Why would the onus be on a commentator to provide citations for a fact one could readily <branded search engine verb> for in less time than our roundtrip efforts combined?
(me not being the commentator either, to boot!)
it almost sounds like you can't believe peanut butter is sticky...
I mean, I suppose "calfiferous plankton" is kinda a giveaway that ocean acidification would affect it...
> Why would the onus be on a commentator to provide citations for a fact one could readily <branded search engine verb> for in less time than our roundtrip efforts combined?
"Conflicting" only if you want to ignore a significant part of the text behind the very link you give:
"A more recent multi-model study estimated that primary production would decline by 2-20% by 2100 A.D.[12] Despite substantial variation in both the magnitude and spatial pattern of change, the majority of published studies predict that phytoplankton biomass and/or primary production will decline over the next century.[11][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]"
(Note the majority and how many of them are cited (all the numbers in brackets) and could be checked. It's surely not "one says yes, one says no".)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-pop...
https://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/08/14/satellite.plan...
https://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-...
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidificat...
https://www.sciencebuzz.com/the-effects-of-ph-on-the-abundan...
Why would the onus be on a commentator to provide citations for a fact one could readily <branded search engine verb> for in less time than our roundtrip efforts combined?
(me not being the commentator either, to boot!) it almost sounds like you can't believe peanut butter is sticky...
I mean, I suppose "calfiferous plankton" is kinda a giveaway that ocean acidification would affect it...