Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #508973 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-23 15:20 -0600 |
| Last post | 2015-07-25 13:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 70 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 15:20 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-23 22:13 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worldâ?Ts coasts by the end of the centuryâ?"sooner than previously anticipated "Ringer" <byoung@peoplestel.net> - 2015-07-23 17:48 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world??Ts coasts by the end of the century??"sooner than previously anticipated jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-24 00:27 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worldâ?Ts coasts by the end of the centuryâ?"sooner than previously anticipated benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 00:15 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Simeom <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-23 17:18 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worlds coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated "Ringer" <byoung@peoplestel.net> - 2015-07-23 17:48 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Simeom <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-23 18:26 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-23 16:34 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 18:41 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-23 17:57 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 19:00 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-23 18:14 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 19:22 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Simeom <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-23 20:40 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-24 01:44 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-23 19:06 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 20:18 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-23 19:22 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-23 23:23 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-25 09:54 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worlds coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-07-25 11:03 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-25 11:32 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-25 10:00 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-25 12:44 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world's coasts by the end of the century--sooner than previously anticipated "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 10:54 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world's coasts by the end of the century--sooner than previously anticipated HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 14:28 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-25 11:07 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 12:19 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-26 10:38 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 13:09 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worlds coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-07-26 14:27 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-26 12:03 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 14:36 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-26 13:38 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 17:32 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-26 15:41 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 18:37 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-26 18:39 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 21:11 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-27 08:57 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-27 17:53 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-26 21:57 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-27 00:17 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-26 21:44 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Paul Aubrin <chu8i443@free.fr> - 2015-07-25 19:27 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 12:29 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Paul Aubrin <chu8i443@free.fr> - 2015-07-26 18:40 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 14:24 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worlds coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated Desertphile <Desertphile@nospam.org> - 2015-07-29 07:53 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 11:07 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 13:15 -0400
new noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 21:00 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world¢s coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated Desertphile <Desertphile@nospam.org> - 2015-07-29 13:33 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-29 19:48 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-25 21:04 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Paul Aubrin <chu8i443@free.fr> - 2015-07-25 18:34 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century---sooner than previously anticipated benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 16:04 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-24 03:18 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-24 00:51 +0000
Re: Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Nobody <not@home.anymore> - 2015-07-24 01:49 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 00:18 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 07:32 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-23 16:14 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world's coasts by the end of the century--sooner than previously anticipated "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-07-24 21:23 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-25 06:45 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 10:45 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-25 16:57 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world's coasts by the end of the century--sooner than previously anticipated noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 20:56 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world's coasts by the end of the century--sooner than previously anticipated Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-07-25 13:08 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp07su$4t4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509115 |
On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: > >> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', where the >>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper has a >>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and when >>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, etc. >>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris 2015. Oh >>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a pre-publication >>>>> draft in the media. >>>> >>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't >>>> scientifically correct? >> >>> -- Kevin Trenberth >> >> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will attack >> Trenberth. > > Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine ideas, > not the person. Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 11:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worlds coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated |
| Message-ID | <9797radnucsunv9vsb6d1ip4uq9bl6qasg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #509357 |
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >> >>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', where the >>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper has a >>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and when >>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, etc. >>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris 2015. Oh >>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a pre-publication >>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>> >>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>> scientifically correct? >>> >>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>> >>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will attack >>> Trenberth. >> >> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine ideas, >> not the person. > >Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 11:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp0dkv$pij$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509358 |
On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: > >> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', where the >>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper has a >>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and when >>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, etc. >>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris 2015. Oh >>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a pre-publication >>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>> >>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>> >>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will attack >>>> Trenberth. >>> >>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine ideas, >>> not the person. >> >> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. > > Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 10:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mp0f96$umt$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509363 |
On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: > On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >> >>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', where the >>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper has a >>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and >>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, etc. >>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris 2015. Oh >>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a pre-publication >>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>> >>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>> >>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will >>>>> attack >>>>> Trenberth. >>>> >>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine ideas, >>>> not the person. >>> >>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. >> >> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? > > Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't > scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- which has shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will somehow, at some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, Redraw the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in order to acheive suspension of disbelief. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 12:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp0hrf$9v3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509374 |
On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: > On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', where the >>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper has a >>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and >>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, etc. >>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a pre-publication >>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>> >>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will >>>>>> attack >>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>> >>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine ideas, >>>>> not the person. >>>> >>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. >>> >>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >> >> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't >> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? > > In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- which has > shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will somehow, at > some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, Redraw > the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in order to > acheive suspension of disbelief. > > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't scientifically correct".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 10:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world's coasts by the end of the century--sooner than previously anticipated |
| Message-ID | <72d0e47b-a670-4936-98d7-84517d9c7960@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #509393 |
On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 10:44:46 AM UTC-7, Unum wrote: > On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: > > On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: > >> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: > >>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: > >>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: > >>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', where the > >>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper has a > >>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and > >>>>>>>>> when > >>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, etc. > >>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris 2015. Oh > >>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a pre-publication > >>>>>>>>> draft in the media. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't > >>>>>>>> scientifically correct? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will > >>>>>> attack > >>>>>> Trenberth. > >>>>> > >>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine ideas, > >>>>> not the person. > >>>> > >>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to > >>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. > >>> > >>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? > >> > >> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't > >> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? > > > > In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- which has > > shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will somehow, at > > some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, Redraw > > the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in order to > > acheive suspension of disbelief. > > > > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large > > Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic > melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. > > Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content > that wasn't scientifically correct". My latest boat can hold 6 people,and is impossible to sink.Fast to build,and for little money.Every house could use one.Its fun and a "LIFE SAVER" When it makes full page in the papers I will post it. Will give the boat plan to "Sea Scouts" Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 14:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world's coasts by the end of the century--sooner than previously anticipated |
| Message-ID | <mp0kcn$kkv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509401 |
On 7/25/2015 1:54 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > My latest boat can hold 6 Cans of beer > and is impossible to sink. Bet *I* could sink it > Fast to build But not fast enough for you to take the trip to 'save the children' > and for little money.Every house could use one. Why? > Its fun Oh ya.... I'm having a blast > and a "LIFE SAVER" But you wanted more money so you didn't use it to save the lives of children...The CHILDREN Bert! How could you choose money over them? > When it makes full page in the papers I will post it. > Will give the boat plan to "Sea Scouts" Bert Good. They can use them for toilet paper -- Cut off one head, two more shall take its place. HAIL HYDRA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 11:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mp0j6k$29l$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509393 |
On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: > On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', >>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper >>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, etc. >>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will >>>>>>> attack >>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine >>>>>> ideas, >>>>>> not the person. >>>>> >>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. >>>> >>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>> >>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't >>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >> >> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- which >> has >> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will >> somehow, at >> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, >> Redraw >> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in order to >> acheive suspension of disbelief. >> >> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large > > Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic > melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as sciency language, lil buddy? > Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content > that wasn't scientifically correct". First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it should mean that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. Hansen has been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or more of his claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such thing as "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims which have yet to be contradicted. I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what standard of evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of "scientifically correct".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 12:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp34oi$4fb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509404 |
On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: > On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', >>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper >>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and >>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, etc. >>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will >>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine >>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>> >>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. >>>>> >>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>> >>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't >>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>> >>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- which >>> has >>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will >>> somehow, at >>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, >>> Redraw >>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in order to >>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>> >>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >> >> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. > > WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as sciency > language, lil buddy? You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >> that wasn't scientifically correct". Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious and clear meaning. > First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it should mean > that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. Hansen has > been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or more of his > claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such thing as > "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims which have yet > to be contradicted. It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you aren't citing any of it. > I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what standard of > evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of "scientifically > correct". If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mp35s4$4ep$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509631 |
On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: > On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper >>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and >>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris >>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will >>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine >>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>> >>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>> >>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- which >>>> has >>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will >>>> somehow, at >>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, >>>> Redraw >>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in >>>> order to >>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>> >>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>> >>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >> >> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as sciency >> language, lil buddy? > > You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! > >>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>> that wasn't scientifically correct". > > Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious > and clear meaning. Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely maybe! Yer unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating fruitcakes and weasels. >> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it >> should mean >> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. >> Hansen has >> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or more of >> his >> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such thing as >> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims which >> have yet >> to be contradicted. > > It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you > aren't citing any of it. Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! >> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what >> standard of >> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >> "scientifically >> correct". > > If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help. A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is "having no errors" or "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future prediction involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are perfectly in character...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 13:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp37mj$fl2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509635 |
On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: > On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper >>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and >>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will >>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine >>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>> >>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>> >>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- which >>>>> has >>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will >>>>> somehow, at >>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, >>>>> Redraw >>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in >>>>> order to >>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>> >>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>> >>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>> >>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as sciency >>> language, lil buddy? >> >> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >> >>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >> >> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >> and clear meaning. > > Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely maybe! Yer > unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating fruitcakes > and weasels. > >>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it >>> should mean >>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. >>> Hansen has >>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or more of >>> his >>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such thing as >>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims which >>> have yet >>> to be contradicted. >> >> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >> aren't citing any of it. > > Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine by me! >>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what >>> standard of >>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>> "scientifically >>> correct". >> >> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help. > > A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is "having no errors" or > "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future prediction > involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? So that's your personal bogus interpretation? We'll just say it means "conforming with the principles of science". > Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are perfectly in > character... When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack phase pretty quick, don't you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 14:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worlds coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated |
| Message-ID | <6h9araphr8sj1hfh27ll1qjvbrkma8imiv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #509655 |
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 13:09:47 -0500, Unum wrote: >On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >> On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >>> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will >>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine >>>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>>> >>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- which >>>>>> has >>>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will >>>>>> somehow, at >>>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, >>>>>> Redraw >>>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in >>>>>> order to >>>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>>> >>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >>>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>>> >>>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as sciency >>>> language, lil buddy? >>> >>> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >>> >>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >>> >>> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >>> and clear meaning. >> >> Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely maybe! Yer >> unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating fruitcakes >> and weasels. >> >>>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it >>>> should mean >>>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. >>>> Hansen has >>>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or more of >>>> his >>>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such thing as >>>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims which >>>> have yet >>>> to be contradicted. >>> >>> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >>> aren't citing any of it. >> >> Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! > >All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine >by me! Who cares whether it is fine by you? >>>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what >>>> standard of >>>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>>> "scientifically >>>> correct". >>> >>> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help. >> >> A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is "having no errors" or >> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future prediction >> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? > >So that's your personal bogus interpretation? Nice declaration of 'bogus' without rationale. >We'll just say it >means "conforming with the principles of science". Who is "we?" >> Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are perfectly in >> character... > >When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack phase >pretty quick, don't you. Lack of refutation noted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mp3arr$4ep$13@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509655 |
On 7/26/2015 11:09 AM, Unum wrote: > On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >> On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >>> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will >>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine >>>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>>> >>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- >>>>>> which >>>>>> has >>>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will >>>>>> somehow, at >>>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, >>>>>> Redraw >>>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in >>>>>> order to >>>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>>> >>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >>>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>>> >>>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as sciency >>>> language, lil buddy? >>> >>> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >>> >>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >>> >>> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >>> and clear meaning. >> >> Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely maybe! Yer >> unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating >> fruitcakes >> and weasels. >> >>>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it >>>> should mean >>>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. >>>> Hansen has >>>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or more of >>>> his >>>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such >>>> thing as >>>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims which >>>> have yet >>>> to be contradicted. >>> >>> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >>> aren't citing any of it. >> >> Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! > > All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine > by me! Keep looking. >>>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what >>>> standard of >>>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>>> "scientifically >>>> correct". >>> >>> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help. >> >> A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is "having no >> errors" or >> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future prediction >> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? > > So that's your personal bogus interpretation? Nope, actually the dictionary definition of correct when used in adjective form. "conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate" We'll just say it > means "conforming with the principles of science". So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is "scientifically correct", i.e., conforming to fact or truth, free from error, and accurate? >> Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are >> perfectly in >> character... > > When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack phase > pretty quick, don't you. Coming from you, the most ironic statement ever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 14:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp3coi$4gs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509678 |
On 7/26/2015 2:03 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: > On 7/26/2015 11:09 AM, Unum wrote: >> On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>> On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >>>> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will >>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine >>>>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> has >>>>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will >>>>>>> somehow, at >>>>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, >>>>>>> Redraw >>>>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in >>>>>>> order to >>>>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>>>> >>>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >>>>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>>>> >>>>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as sciency >>>>> language, lil buddy? >>>> >>>> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >>>> >>>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >>>> >>>> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >>>> and clear meaning. >>> >>> Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely maybe! Yer >>> unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating >>> fruitcakes >>> and weasels. >>> >>>>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it >>>>> should mean >>>>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. >>>>> Hansen has >>>>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or more of >>>>> his >>>>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such >>>>> thing as >>>>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims which >>>>> have yet >>>>> to be contradicted. >>>> >>>> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >>>> aren't citing any of it. >>> >>> Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! >> >> All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine >> by me! > > Keep looking. Will I see something that isn't there? >>>>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what >>>>> standard of >>>>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>>>> "scientifically >>>>> correct". >>>> >>>> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help. >>> >>> A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is "having no >>> errors" or >>> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future prediction >>> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? >> >> So that's your personal bogus interpretation? > > Nope, actually the dictionary definition of correct when used in adjective form. > > "conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate" I can understand why you would be so desperate to interpret the phrase as something impossible to achieve. I'll stick with my perfectly reasonable definition below. > We'll just say it >> means "conforming with the principles of science". > > So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is "scientifically correct", i.e., conforming to fact > or truth, free from error, and accurate? Its simply in conformance with observed empirical evidence such as accelerating melting of land ice as has been posted here many times. >>> Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are >>> perfectly in >>> character... >> >> When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack phase >> pretty quick, don't you. > > Coming from you, the most ironic statement ever. We'll just note that you did in fact resort to personal attack.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 13:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mp3gdj$4ep$18@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509689 |
On 7/26/2015 12:36 PM, Unum wrote: > On 7/26/2015 2:03 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >> On 7/26/2015 11:09 AM, Unum wrote: >>> On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>> On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky >>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to >>>>>>>>>>>> examine >>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of >>>>>>>>>>> days. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will >>>>>>>> somehow, at >>>>>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, >>>>>>>> Redraw >>>>>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in >>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >>>>>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>>>>> >>>>>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as >>>>>> sciency >>>>>> language, lil buddy? >>>>> >>>>> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >>>>> >>>>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>>>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >>>>> >>>>> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >>>>> and clear meaning. >>>> >>>> Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely maybe! Yer >>>> unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating >>>> fruitcakes >>>> and weasels. >>>> >>>>>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it >>>>>> should mean >>>>>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. >>>>>> Hansen has >>>>>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or >>>>>> more of >>>>>> his >>>>>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such >>>>>> thing as >>>>>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims which >>>>>> have yet >>>>>> to be contradicted. >>>>> >>>>> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >>>>> aren't citing any of it. >>>> >>>> Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! >>> >>> All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine >>> by me! >> >> Keep looking. > > Will I see something that isn't there? > >>>>>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what >>>>>> standard of >>>>>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>>>>> "scientifically >>>>>> correct". >>>>> >>>>> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help. >>>> >>>> A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is "having no >>>> errors" or >>>> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future >>>> prediction >>>> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? >>> >>> So that's your personal bogus interpretation? >> >> Nope, actually the dictionary definition of correct when used in >> adjective form. >> >> "conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate" > > I can understand why you would be so desperate to interpret the > phrase as something impossible to achieve. I'll stick with my perfectly > reasonable definition below. And I'll stick to pointing out the unsciency foolishness of yer definition. >> We'll just say it >>> means "conforming with the principles of science". >> >> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is "scientifically correct", i.e., conforming >> to fact >> or truth, free from error, and accurate? > > Its simply in conformance with observed empirical evidence such as > accelerating melting of land ice as has been posted here many times. So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? >>>> Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are >>>> perfectly in >>>> character... >>> >>> When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack phase >>> pretty quick, don't you. >> >> Coming from you, the most ironic statement ever. > > We'll just note that you did in fact resort to personal attack. The whore Unum takes one ettiquette class and suddenly she becomes self-righteous about courtesy and manners! Considering yer extensive history of Tourette syndrome, ironic doesn't begin to cover it. Have you been taking Tourette suppressants, or something? And what's with the use of majestic plurals, did your ettiquette class elevate your caste to royalty? And not just
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 17:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp3n2g$9s1$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509706 |
On 7/26/2015 3:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: > On 7/26/2015 12:36 PM, Unum wrote: >> On 7/26/2015 2:03 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>> On 7/26/2015 11:09 AM, Unum wrote: >>>> On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>> On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to >>>>>>>>>>>>> examine >>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of >>>>>>>>>>>> days. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will >>>>>>>>> somehow, at >>>>>>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, >>>>>>>>> Redraw >>>>>>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in >>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >>>>>>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as >>>>>>> sciency >>>>>>> language, lil buddy? >>>>>> >>>>>> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>>>>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >>>>>> >>>>>> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >>>>>> and clear meaning. >>>>> >>>>> Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely maybe! Yer >>>>> unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating >>>>> fruitcakes >>>>> and weasels. >>>>> >>>>>>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it >>>>>>> should mean >>>>>>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. >>>>>>> Hansen has >>>>>>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or >>>>>>> more of >>>>>>> his >>>>>>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such >>>>>>> thing as >>>>>>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims which >>>>>>> have yet >>>>>>> to be contradicted. >>>>>> >>>>>> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >>>>>> aren't citing any of it. >>>>> >>>>> Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! >>>> >>>> All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine >>>> by me! >>> >>> Keep looking. >> >> Will I see something that isn't there? >> >>>>>>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what >>>>>>> standard of >>>>>>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>>>>>> "scientifically >>>>>>> correct". >>>>>> >>>>>> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help. >>>>> >>>>> A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is "having no >>>>> errors" or >>>>> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future >>>>> prediction >>>>> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? >>>> >>>> So that's your personal bogus interpretation? >>> >>> Nope, actually the dictionary definition of correct when used in >>> adjective form. >>> >>> "conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate" >> >> I can understand why you would be so desperate to interpret the >> phrase as something impossible to achieve. I'll stick with my perfectly >> reasonable definition below. > > And I'll stick to pointing out the unsciency foolishness of yer definition. You begged me on your knees for a clarification and I explained it to you. Meanwhile land ice melting has accelerated, hasn't it. "On average, some 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice shelves each year during this time, and the rate of loss is increasing rapidly." >>> We'll just say it >>>> means "conforming with the principles of science". >>> >>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is "scientifically correct", i.e., conforming >>> to fact >>> or truth, free from error, and accurate? >> >> Its simply in conformance with observed empirical evidence such as >> accelerating melting of land ice as has been posted here many times. > > So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? > >>>>> Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are >>>>> perfectly in >>>>> character... >>>> >>>> When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack phase >>>> pretty quick, don't you. >>> >>> Coming from you, the most ironic statement ever. >> >> We'll just note that you did in fact resort to personal attack. > > The whore Unum takes one ettiquette class and suddenly she becomes > self-righteous about courtesy and manners! Considering yer extensive history > of Tourette syndrome, ironic doesn't begin to cover it. Have you been taking > Tourette suppressants, or something? Getting a little excited? > And what's with the use of majestic plurals, did your ettiquette class elevate > your caste to royalty? > > And not just Click send a little too soon?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 15:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mp3njh$uhb$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509736 |
On 7/26/2015 3:32 PM, Unum wrote: > On 7/26/2015 3:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >> On 7/26/2015 12:36 PM, Unum wrote: >>> On 7/26/2015 2:03 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>> On 7/26/2015 11:09 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>> On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>> On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>>>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of >>>>>>>>>>>>> days. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- >>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>> somehow, at >>>>>>>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 >>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>> Redraw >>>>>>>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in >>>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >>>>>>>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as >>>>>>>> sciency >>>>>>>> language, lil buddy? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>>>>>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >>>>>>> and clear meaning. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely maybe! Yer >>>>>> unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating >>>>>> fruitcakes >>>>>> and weasels. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it >>>>>>>> should mean >>>>>>>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. >>>>>>>> Hansen has >>>>>>>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or >>>>>>>> more of >>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such >>>>>>>> thing as >>>>>>>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims which >>>>>>>> have yet >>>>>>>> to be contradicted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >>>>>>> aren't citing any of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! >>>>> >>>>> All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine >>>>> by me! >>>> >>>> Keep looking. >>> >>> Will I see something that isn't there? >>> >>>>>>>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what >>>>>>>> standard of >>>>>>>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>>>>>>> "scientifically >>>>>>>> correct". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help. >>>>>> >>>>>> A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is "having no >>>>>> errors" or >>>>>> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future >>>>>> prediction >>>>>> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? >>>>> >>>>> So that's your personal bogus interpretation? >>>> >>>> Nope, actually the dictionary definition of correct when used in >>>> adjective form. >>>> >>>> "conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate" >>> >>> I can understand why you would be so desperate to interpret the >>> phrase as something impossible to achieve. I'll stick with my perfectly >>> reasonable definition below. >> >> And I'll stick to pointing out the unsciency foolishness of yer >> definition. > > You begged me on your knees for a clarification and I explained it to > you. Meanwhile land ice melting has accelerated, hasn't it. > > "On average, some 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice > shelves each year during this time, and the rate of loss is increasing > rapidly." Keywest Florida didn't get the message: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large > >>>> We'll just say it >>>>> means "conforming with the principles of science". >>>> >>>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is "scientifically correct", i.e., conforming >>>> to fact >>>> or truth, free from error, and accurate? >>> >>> Its simply in conformance with observed empirical evidence such as >>> accelerating melting of land ice as has been posted here many times. >> >> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? >> >>>>>> Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are >>>>>> perfectly in >>>>>> character... >>>>> >>>>> When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack phase >>>>> pretty quick, don't you. >>>> >>>> Coming from you, the most ironic statement ever. >>> >>> We'll just note that you did in fact resort to personal attack. >> >> The whore Unum takes one ettiquette class and suddenly she becomes >> self-righteous about courtesy and manners! Considering yer extensive >> history >> of Tourette syndrome, ironic doesn't begin to cover it. Have you been >> taking >> Tourette suppressants, or something? > > Getting a little excited? > >> And what's with the use of majestic plurals, did your ettiquette class >> elevate >> your caste to royalty? >> >> And not just > > Click send a little too soon? So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 18:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp3qsl$ktu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509738 |
On 7/26/2015 5:41 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: > On 7/26/2015 3:32 PM, Unum wrote: >> On 7/26/2015 3:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>> On 7/26/2015 12:36 PM, Unum wrote: >>>> On 7/26/2015 2:03 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>> On 7/26/2015 11:09 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>> On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> days. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- >>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- >>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>> somehow, at >>>>>>>>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 >>>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>>> Redraw >>>>>>>>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in >>>>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >>>>>>>>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as >>>>>>>>> sciency >>>>>>>>> language, lil buddy? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>>>>>>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >>>>>>>> and clear meaning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely maybe! Yer >>>>>>> unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating >>>>>>> fruitcakes >>>>>>> and weasels. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it >>>>>>>>> should mean >>>>>>>>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. >>>>>>>>> Hansen has >>>>>>>>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or >>>>>>>>> more of >>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such >>>>>>>>> thing as >>>>>>>>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims which >>>>>>>>> have yet >>>>>>>>> to be contradicted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >>>>>>>> aren't citing any of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! >>>>>> >>>>>> All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine >>>>>> by me! >>>>> >>>>> Keep looking. >>>> >>>> Will I see something that isn't there? >>>> >>>>>>>>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what >>>>>>>>> standard of >>>>>>>>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>>>>>>>> "scientifically >>>>>>>>> correct". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is "having no >>>>>>> errors" or >>>>>>> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future >>>>>>> prediction >>>>>>> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? >>>>>> >>>>>> So that's your personal bogus interpretation? >>>>> >>>>> Nope, actually the dictionary definition of correct when used in >>>>> adjective form. >>>>> >>>>> "conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate" >>>> >>>> I can understand why you would be so desperate to interpret the >>>> phrase as something impossible to achieve. I'll stick with my perfectly >>>> reasonable definition below. >>> >>> And I'll stick to pointing out the unsciency foolishness of yer >>> definition. >> >> You begged me on your knees for a clarification and I explained it to >> you. Meanwhile land ice melting has accelerated, hasn't it. >> >> "On average, some 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice >> shelves each year during this time, and the rate of loss is increasing >> rapidly." > > Keywest Florida didn't get the message: That the rate of loss is increasing rapidly? Other places seem to be getting it. > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large So now Key West is the one place on Earth that reflects SLR all over the planet? Your "conforming to fact or truth" didn't last very long. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/searise.html http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3072.aspx http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/impact_sea_level_rise.html >>>>> We'll just say it >>>>>> means "conforming with the principles of science". >>>>> >>>>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is "scientifically correct", i.e., conforming >>>>> to fact >>>>> or truth, free from error, and accurate? >>>> >>>> Its simply in conformance with observed empirical evidence such as >>>> accelerating melting of land ice as has been posted here many times. >>> >>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? >>> >>>>>>> Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are >>>>>>> perfectly in >>>>>>> character... >>>>>> >>>>>> When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack phase >>>>>> pretty quick, don't you. >>>>> >>>>> Coming from you, the most ironic statement ever. >>>> >>>> We'll just note that you did in fact resort to personal attack. >>> >>> The whore Unum takes one ettiquette class and suddenly she becomes >>> self-righteous about courtesy and manners! Considering yer extensive >>> history >>> of Tourette syndrome, ironic doesn't begin to cover it. Have you been >>> taking >>> Tourette suppressants, or something? >> >> Getting a little excited? >> >>> And what's with the use of majestic plurals, did your ettiquette class >>> elevate >>> your caste to royalty? >>> >>> And not just >> >> Click send a little too soon? > > So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? You are welcome to try to find something in a lieblog that indicates otherwise. Better scramble! 90% of the Florida keys are less than 5ft above sea level. Key West is at about 3 feet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 18:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mp420u$i6n$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509756 |
On 7/26/2015 4:37 PM, Unum wrote: > On 7/26/2015 5:41 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >> On 7/26/2015 3:32 PM, Unum wrote: >>> On 7/26/2015 3:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>> On 7/26/2015 12:36 PM, Unum wrote: >>>>> On 7/26/2015 2:03 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>> On 7/26/2015 11:09 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chumpsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that >>>>>>>>>>>> SLR -- >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- >>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>> somehow, at >>>>>>>>>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 >>>>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>>>> Redraw >>>>>>>>>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as >>>>>>>>>>>> necessary in >>>>>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >>>>>>>>>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as >>>>>>>>>> sciency >>>>>>>>>> language, lil buddy? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>>>>>>>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >>>>>>>>> and clear meaning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely maybe! Yer >>>>>>>> unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating >>>>>>>> fruitcakes >>>>>>>> and weasels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it >>>>>>>>>> should mean >>>>>>>>>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. >>>>>>>>>> Hansen has >>>>>>>>>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or >>>>>>>>>> more of >>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such >>>>>>>>>> thing as >>>>>>>>>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> have yet >>>>>>>>>> to be contradicted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >>>>>>>>> aren't citing any of it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine >>>>>>> by me! >>>>>> >>>>>> Keep looking. >>>>> >>>>> Will I see something that isn't there? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what >>>>>>>>>> standard of >>>>>>>>>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>>>>>>>>> "scientifically >>>>>>>>>> correct". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is "having no >>>>>>>> errors" or >>>>>>>> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future >>>>>>>> prediction >>>>>>>> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So that's your personal bogus interpretation? >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, actually the dictionary definition of correct when used in >>>>>> adjective form. >>>>>> >>>>>> "conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate" >>>>> >>>>> I can understand why you would be so desperate to interpret the >>>>> phrase as something impossible to achieve. I'll stick with my >>>>> perfectly >>>>> reasonable definition below. >>>> >>>> And I'll stick to pointing out the unsciency foolishness of yer >>>> definition. >>> >>> You begged me on your knees for a clarification and I explained it to >>> you. Meanwhile land ice melting has accelerated, hasn't it. >>> >>> "On average, some 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice >>> shelves each year during this time, and the rate of loss is increasing >>> rapidly." >> >> Keywest Florida didn't get the message: > > That the rate of loss is increasing rapidly? Other places seem to > be getting it. > >> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large > > So now Key West is the one place on Earth that reflects SLR all over > the planet? Your "conforming to fact or truth" didn't last very long. > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/searise.html > > http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3072.aspx > > http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/impact_sea_level_rise.html > > >>>>>> We'll just say it >>>>>>> means "conforming with the principles of science". >>>>>> >>>>>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is "scientifically correct", i.e., conforming >>>>>> to fact >>>>>> or truth, free from error, and accurate? >>>>> >>>>> Its simply in conformance with observed empirical evidence such as >>>>> accelerating melting of land ice as has been posted here many times. >>>> >>>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? >>>> >>>>>>>> Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are >>>>>>>> perfectly in >>>>>>>> character... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack phase >>>>>>> pretty quick, don't you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Coming from you, the most ironic statement ever. >>>>> >>>>> We'll just note that you did in fact resort to personal attack. >>>> >>>> The whore Unum takes one ettiquette class and suddenly she becomes >>>> self-righteous about courtesy and manners! Considering yer extensive >>>> history >>>> of Tourette syndrome, ironic doesn't begin to cover it. Have you been >>>> taking >>>> Tourette suppressants, or something? >>> >>> Getting a little excited? >>> >>>> And what's with the use of majestic plurals, did your ettiquette class >>>> elevate >>>> your caste to royalty? >>>> >>>> And not just >>> >>> Click send a little too soon? >> >> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? > > You are welcome to try to find something in a lieblog that indicates > otherwise. Better scramble! 90% of the Florida keys are less than 5ft above > sea level. Key West is at about 3 feet. That's not how it works, lil buddy, the onus is not on me to prove or disprove anything. If you claim 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact, the onus is entirely yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 21:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp43uj$a0b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509768 |
On 7/26/2015 8:39 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: > On 7/26/2015 4:37 PM, Unum wrote: >> On 7/26/2015 5:41 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>> On 7/26/2015 3:32 PM, Unum wrote: >>>> On 7/26/2015 3:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>> On 7/26/2015 12:36 PM, Unum wrote: >>>>>> On 7/26/2015 2:03 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 11:09 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chumpsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that >>>>>>>>>>>>> SLR -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow, at >>>>>>>>>>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 >>>>>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Redraw >>>>>>>>>>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as >>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary in >>>>>>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>>>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >>>>>>>>>>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as >>>>>>>>>>> sciency >>>>>>>>>>> language, lil buddy? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>>>>>>>>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >>>>>>>>>> and clear meaning. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely maybe! Yer >>>>>>>>> unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating >>>>>>>>> fruitcakes >>>>>>>>> and weasels. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it >>>>>>>>>>> should mean >>>>>>>>>>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. >>>>>>>>>>> Hansen has >>>>>>>>>>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or >>>>>>>>>>> more of >>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such >>>>>>>>>>> thing as >>>>>>>>>>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims >>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>> have yet >>>>>>>>>>> to be contradicted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >>>>>>>>>> aren't citing any of it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine >>>>>>>> by me! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keep looking. >>>>>> >>>>>> Will I see something that isn't there? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what >>>>>>>>>>> standard of >>>>>>>>>>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>>>>>>>>>> "scientifically >>>>>>>>>>> correct". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is "having no >>>>>>>>> errors" or >>>>>>>>> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future >>>>>>>>> prediction >>>>>>>>> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So that's your personal bogus interpretation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, actually the dictionary definition of correct when used in >>>>>>> adjective form. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate" >>>>>> >>>>>> I can understand why you would be so desperate to interpret the >>>>>> phrase as something impossible to achieve. I'll stick with my >>>>>> perfectly >>>>>> reasonable definition below. >>>>> >>>>> And I'll stick to pointing out the unsciency foolishness of yer >>>>> definition. >>>> >>>> You begged me on your knees for a clarification and I explained it to >>>> you. Meanwhile land ice melting has accelerated, hasn't it. >>>> >>>> "On average, some 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice >>>> shelves each year during this time, and the rate of loss is increasing >>>> rapidly." >>> >>> Keywest Florida didn't get the message: >> >> That the rate of loss is increasing rapidly? Other places seem to >> be getting it. >> >>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >> >> So now Key West is the one place on Earth that reflects SLR all over >> the planet? Your "conforming to fact or truth" didn't last very long. >> >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/searise.html >> >> http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3072.aspx >> >> http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/impact_sea_level_rise.html Those cites blew your ass totally out of the water didn't they, lol! >>>>>>> We'll just say it >>>>>>>> means "conforming with the principles of science". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is "scientifically correct", i.e., conforming >>>>>>> to fact >>>>>>> or truth, free from error, and accurate? >>>>>> >>>>>> Its simply in conformance with observed empirical evidence such as >>>>>> accelerating melting of land ice as has been posted here many times. >>>>> >>>>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are >>>>>>>>> perfectly in >>>>>>>>> character... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack phase >>>>>>>> pretty quick, don't you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Coming from you, the most ironic statement ever. >>>>>> >>>>>> We'll just note that you did in fact resort to personal attack. >>>>> >>>>> The whore Unum takes one ettiquette class and suddenly she becomes >>>>> self-righteous about courtesy and manners! Considering yer extensive >>>>> history >>>>> of Tourette syndrome, ironic doesn't begin to cover it. Have you been >>>>> taking >>>>> Tourette suppressants, or something? >>>> >>>> Getting a little excited? >>>> >>>>> And what's with the use of majestic plurals, did your ettiquette class >>>>> elevate >>>>> your caste to royalty? >>>>> >>>>> And not just >>>> >>>> Click send a little too soon? >>> >>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? >> >> You are welcome to try to find something in a lieblog that indicates >> otherwise. Better scramble! 90% of the Florida keys are less than 5ft above >> sea level. Key West is at about 3 feet. > > That's not how it works, lil buddy, the onus is not on me to prove or disprove > anything. If you claim 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" > fact, the onus is entirely yours. Actually that is how it works. If you have a dispute with Hansens's paper other than the nitwit little chart you posted (and which I refuted) you can just bring it on out. Otherwise we can just assume that you didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't scientifically correct".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web