Wallace remains wrong, doesn't realize it

I already showed how totally wrong this guy is on ocean pH and ocean acidification, but like any pseudoscientist, he just keeps nattering on and on and on, continually wrong but unable to grasp that he could be wrong.

The ridiculous article at the Watts Up With That denier blog is entitled "Ocean pH Accuracy Arguments Challenged with 80 Years of Instrumental Data".

There isn't anything particularly new here, so my detailed refutation is still good and still shows why this guy is a total crock.  Sorry if the language turns you off, but he is.

My  refutation:  What Wallace did wrong

Final note:  even in the comments he gets schooled, but he doesn't get it.   Ferdinand Engelbeen punches some serious holes based on sampling, which I only pointed out didn't get the whole picture if it was only in the top 200 meters.  Ferdinand notes that there is no geographical consistency in where the pH measurements were taken.  That's bad too.  (Note:  Peter Foster's comments are drastically erroneous, too, as a replier tries to tell him, but he follows the pseudoscientific tradition of Not Getting It, either.)