Sea rises, island disappears

[MaggieMae]

A blog. You are clueless.

Oh my, here we go again. The referance within the blog was two articles, one in Science, the other in Nature, both peer reviewed journals.

So, you continue to lie about this whole subject. You are a liar, Si Modo. I do not believe for a minute that you are a scientist. All your silly allusions to logic are nothing but obfuscation. You are a politically driven hack.

oldsocks you realize I left this asinine tread alone because it was completely silly... FIrst the entire premise is a lie.

My first clue came when the OP pointed to a non-functioning link. In fact the site said it was no longer there. Which means it was older than your mathematically challenged mind can grasp.

my second clue came when the second link to a supposed other article by the same poster led to the exact same error page saying the same thing. yeah retarded to say the least.

My next clue came when someone posted the real story behind the OP. The fact is the island just appeared after a storm in the 70's... Not exactly a stable and rock solid bit of evidence that the seas are rising now is it?

And you in your infinite wisdom show up like clockwork to try and save the thread by posting your charts you can't understand and citing facts and figures that have no real bearing on the OP and you don't grasp anyway. You don't care if the poster was an imbecile and the OP was nonsense, its a pro AGW thread and you must defend it.... LOL tool

Apparently there were many reports in all MSM, blogsites, etc., about the disappearing island. I simply picked one from a Google search. If you're so brilliant, you would have realized that just because the site popped up as invaid (as happens a lot), it could have been that I copied the URL incorrectly, and you COULD have done your own Google search.

No run along and go play with quasimodo. She needs friends like you who use the term "imbecile" because "idiot" gets to be old after awhile.

 

[MaggieMae]

A blog. You are clueless.

Oh my, here we go again. The referance within the blog was two articles, one in Science, the other in Nature, both peer reviewed journals.

So, you continue to lie about this whole subject. You are a liar, Si Modo. I do not believe for a minute that you are a scientist. All your silly allusions to logic are nothing but obfuscation. You are a politically driven hack.

Yes. It's a blog. YOU did not post and analyse yourself, the two peer-reviewed articles only mentioned in the blog. YOU parroted a blog. YOU either cannot think for yourself and analyse the science for yourself or you are too lazy to do so.

Blogs are not science.

Moron.

I rest my case. Your posts are consistently so full of "logic." Not. If you've got such a strong hands-on scientific opinion, then POST IT!!

 

[MaggieMae]

A blog. You are clueless.

Oh my, here we go again. The referance within the blog was two articles, one in Science, the other in Nature, both peer reviewed journals.

So, you continue to lie about this whole subject. You are a liar, Si Modo. I do not believe for a minute that you are a scientist. All your silly allusions to logic are nothing but obfuscation. You are a politically driven hack.

Nature and Science are peer reviewed.

They are like saying Time and Newsweek are peer reviewed you buffoon. Next thing you know someone at the UN will quote them in a report. No, that would be ridiculous. No wait, it happened.

And yet you people blissfully believe all the non-scientific bullshit someone like Glenn Beck shoves at you. Unfuckingbelievable.

And yes, I know that's a strawman comment, quasimodo.

 

[gslack]

Oh my, here we go again. The referance within the blog was two articles, one in Science, the other in Nature, both peer reviewed journals.

So, you continue to lie about this whole subject. You are a liar, Si Modo. I do not believe for a minute that you are a scientist. All your silly allusions to logic are nothing but obfuscation. You are a politically driven hack.

oldsocks you realize I left this asinine tread alone because it was completely silly... FIrst the entire premise is a lie.

My first clue came when the OP pointed to a non-functioning link. In fact the site said it was no longer there. Which means it was older than your mathematically challenged mind can grasp.

my second clue came when the second link to a supposed other article by the same poster led to the exact same error page saying the same thing. yeah retarded to say the least.

My next clue came when someone posted the real story behind the OP. The fact is the island just appeared after a storm in the 70's... Not exactly a stable and rock solid bit of evidence that the seas are rising now is it?

And you in your infinite wisdom show up like clockwork to try and save the thread by posting your charts you can't understand and citing facts and figures that have no real bearing on the OP and you don't grasp anyway. You don't care if the poster was an imbecile and the OP was nonsense, its a pro AGW thread and you must defend it.... LOL tool

Apparently there were many reports in all MSM, blogsites, etc., about the disappearing island. I simply picked one from a Google search. If you're so brilliant, you would have realized that just because the site popped up as invaid (as happens a lot), it could have been that I copied the URL incorrectly, and you COULD have done your own Google search.

No run along and go play with quasimodo. She needs friends like you who use the term "imbecile" because "idiot" gets to be old after awhile.

NO, the site was up and running. Your article was no longer there in either instance.... that means you either blindly linked to something you didn't actually read recently, or you just posted from a an old RSS feed you use for topics to post here. Either way the fact it was twice in the same thread on the same subject is pretty conclusive that it was lame...

Also again you have ignored the fact raised by another poster here about the Island coming into existence in the 1970's..... Care to address this anytime or are you going to pretend its not there and continue rambling....

 

[MaggieMae]

Rising seas with increasing Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels? Wow that global warming is real magician.

IPCC gate Du Jour – Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50% Watts Up With That? Antarctic sea ice growth underestimated by UN by 50%. What is interesting is the fact Antarctic sea ice has been increasing in the last 20 years, not decreasing -and the IPCC has only acknowledged HALF as much as it has really been increasing. How can that be when we all know scientists are gods and the IPCC is the Holy Oracle beyond questioning?

An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing - Water Cooler - Washington Times An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Has Been Growing And its been growing and INCREASING every year since 2007.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis Cold snap causes increased growth spurt. It was already growing larger every year for years now but the cold resulted in an even faster rate of growth. Now just IMAGINE how shrill the hysterics would be if a warm snap had increased the rate of disappearance. Except the ice levels are INCREASING and the fact temperatures got COLDER, it resulted in a faster rate of INCREASE -this fits right in with the global warming hysteria somewhere, right?

Selective reading. How unusual. I prefer to stick to NOAA's thousands of pages of analysis. But of course that's a gubmit agency, so not to be believed.

Well Battlefield Earth was over 1100 pages but I knew it was fiction and the author was a recluse who made up a silly religion for wealthy people. Oh and he wore a cravat in 1985, and that's a sure fire sign of someone playing the "distinguished writer" even when he is alone....

The point being, even a self absorbed jerk can create compelling fiction... Or more pointedly, even a scientist or team of them can give a false impression of data. As we have seen already....

So now you're comparing the work of NOAA to a sifi writer? Good one.

 

[gslack]

Selective reading. How unusual. I prefer to stick to NOAA's thousands of pages of analysis. But of course that's a gubmit agency, so not to be believed.

Well Battlefield Earth was over 1100 pages but I knew it was fiction and the author was a recluse who made up a silly religion for wealthy people. Oh and he wore a cravat in 1985, and that's a sure fire sign of someone playing the "distinguished writer" even when he is alone....

The point being, even a self absorbed jerk can create compelling fiction... Or more pointedly, even a scientist or team of them can give a false impression of data. As we have seen already....

So now you're comparing the work of NOAA to a sifi writer? Good one.

The point was made and very clear you chose to play dumb its on you.... Take the refuge of a fool if you wish but the point is there and all can read it as well as your response...

And still not going to address the island's coming into existence after a storm in the 1970's? LOL truly a cowardly tactic....Nice work, really....

 

[MaggieMae]

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can't let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

That's a scary signature. I'm curious in what context Dr. Oppenheimer would have said such a thing, which implies that WE can pollute all WE want, but no one else should even be given the chance to use modern technology, even within reason.

Michael Oppenheimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MaggieMae]

You? ^^

No, you whining. I think this photo captures you when some thread of yours got moved . . .

I was right on that one. It was moved to the LAME ZONE, and then moved out of there. I was told by the mods that it was a "mistake." So there...

I don't whine. I just get even by keeping it honest, and you guys HATE that!

 

[MaggieMae]

A blog. You are clueless.

But but but blogs are more apt to be "peer reviewed," no?

Also, it's fine for one of your ilk to post from blogsites, but no one else. Got it.

Thats not what he was pointing out.... He was pointing out that oldsocks pretends he posts from peer reviewed science journals and all his garbage about science, is usually coming from an environmental blog and his understandings of it come from their interpretations and not from any real scientific knowledge or expertise. The fact is he usually doesn't even understand a third of what he throws up here. All he knows is somehow it looks like it supports the pro-AGW argument, and thats all he needs to try and BS his way through it. He has been caught red-handed not understanding what he puts up here several times just in my short time as a member here.

A legitimate blogsite will include its original source, even RW blogs. End of debate.

 

[MaggieMae]

oldsocks you realize I left this asinine tread alone because it was completely silly... FIrst the entire premise is a lie.

My first clue came when the OP pointed to a non-functioning link. In fact the site said it was no longer there. Which means it was older than your mathematically challenged mind can grasp.

my second clue came when the second link to a supposed other article by the same poster led to the exact same error page saying the same thing. yeah retarded to say the least.

My next clue came when someone posted the real story behind the OP. The fact is the island just appeared after a storm in the 70's... Not exactly a stable and rock solid bit of evidence that the seas are rising now is it?

And you in your infinite wisdom show up like clockwork to try and save the thread by posting your charts you can't understand and citing facts and figures that have no real bearing on the OP and you don't grasp anyway. You don't care if the poster was an imbecile and the OP was nonsense, its a pro AGW thread and you must defend it.... LOL tool

Apparently there were many reports in all MSM, blogsites, etc., about the disappearing island. I simply picked one from a Google search. If you're so brilliant, you would have realized that just because the site popped up as invaid (as happens a lot), it could have been that I copied the URL incorrectly, and you COULD have done your own Google search.

No run along and go play with quasimodo. She needs friends like you who use the term "imbecile" because "idiot" gets to be old after awhile.

NO, the site was up and running. Your article was no longer there in either instance.... that means you either blindly linked to something you didn't actually read recently, or you just posted from a an old RSS feed you use for topics to post here. Either way the fact it was twice in the same thread on the same subject is pretty conclusive that it was lame...

Also again you have ignored the fact raised by another poster here about the Island coming into existence in the 1970's..... Care to address this anytime or are you going to pretend its not there and continue rambling....

So the story was about a week old. So? I'm always about a week behind in my bedside reading material which is where I read non-frontpage stories. It still could be found on hundreds of other links. Why are you insisting on lambasting me for putting up a bad link? Geezus, who the FUCK cares? Here, pick one:

Island disappears - Google Search

And I've already said the story about the existence and history of the island is not disputed. Go away, child. I don't do bullying well.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well Battlefield Earth was over 1100 pages but I knew it was fiction and the author was a recluse who made up a silly religion for wealthy people. Oh and he wore a cravat in 1985, and that's a sure fire sign of someone playing the "distinguished writer" even when he is alone....

The point being, even a self absorbed jerk can create compelling fiction... Or more pointedly, even a scientist or team of them can give a false impression of data. As we have seen already....

So now you're comparing the work of NOAA to a sifi writer? Good one.

The point was made and very clear you chose to play dumb its on you.... Take the refuge of a fool if you wish but the point is there and all can read it as well as your response...

And still not going to address the island's coming into existence after a storm in the 1970's? LOL truly a cowardly tactic....Nice work, really....

Ah shaddap. I don't need another wild-eyed fanatic stalking me. Bye bye.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You? ^^

No, you whining. I think this photo captures you when some thread of yours got moved . . .

I was right on that one. It was moved to the LAME ZONE, and then moved out of there. I was told by the mods that it was a "mistake." So there...

I don't whine. I just get even by keeping it honest, and you guys HATE that!

And you pm'd me explaining all of that and yet . . . . you turn your own pm and visitor messaging off so I couldn't reply. Pity, I had something I wanted to say to you about that and no, it wasn't some smart-assed comment.

P.S. You did too whine like a 5 year old about your thread being moved . . .

P.S.S. Why don't you answer gslack's question about the island suddenly popping up in the '70's?

 

[MaggieMae]

No, you whining. I think this photo captures you when some thread of yours got moved . . .

I was right on that one. It was moved to the LAME ZONE, and then moved out of there. I was told by the mods that it was a "mistake." So there...

I don't whine. I just get even by keeping it honest, and you guys HATE that!

And you pm'd me explaining all of that and yet . . . . you turn your own pm and visitor messaging off so I couldn't reply. Pity, I had something I wanted to say to you about that and no, it wasn't some smart-assed comment.

P.S. You did too whine like a 5 year old about your thread being moved . . .

P.S.S. Why don't you answer gslack's question about the island suddenly popping up in the '70's?

I did more than whine. I screamed bloody murder!

My PM is back on, btw. I didn't realize it was still off until recently. At one point I was spending more time arguing with someone there, and I don't have time for one-on-one's all day.

 

[gslack]

So now you're comparing the work of NOAA to a sifi writer? Good one.

The point was made and very clear you chose to play dumb its on you.... Take the refuge of a fool if you wish but the point is there and all can read it as well as your response...

And still not going to address the island's coming into existence after a storm in the 1970's? LOL truly a cowardly tactic....Nice work, really....

Ah shaddap. I don't need another wild-eyed fanatic stalking me. Bye bye.

Pathetic.....

 

[Zoom-boing]

I was right on that one. It was moved to the LAME ZONE, and then moved out of there. I was told by the mods that it was a "mistake." So there...

I don't whine. I just get even by keeping it honest, and you guys HATE that!

And you pm'd me explaining all of that and yet . . . . you turn your own pm and visitor messaging off so I couldn't reply. Pity, I had something I wanted to say to you about that and no, it wasn't some smart-assed comment.

P.S. You did too whine like a 5 year old about your thread being moved . . .

P.S.S. Why don't you answer gslack's question about the island suddenly popping up in the '70's?

I did more than whine. I screamed bloody murder!

My PM is back on, btw. I didn't realize it was still off until recently. At one point I was spending more time arguing with someone there, and I don't have time for one-on-one's all day.

In public. Tsk, tsk.

 

[Si modo]

Except that your "source" is so convoluted only a lab scientist could understand it, ....

Then maybe the political hacks should quit soiling the science and keep out of it.

Uh huh...over 2,000 scientists the world over are political hacks. Gotcha.

Christ, you ARE stupid. If YOU cannot understand the science, keep the hell out of it. You're a political hack and you soil the science.

 

[Si modo]

I post quite often from peer reviewed journals, have posted lectures on videos from real scientific presentations for viewing, and posted articles from NASA, NOAA, and the USGS.
Now present equal evidence supporting your point of view.

I have, and I am not the subject.

However, my point is that few scientists are as incapable of logical thought as you are.

Need I quote your complaint of your incapability to understand my posts when I point out your consistent logical fallacies? Any scientist would cringe at your amateurish posing.

As far as I can tell, from any of your postings I've read, all you do is call people names and accuse them of being idiots because they "don't understand your logical thoughts." Said logic being omitted, however.

Dear, you wouldn't know logic if it was a bus heading full speed toward you. You are a hack.

I see that you are in full seagull-mode, though: swooping into the thread, screeching at so many and shitting all over, now fly away.

 

[Si modo]

You can look up these two studies in Nature and Science.

Stunning new sea level rise research, Part 1: “Most likely” 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 Climate Progress

September 5, 2008
Two major new studies, in Nature and Science, sharply increase the projected sea level rise (SLR) by 2100. This post discusses the Science study, “Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise” (subs req’d), which concludes:

On the basis of calculations presented here, we suggest that an improved estimate of the range of SLR to 2100 including increased ice dynamics lies between 0.8 and 2.0 m.

… these values give a context and starting point for refinements in SLR forecasts on the basis of clearly defined assumptions and offer a more plausible range of estimates than those neglecting the dominant ice dynamics term.

Scientific analysis is finally catching up to scientific observation. In 2001, the IPCC projected that neither Greenland nor Antarctica would lose significant mass by 2100. The IPCC made the same basic projection again in 2007. Yet both ice sheets already are. As Penn State climatologist Richard Alley said in March 2006, the ice sheets appear to be shrinking “100 years ahead of schedule.”

But but but...is that study "peer reviewed"??

You can't distinguish between a blog and peer-reviewed work and YOU want to be taken seriously?

 

[Si modo]

You can look up these two studies in Nature and Science.

Stunning new sea level rise research, Part 1: “Most likely” 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 Climate Progress

....

A blog. You are clueless.

But but but blogs are more apt to be "peer reviewed," no?
....

[Emphasis added] Wow. Just wow.

Idiot.

 

[Si modo]

A blog. You are clueless.

But but but blogs are more apt to be "peer reviewed," no?

Also, it's fine for one of your ilk to post from blogsites, but no one else. Got it.

Thats not what he was pointing out.... He was pointing out that oldsocks pretends he posts from peer reviewed science journals and all his garbage about science, is usually coming from an environmental blog and his understandings of it come from their interpretations and not from any real scientific knowledge or expertise. The fact is he usually doesn't even understand a third of what he throws up here. All he knows is somehow it looks like it supports the pro-AGW argument, and thats all he needs to try and BS his way through it. He has been caught red-handed not understanding what he puts up here several times just in my short time as a member here.

Exactly. Thanks for restoring my faith in posters at USMB.