No, that source concludes: "The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 +/- 0.44 W/m^2 from 2005 to 2013."
Are you able to read? Did you see that my comment was about DEEP ocean? Did you see that the very title of the paper is:
Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade
??? The comment about temperatures at other depths is irrelevant to the point I made ABOUT THAT PAPER.
Do you know what the word "context" means?
As for other depths, this paper contradicts the other one I cited earlier. Are you telling us that you get to decide which one is correct?
I've learned how to handle questions by watching you. If you manage to directly answer my question, that will show me that the right thing to do is directly answer your question. If you continue to simply evade my question, that will show me that the right thing to do is evade every question you ask.
I answered your question in my last post.
Did you get my point about "escalating" not just beyond what is socially acceptable, but even further, beyond what is legally acceptable? Once again, to be clear, I'm not accusing you of breaking any laws, I was making a point. Harassment is odious behavior. It is far worse than simply calling people names.
As I stated before: you seem quick to judge others but at the same time appear blind to your own transgressions.
I don't owe you anything, despite what seems to be a feeling on your part that I do. So this is all you're going to get. If you aren't satisfied with the content of my answers, my best suggestion would be to just go away.
In many cases direct genetic modification is *less* intrusive than other techniques of creating more suitable species of plants...the non-GMO method generally involves forcing random mutations via chemicals/radiation and then selecting for the traits you want. Of course there may be a bunch of other mutations that you didn't select for/against that could cause problems in people.
However, we do not know what long-term unintended consequences there may be to this type of gene modification, because there has been no long term. While selective breeding of natural mutations -- even of a relatively "forced" variety -- has been around for millennia.
The point being that one method is time-tested and the other one not. We don't have any long-term examples of jellyfish genes crossed with plant genes. We do have evidence that bacterial and viral genes have invaded other organisms, but again those we have evidence of were very long ago and have had eons to weed out any bad variants or effects.
I do agree, however, that the regulatory system is faulty.
I would suggest that the GMO itself isn't actually harming anything.
And I would disagree.
Societal / economic issue aside, when an altered genome that was controversial in the first place, and was promised not to be cross-fertile, proves otherwise and starts cross-pollinating other strains uncontrollably, we should take that as a strong warning.
Ever read Jurassic Park? The book, not the movie.
It actually hurt my brain to read your reply.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
--
BMO
Since the oceans are warming, it's wrong to say "the globe isn't warming."
Warming, according to whom?
This says long-term trends have not been detected, up to 2000.
This says no warming trend in upper ocean SINCE 2000.
This -- which is the longest and most comprehensive study to date -- says there is no detectable warming in the deep ocean.
So I don't know who you've been listening to, but my sources say it isn't happening to any noticeable degree.
Moreover, if Nokia wasn't run by absolute incompetents, they'd still be a huge player in the smartphone market.
But they farted around with OSes, libraries, and waffled and couldn't decide themselves out of a wet paper bag being while pushed off a cliff. To top it off, the board decided to welcome Microsoft's cukoo-egg into their nest because "OH MY GOD A BILLION DOLLARS."
Google is where it is because a lot of companies are run by boards that are more interested in feathering their own nests instead of what they largely give lip-service to - "innovation"
Look at Yahoo. Go ahead, look at 'em. Point And Laugh. They deserve it.
--
BMO
Do you somehow think your behavior isn't bullying and harassment?
I don't "think" it, I know it. I haven't been following you around and spamming YOUR comments with insults. That is not a matter of opinion it is provably true. I have only been replying to your own harassing comments.
Listen up: while YOU might find name-calling as a matter of opinion objectionable, there is a line -- and it isn't all that fine of a line -- between that and LIBEL. (I am not accusing you here of libel, that is just a neutral statement of fact.)
There is ALSO a fine line between replying to a comment, no matter how angrily, and HARASSMENT.
Name-calling might not be a nice thing to do, but libel and harassment are behaviors that are so odious they are actually ILLEGAL. Illegal behaviors are grounds for lawsuits. That is also a statement of fact.
Do you understand the difference between those kinds of behaviors, or not?
Tell us exactly what the problem is with this corn. Is it killing anything? Is it affecting anything?
I would very definitely call this HARM.
Introduced plants spreading where they are very definitely unwanted are called invasive species.
Companies suing farmers whose fields have been invaded without their consent is abusive monopolistic behavior. (Read: "corporatism".)
I could go on, but those are 2 harms that have been proved. One to crop diversity, the other to society and free markets.
Here's a quiz, Jane. Is the rest of this comment a proportional response, or is it an anger-driven escalating over-reaction?
You just gave away who you are. But I knew already.
Sock-puppetry is another form of dishonesty. It's also universally despised here on Slashdot.
But you've been told that before. So why don't you cease the BS, and STOP HARASSING ME?
Or do you somehow think that my behavior is evil, but bullying and harassment isn't? It's that hypocrisy rearing its head again.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
