Barbara Ettinger & Sven Huseby on "A Sea Change."

http://www.airamerica.com Environmental activism is a family affair for director Barbara Ettinger and her husband Sven Huseby. In the documentary, "A Sea Change," they travel the world, talk to scientists, and wrangle together their own family members to make the point that the fate of generations rests on what we do now to fix the growing risk of ocean acidification. We got to talk to the filmmakers as they were preparing to go to Washington for the film's premiere.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Sven Huseby

[sysFail81]

Of course I did not. You can google and read "Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms" and check who actually did it. 7.8 is the projection for 2100 done following IS92a IPCC scenario. Well, I guess that's way more accurate that your arguments based on your home marine aquarium, not sure who is the fool here.

[hyzercreek]

The other thing he does to mislead us is tell us how many "millions and millions of tons" on CO2 that is going in the ocean, thinking we would be impressed by the sound of the words. Do you know how many tons of water are in the ocean? Not millions, not billions, not trillions, not even quadrillions. There are quintillions of tons of water in the oceans. But most people don't know the difference, the average person thinks zillion is a number. So Sven scares people and makes money with his films.

[hyzercreek]

dot and com

[hyzercreek]

A change in pH from 8.179 to 8.104 in 200 years is not rapid acidification. The oceans are heavily buffered and strongly resist changes in pH. Sven Huseby put human teeth in seltzer water, which has a pH of 2, to show how carbonic acid dissolves calcium compounds, and then implied that the ocean is doing this to coral. This is a deliberate attempt to insult our intelligence.

[polemius01]

Pt3: in science, as in any other serious discipline, clear and concise language is a necessity.

When questions are posed, the interlocutor ought to answer the question, or humbly admit that the question is outside of his field. Ignoring a question or using a condescending suggestion as to a costly and dangerous (to the coral0 experiment does not cut it (points off).

Finally, while typing at a keyborad, making "hand-waving guesses" (no guesswork; see a good aquarium book) is rather difficult.

[polemius01]

Pt2: Hyzercreek ("hc") recap (cont'd):

4. A hypothesis carries the danger of being "a priori." In hc's case, with his claim that disagreement with his hypothesis is a result of listening to "hype," we suspect, not a scientific hypothesis that has been tested, but a politically motivated position.

5. The idea that "u" is an acceptable abbreviation for "you" and his incorrect definition of "provenance" axiomatically places hyzercreek out of the running in a serious discussion of this topic.

[polemius01]

Pt 1: Ah, after insults we now see condescension. Reading any good marine aquarium guide will offer the conclusions about quick pH and CO2 changes.

Let's recap hyzercreek's comments:

1. "You are made of carbon dioxide" is clearly a reductio (close to ad absurdum), as CO2 is but one of many compounds in a body.

2. Denial of evolution in coral species with no proof offered.

3. "Let me teach you how science works." One experiment is not all of science. Condescension and another reductio.

[hyzercreek]

Let me teach you how science works. You start with a hypothesis: Tiny changes in the pH from CO2 (for example 8.179 to 8.104) kills coral. You can test it by putting coral in a carefully controlled marine aquarium and adjust the pH, quickly or slowly, over short or long time periods, at various temperatures, etc, etc. You just bubble CO2 into the tank. Then do the math. ONLY THEN will you be able to tell me that CO2 is killing the corals. Until then, you are just making hand-waving guesses.

[polemius01]

"Provenance" means "origin." The financial origin of your enthusiastic call for burning more coal is suspect. is that better?

You speak of an argument. There is no argument, merely a refusal to respond to my questions.

Calling attention to grammar is not the sign of being on the losing side of an argument, but it does make some people uncomfortable, therefore I will try to stop doing it (occupational hazard).

Again, insults to me without any response to my questions concerning coral species.

[hyzercreek]

It's not a "possibility" that CO2 is disappearing from the planet. It is a concrete fact, and the chart makes it perfectly clear. I can tell you where the CO2 is going but I'm not in the mood. You will just argue anyway, put quotes around my words, write "sic" after an abbreviation, or other signs of a losing argument, so it would be a waste of energy. But you do need to look up the word provenance. It means proof, not motivation. Using big words without knowing what they mean....points off