credibility is difficult to assess when the evidence is not cited. Though, the scientific facts seem consistent with commonly accepted expert knowledge on the subject, and the content is quite effective in communicating understanding of the issue. However, without references, stating such words as "evidence suggests" and "scientists agree" can become an appeal to authority and should be critically received. The BBC news service has a reputation for accuracy and minimal bias, and so perhaps this assumption leads the author to not feel the need to have solid scientific balance.

"Oceans at Dire Risk, Team of Scientists Warns"

A New York Times article.

Click here for the document.

This article essentially summarizes the findings discussed in one document, and does not really take a critical viewpoint of climate change or ocean acidification. The language of the article is neutral, simply relaying quotes and statements by others to create a snapshot of what this document (the International Earth system expert workshop on ocean stresses and impacts Summary Report) is about and what people are saying about it. There is no scientific background information to the story, but conclusions about implications for people and for the future are given - in the from of opinions by experts. There is a link to the document in the first sentence of the article, but no other references are alluded to.

I find this to be a balanced summary of the document in question, however, as a stand alone article it is not scientifically balanced. The article goes through different points of the document fairly evenly and gathers opinions from several different experts, but does not branch out from the contents of the document, and does not offer additional information to supplement understanding of the material. As it is written, the article shows one dimension of the problem without imparting a full understanding of the issue to the reader.

"Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification"

A video by the Natural Resources Defence Council.

Click here for the video.

This video collects the viewpoints of many experts into one document, but they all align with the basic assumption of climate change as caused by human factors. Much emotional imagery and language is used, but it is in conjunction with stated scientific fact by agreed upon experts in the field. Reference to scientific modelling is made, and connections to background information and connected issues are explained. Scientists are shown doing their physical research, and the viewer is able to see what the scientist sees when coming to conclusions. The treatment of the topic is very comprehensive, covering not only scientific but social aspects. Criticism and scepticism of the science is addressed, and solutions are suggested in a systemic and holistic way.

I find the viewpoint to be very balanced, scientifically and holistically. There is a good mix of emotion and fact to keep the viewer engaged, but also appropriately informed. Links to the funding organization provide a wealth of background information and scientific research. As the funding organization, the National Resource Defence Council, is a prominent environmental action group, it makes sense that they would wish for a base of credible science to support their causes.

"Scripps Investigates Ocean Acidification"

A brochure from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

Click here for the document.

The author of this document holds the view that increased carbon in the atmosphere and ocean is due to anthropomorphic causes, and that the organization behind the document will be a leader in discovering solutions to the problem of ocean acidification. The process of ocean acidification is not specifically identified, but the predicted effects are extensively conveyed. Groups, people, and organizations that are working on the problem are written about, and research projects and goals are brought up as a solution to ocean acidification.

This document is somewhat scientifically balanced, as both the problem and the solution are identified, but this is not specifically an educational piece, and does not clearly explain what ocean acidification is. The piece seems to be more like promotion material for the founding organization, their initiatives and their partner organizations. Though, in contrast, the focus on efforts being physically in the present made could be seen as a positive element, speaking about solutions rather than just the problems. The language is accessible, but perhaps slightly biased to favour the organization that is putting out the document. No sources are cited as support or evidence for factual claims, though perhaps the organization does not feel the need to include references, as they conduct much of the supporting research, themselves.

"Fact Sheet: The Ocean in a High CO2 World"

A fact sheet from www.ocean-acidification.net.

Click here for the document.

The author's viewpoint is that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of global climate change, and ultimately, ocean acidification. The author goes on to state several scientific facts, with many numbers and percent values, but does not cite specific references to back up specific factual claims. The tone of the piece is neutral, with no personal opinion attached, and use of cautious words such as "may," "likelihood," and "potential" are more common than words that indicate absolute certainty. A range of aspects of the issue are discussed - from scientific to economic and political topics, the author gives a holistic look at the problem, and potential ways of solving it.

The viewpoint is less than scientifically balanced from a credibility perspective, as the only references given are more secondary source writings, rather than any primary research. Given, it is likely that the piece was written for a lay audience that would benefit more from secondary sources, but it is still important to cite evidence in order to be scientifically balanced and credible. The author references some sponsors, including an organization under UNESCO, which is highly regarded internationally for knowing up-to-date scientific information. As a piece written with credible information, it is reasonably scientifically balanced, as it covers several areas of concern.