https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...9VXvpL8d5X4rK3Yl23Xqr5l_EbLPbbmt47OvIhZNZA3cg The co-author of a much-hyped, peer-reviewed, alarmist paper claiming to have found a huge, unexpected build-up of global warming heat in the oceans has admitted: “We really muffed” the calculations. According to the paper by Laure Resplandy et al, published this month in the prestigious journal Nature, a lot of the missing heat from global warming — 60 percent more than hitherto thought — has been absorbed by the oceans. Naturally, this shocking discovery caused much excitement across mainstream media and was widely reported by environmental correspondents as proof that the global warming crisis was more serious than evah.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...st-oceans-are-warming/?utm_term=.1fa97a5a9f75 Paul Durack, a research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said that promptly acknowledging the errors in the study “is the right approach in the interests of transparency.” But he added in an email, “This study, although there are additional questions that are arising now, confirms the long known result that the oceans have been warming over the observed record, and the rate of warming has been increasing,” he said.
So let me get this straight: one study on climate change that is debunked because of an error made by the authors proves that climate change doesn't exist? This, on top of the "people only die under the age of 65 because of poor choices" gem of a post, shows how nuanced of a thinker @BruceAndre truly is. His logical fallacies would make the ghost of Bobbythegreat proud.
I have plenty of friends in industry, and here's the truth. Climate change denial is basic strategy by those employed in defense, O&G , minerals and resource extraction to keep the power in the hands of those industries. They are trying to keep the cash cow flowing. @BruceAndre , you're riding a sinking ship, jump on to renewables, nuclear and limited consumption before you take everyone down with you.
What ship am I riding? BTW, almost all renewables need serious govt subsidy to compete in the marketplace, and this has always been true. Also btw, you do recall that we had an ice age that melted away *way* before there was an automobile, a power plant, or a refinery.....right?
Don't play that game with me. I'm the guy meeting with Terry Tamminen, not the one eager to be manipulated by your drivel because I have rent to pay and debt to clear. Fortunately, larger minds are going to create jobs for your victims , and maybe even you, that will take sustainability in the right direction.
For the most part, I have no idea what you are ranting about. And this Terry guy? "Never heard of him." I noticed you didn't answer or address my question about renewables only being able to exist with government subsidy--probably because you can't. But that off again/on again dynamic has been going on since the 70s, when we first had high oil prices. And I have no idea how I am creating any "victims." Clearly, you are in league with the enviros and greenies, and have drunk their koolade. Oh and lastly, most people have bills to pay unless they are born rich. Is that the case with you?
Loving the manipulation techniques your bosses have handed down to you. All of them lies on repeat. I was born , and grew up, just above the poverty line. But without religion to brainwash me, I didn't have trouble developing autonomous thought. What's your excuse? https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/03/16/how-much-do-renewables-actually-depend-on-tax-breaks/ The more subsidies the better. Even if they were expensive, they are worth investing in full scale right now because that's what the next 300 years looks like. The sooner the better.
@BruceAndre Unsubsidized high and low Energy $: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/ There goes that lie.
