4 ms·

Critical take: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/06/ocean-reversal-hysteria-facts-not-included/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/06/ocean-reversal-hyster..

Critical take: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/06/ocean-reversal-hysteria-facts-not-included/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/06/ocean-reversal-hyster...

radixdiaboli 1y ago
This isn't a critical take, it's a cynical one. It's a climate change denial site. Suggest not bothering to follow this link, it's intellectually lazy. The central claims that the article's information isn't anywhere in the study. Which is misleading: the researchers have said these things elsewhere about the research in the study.
defrost 1y ago
Just for the chuckle value, a critical critical take: Willis Eschenbach Credentials California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage, Oakland, CA. (1974). B.A., Psychology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. (1975). Background Willis Eschenbach is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute‘s International Conference on Climate Change, where he is described as a “carpenter and house builder” as well as an “amateur scientist.” Eschenbach has previously worked as a Construction Manager at Taunovo Bay Resort in Fiji, Sport Fishing guide in Alaska, and more recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. https://www.desmog.com/willis-eschenbach/ https://www.desmog.com/willis-eschenbach/
- cryptonector 1y ago
  Yes, I know, credentialism means you must immediately ignore anything he has to say. Yet he writes papers on climate science, especially on the effects of volcanic eruptions, and he does a better job of archiving code and data (and documenting how he sources the data) than most. Maybe you should try reading what I linked.
  - lucyjojo 1y ago
    what are you seeing in this article? to me it looks like bog standard conspiracy drivel...
    - cryptonector 1y ago
      The article I linked says that the _paper_ that TFA refers to[0] says nothing about a reversal of the current, only a reversal of the freshening of surface water on the polar southern ocean. Is that not indeed a correct reading of the underlying paper? That's a simple yes or no question. See for yourself[0]! [0] https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2500440122 https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2500440122

Critical take: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/06/ocean-reversal-hysteria-facts-not-included/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/06/ocean-reversal-hyster...

radixdiaboli 1y ago

This isn't a critical take, it's a cynical one. It's a climate change denial site. Suggest not bothering to follow this link, it's intellectually lazy. The central claims that the article's information isn't anywhere in the study. Which is misleading: the researchers have said these things elsewhere about the research in the study.

defrost 1y ago

Just for the chuckle value, a critical critical take: Willis Eschenbach Credentials California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage, Oakland, CA. (1974). B.A., Psychology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. (1975). Background Willis Eschenbach is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute‘s International Conference on Climate Change, where he is described as a “carpenter and house builder” as well as an “amateur scientist.” Eschenbach has previously worked as a Construction Manager at Taunovo Bay Resort in Fiji, Sport Fishing guide in Alaska, and more recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. https://www.desmog.com/willis-eschenbach/ https://www.desmog.com/willis-eschenbach/

cryptonector 1y ago
Yes, I know, credentialism means you must immediately ignore anything he has to say. Yet he writes papers on climate science, especially on the effects of volcanic eruptions, and he does a better job of archiving code and data (and documenting how he sources the data) than most. Maybe you should try reading what I linked.
- lucyjojo 1y ago
  what are you seeing in this article? to me it looks like bog standard conspiracy drivel...
  - cryptonector 1y ago
    The article I linked says that the _paper_ that TFA refers to[0] says nothing about a reversal of the current, only a reversal of the freshening of surface water on the polar southern ocean. Is that not indeed a correct reading of the underlying paper? That's a simple yes or no question. See for yourself[0]! [0] https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2500440122 https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2500440122