It can also be clearly seen that the 2020 limit on the sulphur content in the fuel oil used on board ships [1] had quite the negative effects when it comes to surface sea temperatures, but I haven't that many climate (and not only) scientists taking responsibility of that act (even though related warnings had been made, I remember reading one just before the measure went in effect).
Cutting sulphur content wasn't about climate. Why would climate scientists be taking responsibility?
Blasting pollution into the air is generally a bad idea. If it becomes necessary in order to fight warming, it should be done deliberately and with due consideration, not by having a bunch of ships burning dirty fuel.
It didn't make them worse. It solved one problem. That made the extent of the other existing problem more apparent.
That was known and expected. We could not continue to put sulfur in the air; it causes acid rain.
The fact that we also cannot afford to put CO2 into the air is a separate problem. That goes beyond temperature: even if additional sulfur would mitigate the temperature increase, it would also make ocean acidification worse.
Blasting pollution into the air is generally a bad idea. If it becomes necessary in order to fight warming, it should be done deliberately and with due consideration, not by having a bunch of ships burning dirty fuel.