CO2 ocean acidification, series by Craig Welch, Seattle Times

Last year I came across a excellent investigative series about ocean acidification and its impacts written by Craig Welch of the Seattle Times.  At the time I posted the following over at my other blog Citizen's Challenge since I believe this is information more people should be familiar with and just the sort of educational opportunity I like sharing.  Not sure why I never posted it over here.  But, recently I was reminded of Craig's articles while participating in a couple internet comment threads and experiencing the shear nonsense some people have been sucked into believing with the help of con-men such as one Jim Steele and pals.

Anyone out there who doesn't understand what ocean acidification is all about, but who would like to learn, I recommend this series as a great place to begin your educational journey.

____________________________________________

Seattle Times had a disturbing front page story by Craig Welch reporting on his four years worth of research into current impacts of an acidifying ocean on the life forms within our oceans.

"Acidification already eating away at tiny creatures along our coast" 

Craig Welch  |  Seattle Times  |  April 30, 2014 

http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2014/apr/30/pteropod-shells-dissolving/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Documenting Sea Change: The story begins.

Falsifiability. A self-refuting theory?

In my continuing effort to grasp the landscape of the denialist mind, I've been grappling with various contrived arguments claiming that Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't scientific because it doesn't meet the "Falsifiability" supposition made by some philosopher.  

These science skeptics never acknowledge that the process of accumulating the various lines of evidence and bits of information, (that the "AGW Theory" is built on), is chock full of validity and quality tests that do try to falsify findings and conjectures - in order to insure their soundness.

But then, it sure does seem like their base mentality is that anything demanding a reevaluation of one's perceptions is deemed a hostile threat… 

so were do we go from here?  

Whatever happened to every side trying to get at a true understand, {which demands an interest in learning and a willingness to allow the strength of the evidence to change one's closely held assumptions and convictions}?

It's all a bit overwhelming.  While I continue to wrestle with how to recount the bizarre dialogue I've had with "k" allow me to share an interesting short video.  Jens Christensen examines the basic premise of the Popperian argument.  Perhaps you'll find it helpful.  I've included notes and time signatures.

Falsifiability. A self-refuting theory?

Jens Enzo Nyby Christensen