03 Jun 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainWikipedia is typically much more reliable than conspiracy nut websites.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, although the graph on the wiki link you posted shows a steady rise with no alarming increase at all for over 100 years.
What you find "alarming" is up to you.
04 Jun 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainActually it does mean something. Just because someone who was right was once thought to be wrong, doesn't make all people who are thought to be wrong somehow more likely to be right.
People who said the Earth revolves around the sun sounded like fools at one time, so it doesn't mean anything.
He might be wrong. I never said he was right.
You implied you thought there was a reasonable chance is is right. There isn't. Just like we don't take flat earthers seriously, we shouldn't take him seriously.
I even asked if he was wrong and by how much in my OP.
What you asked in your OP was how much he was wrong about how alarming sea level rise is. A monumentally stupid OP if you ask me.
05 Jun 17
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's the "my unreliable source is not that bad" defense. I don't recall posting a conspiracy link on here. I suppose you are just hoping to convince others I did when I didn't.
Wikipedia is typically much more reliable than conspiracy nut websites.
What you find "alarming" is up to you.
05 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy the insult. Did I hurt your feelings?
Actually it does mean something. Just because someone who was right was once thought to be wrong, doesn't make all people who are thought to be wrong somehow more likely to be right.
[b]He might be wrong. I never said he was right.
You implied you thought there was a reasonable chance is is right. There isn't. Just like we don't take flat earther ...[text shortened]... much he was wrong about how alarming sea level rise is. A monumentally stupid OP if you ask me.[/b]
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou have a gift for finding biased sites. That site is clearly a right wing rag. It first says morner is a highly respected scientist to set the stage for the 'rightness' of his claims and then it turns out he watched one place on the planet for 60 years? Without even inquiring if the land had subsided or popped back up due to the reduced weight of that mile high pile of ice from the last ice age.
There are plenty of articles about him that are in English. Read and learn.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22633-leading-authority-on-sea-levels-disputes-study-asserting-sea-level-rise-is-fastest-in-27-centuries
That is cherry picking of the lowest order. He clearly has a political stance of an agenda to fill so he comes up with phoney analysis.
So you use him as an 'expert' because it also suits YOUR agenda, that is, humans cannot possibly be effecting climate change.
09 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyYou have been hurling insults at me without justification for a long time and you call me a bully?
Why do you feel the need to confirm you are a worthless bully and a troll? We already knew this. Sadism? -that must be it.
That is your psychological projection. Look at yourself before you judge me.
09 Jun 17
Originally posted by sonhouseYou have a gift for finding biased sites. How many left wing rags have you posted for me to discredit on numerous times?
You have a gift for finding biased sites. That site is clearly a right wing rag. It first says morner is a highly respected scientist to set the stage for the 'rightness' of his claims and then it turns out he watched one place on the planet for 60 years? Without even inquiring if the land had subsided or popped back up due to the reduced weight of that mil ...[text shortened]... because it also suits YOUR agenda, that is, humans cannot possibly be effecting climate change.
If you want me to believe the new american is cherry picking you must first show me where the new american is doing that. So far your ranting is of mere allegations without any proof.
12 Jun 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainI am just saying that site is much more interested in pushing an agenda than arriving at the truth. That's what I mean by biased. They have a definite climate change denier agenda so anything they publish will be done with that agenda in mind.
You have a gift for finding biased sites. How many left wing rags have you posted for me to discredit on numerous times?
If you want me to believe the new american is cherry picking you must first show me where the new american is doing that. So far your ranting is of mere allegations without any proof.
15 Jun 17
Originally posted by sonhouseThat applies to you alarmists. Anybody on here can try to prove something or disprove something. The truth is there to be exposed if you can find it. I don't think you are interested in the truth though. Debating you is like trying to convince a religious nut that facts matter. You have no interest in facts or truth, just beliefs.
I am just saying that site is much more interested in pushing an agenda than arriving at the truth. That's what I mean by biased. They have a definite climate change denier agenda so anything they publish will be done with that agenda in mind.
17 Jun 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell, time will tell the truth, it always does.
That applies to you alarmists. Anybody on here can try to prove something or disprove something. The truth is there to be exposed if you can find it. I don't think you are interested in the truth though. Debating you is like trying to convince a religious nut that facts matter. You have no interest in facts or truth, just beliefs.
19 Jun 17
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat we do today doesn't matter for us.
Well, time will tell the truth, it always does.
But it will matter for our children, and their children and children's children in turn. They will suffer of the mistakes we (the humankind) make today.
At that time, let's hope it's not too late for the rest of the biosphere.