Way to go there, champ: When you cannot address the fact that the study made claims with what should have been clearly evident invalidating flaws, use one pirouette after another to avoid addressing the flaws themselves. What's next? A criticism of my grammar or punctuation?
The topic is not ocean acidification (which no-one is contesting), it is whether the species extinction which occurred after the Permian mega eruptions are uniquely incumbent on acidification due to augmenting CO2 levels without attempting to take into account (for starters) the accompanying sulfur & ash emissions would have on the global climate.
It's not attacking the messenger when one points out that a position has invalidating flaws (nor is it when noting that such flaws should have been self-evident).