Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As I said, you wouldn't know logic if it was a bus running full speed at you.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.
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.
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!!
Ah shaddap. I don't need another wild-eyed fanatic stalking me. Bye bye.
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.
Maggie sure has your MO nailed
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.
I stated nothing about said island. What I did do was post articles, or links to articles that showed the acceleration of the present sea level rise.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1135456
Reports
A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise
Stefan Rahmstorf
A semi-empirical relation is presented that connects global sea-level rise to global mean surface temperature. It is proposed that, for time scales relevant to anthropogenic warming, the rate of sea-level rise is roughly proportional to the magnitude of warming above the temperatures of the preIndustrial Age. This holds to good approximation for temperature and sea-level changes during the 20th century, with a proportionality constant of 3.4 millimeters/year per °C. When applied to future warming scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this relationship results in a projected sea-level rise in 2100 of 0.5 to 1.4 meters above the 1990 level.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs
Since the mid 1990s, GISS scientists have often prepared short articles about their research, sometimes in connection with the publication of journal articles, with the aim of briefly communicating to the public the relevance and even the excitement of our research. These summaries are shorn of most technical language and may be thought of as "popular science" discussions of selected GISS research topics.
Listed below are science briefs written since 2005. Listings for older research are available on separate pages 2000 to 2004 and for 1995 to 1999.
News releases about recent GISS research achievements may be found in the Research News pages. For a thematically organized discussion of research at GISS, please visit our main research topics page.
Evidence says the sea level is falling at a rate of 1mm per year at present. I posted the source twice, but your inability to accept scientific results not proved by Al Gore inhibits you from getting much out of it Old Rocks.
Rocks, you wouldn't know logic, either. Need I copy your complaint about my use of confusing Latin when pointing out your usual logical fallacies?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.
An uninhabited island in the Bay of Bengal, which had long been claimed by both India and
Bangladesh, completely disappeared when it was submerged by the rising sea level which ended the dispute over ownership.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia...r-Disputed-island-disappears-under-rising-sea.
Oceans are not rising any faster then before the supposed Global Warming scare started. I wonder where all that supposed melting ice went?
Odd you should state that. Any scientific sources to back that up?
Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the current and future rise in sea level associated with global warming. For sea level changes in Earth's history, see Sea level - changes through geologic time.
Sea level measurements from 23 long tide gauge records in geologically stable environments show a rise of around 200 millimetres (8 inches) per century, or 2 mm/year.
Changes in sea level since the end of the last glacial episodeCurrent sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently, during the satellite era of sea level measurement, at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4[3] to 3.1 ± 0.7[4] mm per year (1993-2003). Current sea level rise is due significantly to global warming,[5] which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods.[6][7] Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of continental ice sheets. At the end of the 20th century, thermal expansion and melting of land ice contributed roughly equally to sea level rise, while thermal expansion is expected to contribute more than half of the rise in the upcoming century.[8] Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of this century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm. Models of glacial flow give a theoretical maximum value for sea level rise in the current century of 2 metres (and a "more plausible" one of 0.8 metres), based on limitations on how quickly ice can flow.
The logical fallicy that an unknown poster would know more than the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Dr. James Hansen.
That the poster would know more than all the Scientific Societies in the world, more than all the National Academies of Science in the world, more than all the major Universities in the world.
That said poster would be so logical as to never present her evidence on the issue, just stating that "I am a scientist, so I know more about that, and am more logical than you are. Even when I am in disagreement with 99% of the other scientists in the world."
As for the Latin. It is not a logician's debate, it is evidence that we are leaving a dangerously damaged world for our descendents.
Ummmm. That would be another one of your strawmen. That's a logical fallacy, by the way. But, it's not Latin, so you have that going for ya.I see. The logical fallicy in accepting that physicists would know more about how GHGs function than names on a internet message board.
....
That's still a strawman, a logical fallacy.Ummm...... OK, show me the lack of logic in the article by the American Institute of Physics.
....
Still a strawman, but it's a new strawman. I guess that's something.I see. I present the information from real physicists, and your only answer is that it is a logical fallicy.
....
I see.
And where is the strawman? I ascribed no position to you. Nor did I state anything other than what my opinion is, for I did not link those opinions to any other persons or organizations.
I do believe a strawman is when you set up an opinion that is not stated by the opponent, and then act as if it was as you refute it.
So where is the strawman in those statements. I did not ascribe them to you, I did not even state that you disagreed with any of those statements.
