Originally posted by @metal-brainI did not contradict myself in that post.
The irony is that you have now contradicted yourself. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept it was an unintentional error.
Please revise your contradictory statement and provide your sources of information for your claims.
Originally posted by @sonhouseWhat bothers me is you not posting your source of information.
So you want to continue denying any effects from melting ice? Did you get the part where the ocean currents warming Europe and eastern US has already weakened by 30% and counting and there is a definite correlation between loss of ice and ocean currents.
That doesn't bother you? Everything will work out in time? Is that your POV?
Originally posted by @deepthoughtYou said this:
I did not contradict myself in that post.
"Antarctic and Greenlandic icesheet melt has the largest effect on sea level because the Arctic ice sheet is floating and has therefore displaced the same amount of water by mass."
If the ice sheet was floating it would not contribute to sea level rise. I think you have confused sea ice with ice sheets. Ice sheets are big glaciers that do not float in the sea. Only sea ice floats in the sea and that makes them displace the same amount of water after they melt.
Do you see where you went wrong now?
4 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainSo he might have said "ice sheet" when he meant "sea ice"; big deal.
You said this:
"Antarctic and Greenlandic icesheet melt has the largest effect on sea level because the Arctic ice sheet is floating and has therefore displaced the same amount of water by mass."
If the ice sheet was floating it would not contribute to sea level rise. I think you have confused sea ice with ice sheets. Ice sheets are big glaciers ...[text shortened]... them displace the same amount of water after they melt.
Do you see where you went wrong now?
Is nitpicking on trivial semmatics the best you can do? Your desperation noted.
2 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainHere is one about temperature records right now all over the planet:
What bothers me is you not posting your source of information.
https://www.sciencealert.com/all-time-heat-records-have-been-set-all-over-the-world-this-week-ireland-scotland-canada-middle-east-climate-change
I guess this is fake news also?
As you are too lazy to even google that 30% loss of Atlantic ocean currents, which took me about ten seconds to find, here is one of those sources of information you cannot or will not find for yourself, preferring to hide your head in the sand once again:
http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-global-warming-ocean-currents-885237
I get it, you will dis this as a mere Newsweek story which "OBVIOUSLY" cannot be true, since they just want to pander to the climate alarmists.
I imagine that as your response.
Originally posted by @humyYou are being a troll again. I gave him a chance to see his error and change it in a reasonable way. I can't debate him based on his statement when his statement didn't make sense. It had to be corrected for me to do that.
So he might have said "ice sheet" when he meant "sea ice"; big deal.
Is nitpicking on trivial semmatics the best you can do? Your desperation noted.
Desperation is a dishonest term in this context. Even nitpicking is dishonest because clarification was necessary. If I contradicted myself would you just let it go and assume you knew what I was talking about? Your trolling is annoying, dishonest and desperate.
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseWhere are the record low temps? That is like someone arguing that record large penis sizes all over the world means men's penis size is increasing all over the world. Besides, the cities are irrelevant because of heat island effect. Show me an article with satellite temp data, not cherry picked surface temp data.
Here is one about temperature records right now all over the planet:
https://www.sciencealert.com/all-time-heat-records-have-been-set-all-over-the-world-this-week-ireland-scotland-canada-middle-east-climate-change
I guess this is fake news also?
As you are too lazy to even google that 30% loss of Atlantic ocean currents, which took me about ten s ...[text shortened]... e, since they just want to pander to the climate alarmists.
I imagine that as your response.
The newsweek article is just like the other articles I have seen on this subject. It is mere theory and nothing more. Notice the words "may" and "could" being used. It also say the first study. There are more they omitted? Why?
Then there is this ridiculous statement:
"The first study estimated that these currents have slowed down by 15 percent, putting them at the slowest they have been in 1,500 years."
Ocean current data has been collected since 500 AD? Using what instruments? Could it be they don't have records that far back so they estimated them? They did use the word "estimated".
I seriously suggest you make an effort to improve your critical thinking skills. You have blind faith in the most ridiculous sources of information.
Originally posted by @metal-brainSo there was not a contradiction and you are playing word games. It was clear from the context what I meant. Now, do you have any disagreement of substance with what I posted?
You are being a troll again. I gave him a chance to see his error and change it in a reasonable way. I can't debate him based on his statement when his statement didn't make sense. It had to be corrected for me to do that.
Desperation is a dishonest term in this context. Even nitpicking is dishonest because clarification was necessary. If I contradicte ...[text shortened]... nd assume you knew what I was talking about? Your trolling is annoying, dishonest and desperate.
1 edit
Originally posted by @deepthoughtWhat is wrong with you? There was a contradiction. That is undeniable. I didn't know what you meant, but i had a decent guess after you failed to correct that contradiction.
So there was not a contradiction and you are playing word games. It was clear from the context what I meant. Now, do you have any disagreement of substance with what I posted?
I was very polite with you under the circumstances and now you are being an unreasonable and arrogant person without justification. Revise your false statement so that it is not wrong and contradicting so I know exactly what you mean.
Telling me to read what you mean, not what you say is a pathetic expectation. I didn't embarrass you. You did that to yourself so stop being an unreasonable jerk! I don't debate in reply to unintelligible posts!
Originally posted by @metal-brainThe sentence fragment was "...because the Arctic ice sheet is floating...", my meaning was entirely clear from that. I was not impolite in any of my posts. You, on the other hand, just called me an "unreasonable jerk". It is clear to me that you are trying to point to trivial slips in posts to undermine the credibility of other contributors, which is a debating strategy I have little patience for. I tend to avoid the climate change discussions because they are not especially constructive. I think I'll be returning to that policy.
What is wrong with you? There was a contradiction. That is undeniable. I didn't know what you meant, but i had a decent guess after you failed to correct that contradiction.
I was very polite with you under the circumstances and now you are being an unreasonable and arrogant person without justification. Revise your false statement so that it is not ...[text shortened]... to yourself so stop being an unreasonable jerk! I don't debate in reply to unintelligible posts!
Originally posted by @deepthoughtNo, you are completely wrong. Ice sheets don't float.
The sentence fragment was "...because the Arctic ice sheet is floating...", my meaning was entirely clear from that. I was not impolite in any of my posts. You, on the other hand, just called me an "unreasonable jerk". It is clear to me that you are trying to point to trivial slips in posts to undermine the credibility of other contributors, which is ...[text shortened]... ussions because they are not especially constructive. I think I'll be returning to that policy.
You accused me of playing word games when I was very clear. You on the other hand, made a false statement that was contradicting just as I said from the beginning. I suspected you confused sea ice with ice sheet and humy clearly thinks so as well. Did you?
I think you are refusing to revise your statement because it would show just how embarrassing your original statement is. Now you are running away from the debate in a cowardly way while dishonestly using false reasons in a feeble attempt to save face. You had every chance to point to so called trivial slips but didn't because you can't competently debate this subject and you know it. You do seem to pop up in these threads only when I'm kicking sonhouse or humy's butt around only because they don't have the common sense to give up a losing debate. Then you cower away as always and you are going to do it again using bogus excuses. You seem to be nothing more than a deliberate distraction from their failures.
You twice denied contradicting yourself in a dishonest way. That is why you are an unreasonable jerk. Ice sheets don't float!
Originally posted by @metal-brainIt was a trivial slip, my meaning was clear, and you are clearly trying to make a big thing of it. I am not entering into discussions with someone who thinks that this an appropriate way to debate and certainly not with someone who uses words like "cowardly" and "jerk" in response to a reasonable point. If you think you "win these debates with pure logic" you are both deluded and an onanist.
No, you are completely wrong. Ice sheets don't float.
You accused me of playing word games when I was very clear. You on the other hand, made a false statement that was contradicting just as I said from the beginning. I suspected you confused sea ice with ice sheet and humy clearly thinks so as well. Did you?
I think you are refusing to revise yo ...[text shortened]... g yourself in a dishonest way. That is why you are an unreasonable jerk. Ice sheets don't float!
Originally posted by @deepthoughtI was NOT trying to make a big deal about it. That is why I gave you a chance to correct your mistake. Instead you lied and lied again before you called it trivial as if lying is acceptable and routine.
It was a trivial slip, my meaning was clear, and you are clearly trying to make a big thing of it. I am not entering into discussions with someone who thinks that this an appropriate way to debate and certainly not with someone who uses words like "cowardly" and "jerk" in response to a reasonable point. If you think you "win these debates with pure logic" you are both deluded and an onanist.
I do win debates with pure logic. You fool yourself into thinking lying trumps logic and truth. Your point was lying is acceptable after making false statements that you refuse to retract and that is not a point. It is immoral whining of an ego bruised fool who can't debate truthfully so you resort to lying!
If your meaning was clear it would have been accurate, not inaccurate.
1 edit
I have dominated this thread using logic and truth just as I have on many of these threads about AGW. Anyone unbiased can see that for themselves clearly. The dishonesty, ad hominem attacks and cowardly retreats of alarmists is a clear indication of that.
Despite the best efforts of numerous alarmists to prove me wrong they have ALL failed miserably! Contrary to the claims of those with bruised egos, I did it using logic and facts just as I said I would.
The efforts of deepthought to ASSUME people know what he meant is pathetic. Even if he were to replace "sea ice" in place of "ice sheet" his statement would still be false and make no sense. That is why I gave him the chance to correct his mistake. Instead he falsely claimed it was trivial as if anyone could know exactly what he meant. The fool would not even revise his false statement in a clear attempt to avoid an honest debate.
Deepthought is a pathetic liar!
Originally posted by @metal-brainYou are deranged. You confuse arguing about terms with logic and have thrown a complete tantrum when you didn't get your way. Writing lots of posts is not the same as dominating a forum. It's a bit of an odd thing to claim for one thing. You copy what you read from climate change denial websites and repeat it ad nauseam with no adaption to your counterpart's points. Now you're calling me a liar because of the difference between sea ice and ice sheets. Take a look in the mirror.
I have dominated this thread using logic and truth just as I have on many of these threads about AGW. Anyone unbiased can see that for themselves clearly. The dishonesty, ad hominem attacks and cowardly retreats of alarmists is a clear indication of that.
Despite the best efforts of numerous alarmists to prove me wrong they have ALL failed miserably! ...[text shortened]... false statement in a clear attempt to avoid an honest debate.
Deepthought is a pathetic liar!