‘Alarming’ Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error

[Cow Poke]

I think star is probably just suggesting that you don't just post stupid stuff just because it's what you want to believe...

You really should consider heeding this advice, Jim.

[Sparko]

I think star is probably just suggesting that you don't just post stupid stuff just because it's what you want to believe, but that isn't backed up by the science.

Well then JimL, you should just stop posting altogether then. When it comes to science, my 10-year old niece knows more than you. And posting stupid stuff? You have Tweb's record there, buddy.

[Starlight]

Just one example: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-targeting-c/
Obama was set on regulating the coal industry out of business.

I'm not saying Obama didn't contribute to hastening the collapse of the coal industry, but that collapse was occurring anyway due to the low price of natural gas undercutting the industry.

back in the 80's companies use fluorocarbon and hydrocarbon based cleaners that did a great and cost effective way to clean parts for the electronics and automotive industry. Then the whole thing about global warming and the ozone layer became news and the government regulated the use of such chemicals out of existence.

The Ozone Hole is a completely separate issue to global warming, and let me briefly explain it to you because it directly affects me personally:

Ozone is a chemical that exists in our atmosphere and blocks nasty UV rays from the sun, which mean we don't get sunburned as badly. Unfortunately fluorocarbons, after they were invented and used, collected in the atmosphere over Antarctica and the surrounding southern part of the planet and interacted with the ozone meaning there was less of it. As a result, people in my country get sunburned more easily, and get skin cancer more, because more UV rays get through the atmosphere, so we have to apply more sunscreen than people in less southern countries do and be more careful about spending time in the sun.

So because people in other countries used nasty chemicals before I was born, I get sunburned easily and have an increased risk of dying of skin cancer.

Fortunately, the global community spotted the problem, and in the 1987 Montreal Protocol banned the chemicals responsible, and invented other chemicals to replace it that didn't destroy the Ozone layer. This has been incredibly effective, and the Ozone hole is beginning to shrink and it is expected to be fully fixed in 50 years. As a result, the Montreal Protocol is widely considered the best and most successful international agreement ever made.

But, again, the Ozone Hole has virtually nothing to do with Climate Change, anymore than lead in Flint's water supply has to do with Climate Change. What links them is they could be fixed by regulation.

Several companies, including the one I worked for, eventually went out of business because it became nearly impossible to clean parts well enough with substitute cleaners in a cost effective manner.

I'm somewhat sorry to hear that, but I would sacrifice your job 1000 times over if it meant I and my family and much of the rest of the world didn't die of skin cancer.

Back on the subject of climate change, let me reassert that the number of climate change focused regulations is as-yet pretty limited and is not yet impacting many industries very much. Hence I would like to see the world do a lot more to address the climate change issue, as it once did to address the Ozone Hole issue.

[Tassman]

Lemme see if I can Google that.

Try Googling about global warming science and educate yourself. The science is clear. Global warming is happening. We are the primary cause. So stop putting our grandchildren at risk on the basis of your delusional belief that your creator deity will take care of the world he made. Most of the world does not believe that crap. We are responsible for the welfare of the planet we inhabit.

[Cow Poke]

Try Googling about global warming science and educate yourself.

Try Googling Drama Queen - not just the Queen part - and educate yourself on how not to act.

[Duragizer]

This discussion is a prime example of why I've become a lurker at TWeb, and an intermittent one at that. Too much assumption of bad faith, too much histrionics, and too little honest dialogue from most parties involved.

[Cow Poke]

It is impossible to discuss climate because the climate alarmists become incredibly hostile. If you dare ask a question, you are automatically labeled a denier, stupid, ignorant... purposely putting grandchildren at risk.... It just really really gets old.

[Starlight]

Try Googling Drama Queen - not just the Queen part - and educate yourself on how not to act.

You tend to accuse everyone of being a drama queen CP. At this point I just tend to assume being a drama queen is your go-to strategy for your preaching, and so it's forefront of your mind to project this accusation onto others.

It's got a bit stale as far as random and irrelevant accusations go. Do you think you could come up with a new one?

[Cow Poke]

You tend to accuse everyone of being a drama queen CP.

Actually, I pretty much reserve that honor for Tassman.

At this point I just tend to assume being a drama queen is your go-to strategy for your preaching, and so it's forefront of your mind to project this accusation onto others.

You are free to make asinine assumptions, and you exercise that freedom pretty regularly.

It's got a bit stale as far as random and irrelevant accusations go. Do you think you could come up with a new one?

Nah, I'll leave that to you.

[Starlight]

If you dare ask a question, you are automatically labeled a denier, stupid, ignorant...

Or, the posters here have interacted with you for years and know those labels fit you well, and you posting something about climate change in an effort to debunk the science of it is merely an instance where those labels can be reapplied, not the cause of them being applied in the first place.

Also... it amuses me you describe the OP as "dare ask a question" as if you were some sort of average person who was "just wondering". Far from it: The OP was deliberately inflammatory in phrasing and presentation and asked no questions:

I thought it was a good time, with other subjects cooling off, to throw some red meat out there.

High Priests of the Order of the Warming Planet, set me straight....

You were just being a jerk in the OP, and were doing it deliberately, Mr High Priest of the Order of the Stupid Imbeciles.

[Cow Poke]

Or, the posters here have interacted with you for years and know those labels fit you well, and you posting something about climate change in an effort to debunk the science....

A) I knew full well that the article didn't "debunk the science"
2) There was no attempt on my part whatsoever to "debunk the science" - I just was interested in the response to the article
C) It doesn't matter that I am actually a conservationist who believes in good stewardship of the land - you climate nazis will still pitch a little hissy and scream "denier!"

Thanks for playing.

Oh, and you're certainly free to ignore me, but you just can't help yourself.

[Cow Poke]

You tend to accuse everyone of being a drama queen CP.

Again, I've pretty much been reserving that only for Tassman, so this statement is kinda... well, you know....

But here's an example of Tassy's DramaQueenery...

....So stop putting our grandchildren at risk

Nutso nonsense - I'm about as green as you can get, having been a farmer/rancher conservationist LONG before you guys joined the Church of Climatology...

on the basis of your delusional belief that your creator deity will take care of the world he made.

MORE nutso drama - I believe that God requires good stewardship - including the land, and it's MY responsibility. Tassy's false accusation is... well, you know...

Most of the world does not believe that crap.

So, where did Tassy get this bird-brained idea that this is my position?

We are responsible for the welfare of the planet we inhabit.

And I'm actually doing that every day for over five decades, because I believe stewardship is my Christian responsibility.

AND.....

I started to regret typing the two lines in the OP to which you objected, but having been around you guys for years, I pretty well knew what to expect.....

[Starlight]

I'm about as green as you can get

Since you don't seem very enthusiastic about taking steps to defend against the threat of climate change, that doesn't seem to be very green.

having been a farmer/rancher conservationist

In my country farmers are pretty much the opposite of conservationists.

Cattle farming is one of the greatest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in my country, and effluent run off from farms / cattle getting too near rivers one of the greatest causes of environmental damage and pollution in rivers (quite a large number of waterways here are deemed unsafe for swimming due to farm effluent levels, and it's a bit politically controversial). So the single strongest political lobby group here against the environmentalists, are the farmers, who are dead against any sort of climate change action that would reduce their ability to have a zillion cows producing greenhouse gases, or having to spend a cent on using safer fertilizers or stopping cows pooping in rivers.

Why do you see your farmer/ranching background as similar to your conservationist tendencies?

[Tassman]

Try Googling Drama Queen - not just the Queen part -

Try debating the topic.

and educate yourself on how not to act.

How to "act" in a discussion group is to discuss, which is what I do, not resort to evasive insults, which is your standard practice.

[Cow Poke]

Since you don't seem very enthusiastic about taking steps to defend against the threat of climate change, that doesn't seem to be very green.

I've asked you nutters (you seem to be being reasonable, so I'll dial that back) people what I should be doing, and when told, I'm already doing those things.

In my country farmers are pretty much the opposite of conservationists.

Perhaps you should be attacking them! I think that may be true of the mega-farms, but little guys like me only have so much in the way of resources, and we have to take care of them for future generations.

Cattle farming is one of the greatest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in my country, and effluent run off from farms / cattle getting too near rivers one of the greatest causes of environmental damage and pollution in rivers (quite a large number of waterways here are deemed unsafe for swimming due to farm effluent levels, and it's a bit politically controversial). So the single strongest political lobby group here against the environmentalists, are the farmers, who are dead against any sort of climate change action that would reduce their ability to have a zillion cows producing greenhouse gases, or having to spend a cent on using safer fertilizers or stopping cows pooping in rivers.

I gave up my cattle business several years ago.

Why do you see your farmer/ranching background as similar to your conservationist tendencies?

From the time I was little, my Dad taught me (as well as cub scouts / boy scouts) "we take care of what we have, always leaving it in better condition than we found it".

That was just a way of life - from land, to tools, to equipment.... if you borrow a truck, for example, you return it clean and with a full tank of gas.... and since we didn't have thousands of acres of land, we knew we had to take care of it, as well. It's absolutely nutso to think that conservatives want to drink dirty water and breath dirty air - that's cheap shot the environmentalist extremists make against the anti-regulation folks.

I'm for protecting the environment - but that can be taken to extremes.