It's good to see a clear explanation of the acidic/alkaline red herring that is peddled in support of need to save the world.

Another day another anti-science article on OLO:- oh wait this one is really dumb.
"First, contrary to popular ­belief, at 400 parts per million (0.04 per cent), CO2 is lower now in the atmosphere than it has been during most of the 550 million years since modern life forms emerged during the Cambrian period. CO2 was about 10 times higher then than it is today"

Man this would have to be one of the dumbest things I've read. Would the author like to tell us what type of lifeforms were on the planet 550 million years ago. Not even the coral that grows on the reef was around then, no trees , not large life forms hell there wasn't even flowers.

Just goes to show money can't buy me love.

Hold on the ABC's favourite Queensland scientist the one who is on every week banging on about how the seas, rivers, lakes and everything are doomed! I cannot remember his name as he is so bland he sends me to sleep but he does a nice line in anxious concerned looks. This is generally when he is by a lake, river or the sea having a lovely time at our expense.
We really have to rein in these science rent seekers. Just start cutting ABC, CSRIO and attendant funding on the basis they are not doing a job for us but a job on us.
As Paul Keating famously said "Get a job" although in these circumstance it would be more apt.

Partial Pressures negate the outgassing... he knows this but chooses to conveniently not admit it for obscure reason!

When mining booms aren't holding up the boom-bust economy it is government agencies that give our farmers the skill to compete in the world economy.Seeing as farmers are far from being price-makers getting rid of the scientific base behind their success could prove embarrassing to the city-slicker who doesn't understand the function of primary industry.

Cupric Embarrasment - your comment is so clever it doesn't make sense. Isn't the partial outgassing stuff to do with CO2 levels themselves? If so how is it relevant?

Cobber the Hound - it's you who are guilt of poor science, or perhaps simply distortion. The author just points to the Cambrian as a starting point. As he notes coral reef formation is known to have occurred during periods of much higher CO2 concentrations.

However, I don't think anyone, apart from activists, are now suggesting that higher levels of CO2 will be seriously disruptive in themselves. The claim is the rate of change is higher than previous era, and that is disruptive.