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

[Cow Poke]

Try debating the topic.

Try minding your own business. When you are ready to "debate" without the dramaqueenery and wacky false accusations, let me know.

[Cow Poke]

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.

Sorry, Tass... I missed this one on first read! Just reread your nutty wacky false accusations a few posts ago, then try to tell me with a straight face that you are "discussing".

What a steaming load of horsie poo!!!! I think you meant "disgusting".

[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.

So, seriously, what do you think I should be doing that I'm not already doing?

[Tassman]

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

Your're deluding yourself. Your behaviour is the diametric opposite to "good stewardship". You ignore the vast consensus of climate change scientists and thus putting the future of the planet and our grandchildren at risk.

"...global warming will have additional, far-reaching effects on the planet. Warming modifies rainfall patterns, amplifies coastal erosion, lengthens the growing season in some regions, melts ice caps and glaciers, and alters the ranges of some infectious diseases. Some of these changes are already occurring".

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/fe...ming/page6.php

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/05...limate-change/

Your nutty beliefs are putting us all at risk, rancher.

[Tassman]

Sorry, Tass... I missed this one on first read! Just reread your nutty wacky false accusations a few posts ago, then try to tell me with a straight face that you are "discussing".

What a steaming load of horsie poo!!!! I think you meant "disgusting".

I take it that this is what This is what you call discussion, Preacher?

[Tassman]

So, seriously, what do you think I should be doing that I'm not already doing?

Listen to the science and support attempts to implement it. Sticking with the Paris Agreement would be a good start.

[Cow Poke]

Your're deluding yourself. Your behaviour is the diametric opposite to "good stewardship".

Tass -your're [sic] a nutter.....

And you're about to prove what a dishonest little drama queen nutter you are....

We all know why it is that Evangelicals oppose the acknowledgement of climate change. Because of your belief that God will save us

This is a despicable lie, and you've already been told this is not my position. Drama Queenery at its worst!

A) That' a really stupid statement, and I don't know a single person who believes anything like that
2) You've already been told that's not my position, yet you keep propagating this lie
C) You're proving what how full of horsie poo you are by typing this nonsense while boasting that you are "discussing"

STAR --- This is an example of why I see Tass as a Drama Queen, and why I pretty much reserve that title for him.

[Cow Poke]

I take it that this is what This is what you call discussion, Preacher?

Then you're dumber than I thought. I'm mocking you for the dishonest troll you are, anti-Christian bigot.

[Cow Poke]

Tazzy, I need your help....

I was trying to find this quote.... The first line, of course, appears to be your own nutty summary - .

We all know why it is that Evangelicals oppose the acknowledgement of climate change. Because of your belief that God will save us

but then you provide a quote...

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/05...limate-change/

The 'cite' you provide has that paragraph, but they don't provide any actual link or video or proof that he said that.

MIND you, if he DID say it, I think it's nutty and wrong and I couldn't disagree more. But I wanted to see what context - like was he being facetious or.....

But when I Google any of the phrases, they only come back to the link you provide that has the paragraph, but no actual link or cite or video. And any other occurrences of that phrase link back to your own source which doesn't provide any cites. Not very scholarly.

Help, please?

[Starlight]

So, seriously, what do you think I should be doing that I'm not already doing?

I think the threat of climate change requires concerted world-wide political action to defend against.

I think that certain people, e.g. oil barons, put their own financial interests ahead of their country and national security, and so try and spread the idea that climate change is not happening and/or if it is we don't need to / shouldn't do anything about it, and specifically we shouldn't do anything that affects their ability to make $$$. I think that because many of these people are billionaires from their oil empires they can splash a lot of money around to get media and politicians to spread those views, and find a tiny number of less-than-ethical scientists who can have their palms sufficiently greased in exchange for writing things critical of international consensuses about climate change. I think part of their efforts to put their own profits ahead of their country involve making as many people as possible be skeptical of the existence of climate change, and so make it as politically difficult as possible for politicians to act to defend against the threat.

And I think a downstream effect that plays into their hands is people being ultra-skeptical of the climate change threat on web-forums, even if they're only doing it to troll and get a rise out of libs. I think the planet, our countries, and our grandkids face a really serious threat from climate change, that could create massive refugee crises the likes of which the world has never seen before where the entirety of the population of the middle east needs to migrate as their countries become too hot to live in, where the entirety of low-lying countries such as Bangledesh and Kiribati and the Maldives have to be evacuated as the sea levels rise and those desperate refugees have to be taken in by other countries, and where much of currently fertile and arable land starts suffering increasingly from droughts and floods and fires and hurricanes with the result that food scarcity might be a problem.

And I think the crucial part of defending against that dire threat that could collapse our nations and destroy our grandchildren's futures, is for the global populace to (a) have widespread concern about the issue such that they (b) put pressure on their politicians to work internationally to address the threat and thus defend against it. Thus I think any action that undermines public concern about the issue, even if it's just done for a laugh or to troll, is a bit dangerous if it actually leads to people not taking climate change as seriously as they should. It's like people encouraging others to not vaccinate their children, only to later have a preventable measles epidemic in their town kill their children. The person who encouraged the other to perform the stupid action has a moral responsibility with regard to the consequences.

The oil billionaire money that's aimed at suppressing the truth about the threat of climate change goes to places like Breitbart and Fox who then perpetuate the appropriate narrative, and there are certain posters on this forum who perpetuate that narrative here with a view to spreading it. And I think a lot of your posting on the subject here tends to bolster those posters' narratives and gives them cover to further their dangerous climate change denialism. So I see what you're doing as pretty dangerous, much like if you went around mocking the silly people who say you should wear seat-belts in cars, and calling them the High Priests of the Order of the Seatbelt, and suggesting that really they didn't know what they were talking about, and suggesting that perhaps people shouldn't bother to wear their seatbelts in cars etc. Although the difference is, this is much worse, because if your actions convinced one foolish person to not wear a seatbelt and they died for it, that would only be one death on your conscience, but here we are dealing with a threat that could decimate the world and cause mass deaths, and countries need to work together to address the problem so anyone who takes the foolish action with regard to it has the ability to hurt/kill many others.

So ideally what I would have you do differently, is stop trying to undermine public confidence in the scientific consensus with regard to climate change, and ideally instead act to bolster public confidence in it, and furthermore take whatever action seems appropriate to you to encourage politicians to act to address the threat.

[Cow Poke]

I think the threat of climate change requires concerted world-wide political action to defend against.

I think that certain people, e.g. oil barons, put their own financial interests ahead of their country and national security, and so try and spread the idea that climate change is not happening and/or if it is we don't need to / shouldn't do anything about it, and specifically we shouldn't do anything that affects their ability to make $$$. I think that because many of these people are billionaires from their oil empires they can splash a lot of money around to get media and politicians to spread those views, and find a tiny number of less-than-ethical scientists who can have their palms sufficiently greased in exchange for writing things critical of international consensuses about climate change. I think part of their efforts to put their own profits ahead of their country involve making as many people as possible be skeptical of the existence of climate change, and so make it as politically difficult as possible for politicians to act to defend against the threat.

And I think a downstream effect that plays into their hands is people being ultra-skeptical of the climate change threat on web-forums, even if they're only doing it to troll and get a rise out of libs. I think the planet, our countries, and our grandkids face a really serious threat from climate change, that could create massive refugee crises the likes of which the world has never seen before where the entirety of the population of the middle east needs to migrate as their countries become too hot to live in, where the entirety of low-lying countries such as Bangledesh and Kiribati and the Maldives have to be evacuated as the sea levels rise and those desperate refugees have to be taken in by other countries, and where much of currently fertile and arable land starts suffering increasingly from droughts and floods and fires and hurricanes with the result that food scarcity might be a problem.

And I think the crucial part of defending against that dire threat that could collapse our nations and destroy our grandchildren's futures, is for the global populace to (a) have widespread concern about the issue such that they (b) put pressure on their politicians to work internationally to address the threat and thus defend against it. Thus I think any action that undermines public concern about the issue, even if it's just done for a laugh or to troll, is a bit dangerous if it actually leads to people not taking climate change as seriously as they should. It's like people encouraging others to not vaccinate their children, only to later have a preventable measles epidemic in their town kill their children. The person who encouraged the other to perform the stupid action has a moral responsibility with regard to the consequences.

The oil billionaire money that's aimed at suppressing the truth about the threat of climate change goes to places like Breitbart and Fox who then perpetuate the appropriate narrative, and there are certain posters on this forum who perpetuate that narrative here with a view to spreading it. And I think a lot of your posting on the subject here tends to bolster those posters' narratives and gives them cover to further their dangerous climate change denialism. So I see what you're doing as pretty dangerous, much like if you went around mocking the silly people who say you should wear seat-belts in cars, and calling them the High Priests of the Order of the Seatbelt, and suggesting that really they didn't know what they were talking about, and suggesting that perhaps people shouldn't bother to wear their seatbelts in cars etc. Although the difference is, this is much worse, because if your actions convinced one foolish person to not wear a seatbelt and they died for it, that would only be one death on your conscience, but here we are dealing with a threat that could decimate the world and cause mass deaths, and countries need to work together to address the problem so anyone who takes the foolish action with regard to it has the ability to hurt/kill many others.

First of all, thanks for the thoughtful response. You took time to give a serious response, so I took the time to read it.

That doesn't happen very often.

What I usually find is really aggressive nasty attacks like Tassman makes (while claiming he's 'discussing') that just makes you want to recoil.

It would be like me standing on the corner yelling at people and telling them they're idiotic morons who are going to Hell and they deserve to be there and I'm applauding their demise. (or something like that)

It's Drama Queenery like Tassy puts on (and others have done similar) that makes me just want to recoil and not be a part of anything that nutty.

So, perhaps you might consider, since you take this so seriously, that if you want to win people over to your side, you really don't need fellow 'preachers' like Tassman screwing up the message.

If you are serious about discussing this, I'll be happy to tell you my actual position on this, rather than Tassman's totally fabricated and dishonest summaries of what I believe.

But, again, thanks for the effort you put into answering my question.

[Tassman]

Tass -your're [sic] a nutter.....

And you're about to prove what a dishonest little drama queen nutter you are....



This is a despicable lie, and you've already been told this is not my position. Drama Queenery at its worst!



A) That' a really stupid statement, and I don't know a single person who believes anything like that
2) You've already been told that's not my position, yet you keep propagating this lie
C) You're proving what how full of horsie poo you are by typing this nonsense while boasting that you are "discussing"

STAR --- This is an example of why I see Tass as a Drama Queen, and why I pretty much reserve that title for him.

More of the Preacher's notion of discussion in action. All "drama" no substance!

[Cow Poke]

So ideally what I would have you do differently, is stop trying to undermine public confidence in the scientific consensus with regard to climate change, and ideally instead act to bolster public confidence in it, and furthermore take whatever action seems appropriate to you to encourage politicians to act to address the threat.

It looks like you added this in an edit after I had already started to respond.

So, ideally, I think what I would have you do differently, is to take people like Tassman aside and let him know how badly he's undermining public confidence in the science with his false accusations.

I honestly am not anti-science or anti-climate change... I'm a skeptic, but I understand that the way I started my OP was rather flippant.

I think people like Al Gore (a whole 'nuther story, but deals with the hypocrisy element) and, to a much tinier scale, people like Tassman do "the science" a world of hurt.

[Cow Poke]

More of the Preacher's notion of discussion in action. All "drama" no substance!

Actually, Tass, I'm giving my actual position in place of your incredibly dishonest misrepresentation of it. That's what preachers do - they tell the truth.

But I don't really expect you to 'repent' - I fully expect you'll just double down and continue to propagate the lies.

[Tassman]

So, perhaps you might consider, since you take this so seriously, that if you want to win people over to your side,

That's the spirit. But, why not let the experts "win you over"? They have no doubt about climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position".

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/