MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
- Thread starter
- #81
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.