Originally posted by Metal Brain 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.
Wikipedia is typically much more reliable than conspiracy nut websites.
Originally posted by Metal Brain People who said the Earth revolves around the sun sounded like fools at one time, so it doesn't mean anything.
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.
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.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Wikipedia is typically much more reliable than conspiracy nut websites.
What you find "alarming" is up to you.
It'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.
Originally posted by twhitehead 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]
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 mile high pile of ice from the last ice age.
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.
Originally posted by humy 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.
You have been hurling insults at me without justification for a long time and you call me a bully?
That is your psychological projection. Look at yourself before you judge me.
Originally posted by sonhouse 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.
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.
Originally posted by Metal Brain 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.
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.
Originally posted by sonhouse 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.
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.
Originally posted by Metal Brain 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.
Originally posted by sonhouse Well, time will tell the truth, it always does.
What we do today doesn't matter for us.
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.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Agreed. That seems the only thing we can agree to so far.
Thing is, if sea levels ARE rising YOU will be the one with egg on your face. I will not be happy to have won that debate. I would MUCH rather you be right but I suspect you will be wrong.
03 Jun '17 20:13
Sea level rise
Back to Top