Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
In the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken of the massive ice sheets covering both Greenland and Antarctica, NASA scientists confirm climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in Earth's largest storehouse of ice and snow.

Other recent studies have shown increasing losses of ice in parts of these ice sheets. This new survey is the first to inventory the losses of ice and the addition of new snow on both continents in a consistent way throughout an entire decade.

The survey shows that there was a net loss of ice from the combined polar ice sheets between 1992 and 2002 and a corresponding rise in sea level. The survey documents for the first time extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves and an increase in snowfall in the interior of Greenland, as well as thinning at the edges. All are signs of a warming climate predicted by computer models.

The survey, published in the Journal of Glaciology, combines new satellite mapping of the height of the ice sheets from two European Space Agency satellites. It also used previous NASA airborne mapping of the edges of the Greenland ice sheets to determine how fast the thickness is changing.

In Greenland, the survey saw large ice losses along the southeastern coast and a large increase in ice thickness at higher elevations in the interior due to relatively high rates of snowfall. This study suggests there was a slight gain in the total mass of frozen water in the ice sheet over the decade studied, contrary to previous assessments.

This situation may have changed in just the past few years, according to lead author Jay Zwally of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Last month NASA scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., reported a speed up of ice flow into the sea from several Greenland glaciers. That study included observations through 2005; Zwally's survey concluded with 2002 data.

When the scientists added up the overall gains and loses of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, there was a net loss of ice to the sea. The amount of water added to the oceans (20 billion tons) is equivalent to the total amount of freshwater used in homes, businesses and farming in New York, New Jersey and Virginia each year.

"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to recent sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year," says Zwally. "Continuing research using NASA satellites and other data will narrow the uncertainties in this important issue."

NASA is continuing to monitor the polar ice sheets with the Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat), launched in January 2003. ICESat uses a laser beam to measure the elevation of ice sheets with unprecedented accuracy three times a year. The first comprehensive ice sheet survey conducted by ICESat is expected early next year, said Zwally, who is the mission's project scientist.


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
what do you expect from the end of an ice age, more ice? over the last billion years there has been no permanite ice anywhere. with the ending of the ice age, the ice will disappear. nothing note worthy there. what is surprising to me is how few ppl are willing to see the fact that the earth is not suppose to be this cold. it gets too much sun light and heat to be this way. the only reason that it is, is that there was something (or perhaps more than one) that caused the temperature to drop relatively quickly, when that happen, the earth developed a large heat sink. since then that heat sink has been abosrbing heat, resulting in water being returned to the ocean.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I expect stupid people to run around screaming "the sky is falling the sky is falling."

I expect other stupid people to run around saying "so what so what."

I'm not disappointed.

You take an oversimplified approach to a complex problem and relieve yourself of any sense of responsibility to do something about it. I see nothing but greed and sloth.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Speaking of stupid people running around screaming the sky is falling.. here are just a FEW quotes from all knowing Morgan in regards to the coming GLOBAL disaster! lol..
--------------------------------------------------
Quotes from Margan;
2. Speaking of Greenland, its ice sheet has seen dramatic melting in the last decade. Greenland contains about 9 percent of all ice on Earth?also enough water to raise sea level by 5 meters.

Antarctica is a continent. The vast majority it its ice stored on top of land not floating in the ocean. Greenland is an island. The overwhelming majority of its ice stored on dry land not floating in the water. That is 99% of the world's ice.

The ice in Greenland is not melting due to a temporary regional anomaly.

This stuff about millimeters is pure rubbish. The melting of Greenland's glaciers alone will cause more damage than the value of the entire world economy.

let me break this to you gently ... ice does NOT retreat during an ice age.
--------------------------------------------------
These are just a few of Morgans "intellectually insightful" thoughts to the rest of us idiots.. Morgan you are a complete and total walking contradiction OF YOURSELF.. if you would care to deny that I will GLADY post a page or TWO of them.. they are easy to find LMAO..

I Posted a NASA FINDING AND ESA FINDINGS, and I am the one who takes a over simplifed approach? LMAO.. well tell us how after having this finding in front of you, HOW the oceans are going to rise to a catastrophic level. I guess Margan knows MORE than the folks at NASA and the ESA.. so let's hear it.. show me how I am oversimplified, turns out this LITTLE STUDY comfirms what others and myself have been saying ALL ALONG.. dont you hate when that happens.. show us where NASA and the ESA is incorrect!

Where's those studies at morgan?? still not ready to publish them..


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Where's those papers?.. you have 30 years of your writings.. you should post them.. let's see your insightfulness.. you dont have a problem ragging everyone else.. show us how its done!


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Where's those papers Morgan?


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
You want to read my papers ... try a research library.

The work I did in the lab was with ... go look it up.

21-(Acetoxy)-6-alpha-9-difluoro-11-beta-hydroxy-16alpha,17-[(1-methylethylidene)bis(oxy)]pregna-1,4-diene-3,20-dione

BTW: Its an FDA approved anabolic steroid


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
What about what you have been telling us about Global flooding? are you right? and NASA AND THE ESA wrong?

At this rate of GLOBAL FLOODING.. in 50 years it would amount to a blistering

2% of 3mm over 10 years.

In 50 years, the contribution would be 5 times 2% of 3mm

10% of 3mm = .3mm

not even close to an inch.

WHERES THE FLOOD?

Where is your claimed 5 meters of rise in the worlds ocean? 50 years comes out to NOT EVEN CLOSE TO A INCH! OPPS


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Archer wrote:
"WHERES THE FLOOD?"

Impatience is for children. Adults are supposed to demonstrate maturity.

Learn to speak Chinese.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Why am I not surpirsed, Morgans reply devoid of any facts, yet he has not problem calling people idiots, on drugs and a whole host of other things when post fail to meet his "standard" well impress us Morgan, you have lots of mouth, your always shooting it off at everyone, constantly crying out your on the high road, please explain to us where the amount of water required to flood the 139 MILLION square miles of oceans are going to be raised 15 METERS due to global warming, as per YOUR posts..

Earth FACTS..

96.7%, of all water is ALREADY located in oceans.

4.3, the total remaining water is located, in the following forms, water, snow, Ice, and atmosphere on the terrestrail surface of Earth.

Where is this planet going to come up with 15 METERS of water to raise the current 139 MILLION square miles of oceans, not to mention the areas overtaken by the "Magic Morgan Global Sea Rise"? WHERE?.. you know why you dont answer because you shoot your mouth off, and you dont know what the hell you are talking about as proven here.. NASA AND THE ESA says you are wrong.. so tell us how this is, and I quote: You take an oversimplified approach to a complex problem and relieve yourself of any sense of responsibility to do something about it. I see nothing but greed and sloth. :unquote. so now you claim NASA and ESA are taking a sloth approach when compaired to whom? you? tell us who? we know you wont post facts.. will you, because you dont have any.

We can clearly see YOUR sloth.. how bout some facts.. you like to run your mouth.. HOW ABOUT SOME FACTS for a change. Agencies like NASA and ESA are simple minded idiots when in your company, or matched against your intellect.. you dont have a problem telling people to put up or shut up.. you were given facts.. now post yours..

Put up.. or sit down and shut up.


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Oh thank you Archer for informing us that: "96.7%, of all water is ALREADY located in oceans."

Of course the implication of this is what? That those living in costal areas don't need to care?

How charming.

Here's another statistic for you:

100% of all people will die before age 150.

Therefore there's nothing wrong with pouring gasoline over your head and lighting it.

And no I don't underestimate you.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
For those of us who CANT use simple logic(morgan).. KNOWING that 96.7% of all water is ALREADY in the oceans.. where is all the water to perform "Magic Morgans 15 METER FLOOD" going to COME FROM? am I typing to fast for you once again?.. wow NO FACTS, no study, no PROOF.. just more BS from morgan.. no surprise here.. YET AGAIN.

You are always trying to divert from the simple fact you dont know ****, and you are even more clueless.. would you like me to show you in your posts? simple little things like, if 99% of all the worlds ice is in Antarctica, how can 9% be in Greenland? not to mention all the other ice and snow on the planet. Tell us, where can we go to find out how Earth has 108% of its ice on just TWO continents?? if those are 108% what do we call all the other ice left on the planet??? want more? I will gladly give you more, and I will GLADLY use your own words and claims within the threads to show just how much you really do know.


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
Well said Archer,

I have noticed in this and in other science forums that there is not much science as science discussion. There is a modest amount of "science in the public interest" sort of thing here. However, much of what goes on here is the sort of thing you are protesting.

There are some posters that can not distinguish science fiction from science fact. We should help these people learn. Some posters are trolling for laughs or whatever. Well it is a public place your going to get that.

What I really hate is not the ignorant ones or even the trolls. It is the arrogant, the sanctimonious, the condescending, the pompous types that sit in high judgement over others. It is not a question of whether or not they are right or wrong - it is thier nasty attitudes. Some of these posters, say that they have done some research. This does not make them the Grand Arbiters of Science. Even a lengthy and productive career in research does not grant this. If it evokes anything at all it should be a sense of humility and awe.

While such posters will think very highly of themselves, their abilities and their place in the scheme of things - it is my opinion that they are negative and counter productive. The phrase that comes to mind is "bully boy." I usually do my best to ignore them.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Archer asks:
"where is all the water to perform "Magic Morgans 15 METER FLOOD" going to COME FROM?"

Greenland and Antarctica?

And I already posted the links that support this.

There is absolutely zero relationsip between how much water is somewhere and the ability of an amount of additional water to raise sealevel.

It is not just a question of the volume of the ice on land converted into liquid water in the ocean. It is also the expansion of the oceans caused by the water they contain warming and the rebound of the land on which the ice is located.

I know there is at least one of you smugly thinking that antarctica couldn't possibly rebound enough to matter.

Here you go kiddies:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-3/p12a.html
Try responding with science not bluster.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
i just went to the site you mentioned da, and if anything it refutes your arguement. if the land rises, there will be less shoreline covered by the ocean.

what that articles says is that the ocean will get deeper pushing the land up. how, pray tell, does the land being higher cause more land to flood.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"if the land rises, there will be less shoreline covered by the ocean."

You remind me very much of a joke:
Q: What is long and hard on a Marine?
A: Third grade

You didn't understand what you read.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Answer the questions.. once again you deflect the FACTS and go for BS trying belittle the man because YET AGAIN you HAVE NO ANSWER because you dont know what the hell you are talking about.. somehow you think posting links IS THE ANSWER.. interesting how the "idiots, druggies" or what ever you need to assign them as being to make yourself feel superior are posting the FACTS, the who, what, when, where, and whys, and you start in with names LMAO, TRUE INTELLECT, not to mention a sound basis in facts!

It would seem this stupid Marine can see through your total crap. You have, and post NO FACTS, you are not smart enough to do THE MATH and learn there is NOT ENOUGH ADDITIONAL ICE, SNOW AND WATER ON THE PLANET to get get anything EVEN CLOSE to "Magic Morgans" flood.. water expansion?? is that how you come up with a total of 108% of the worlds ice??? LMAO.. ahhh yes the 8% expansion factor! LMAO, I must have missed that while in 3rd grade!! LMAO

Tell US HOW NASA and ESA are simple minded, HOW this study is wrong, WHY their Sats. are wrong, would you like me to post where you implied it was? I can predict the future.. you wont post any proof because you dont have any.. and BTW, you never did answer me.. would you like me to post your contradiction to YOURSELF? obviously a man of true consistent insight..

But, if you do remain consistent, you wont provide any facts... you will say something like they drafted me out of the 6th grade and run away like you always do! RUN MORGAN RUN!


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
You didn't understand what you read.
here is what the story said.

greenland ice would melt, and increase the amount of water above the ocean floor.

the weight would put pressure on the magna which would move towards the land, which would not have increased in weight. this would cause an uplifting of the land, almost completely comparable to the amount of water that was added to the ocean. therefore the shorelines would not be drastically change. some would be lost, but not that much.

it also said the melting of greenland ice would take time giving the earth plenty of time to compensate. the land under the ice would raise the most, since it would be getting lighter by the amount of weight the ice was adding to its plate.

some how reading what you said i got the impression that you were claiming that the water pressure on the ocean floor would cause the land to sink, giveing the additional flooding you predicted.

there was a follow on to that link where someone was asking why, if the ocean was rising, did the several century peir near his house, not show any higher water line that it had for century.

in addition, you really should study science more. ice is the only substance know to man that increases its size when it becomes solid. most get smaller. water expands when it freezes, which means that the water in the ice will take up less space once its melted.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"here is what the story said."

No. This is your personal interpretation of what was written.

Archer ... the link is there ... read it for yourself.

Your final comment is ridiculous on its face as the expansion of water when it freezes only applies were the ice floating IN the water. Ice on land will add essentially 100% of its volume. And, of course, you still ignore the expansion of the water that is already present in the oceans due to their warming too.

Your spin doctoring is NOT science.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
See morgan, yet again your wrong on your points.. first there is not enough ice to provide for "magic morgans flood".. like I said do the MATH.. and water when frozen is the ONLY KNOWN liquid that EXPANDS (that means it grows in volume, or gets bigger in case you dont understand) why does ice FLOAT? not once have you ever mentioned redistribution and the causes of that OPPS.. ice does NOT add 100% of its volume when it melts (we covered that in THRID GRADE science).. go fill a glass with ice, let it melt.. OPPS, see you were wrong AGAIN.

I asked for FACTS, I posted facts from NASA and ESA findings, I requested that you provide us proof they are wrong as per your statements..

And as usual when you cant provide FACTS, rather that provide facts, you post a link THAT GOES AGAINST the point you are wanting to make LMAO.. once again diversion is used by making the claim I am spinning something? what? quote the spin I would love to see it.. if questions are spin then, I am guilty.

morgan show us the MATH that proves "magic morgans flood".. remember you have to flood 139 MILLION SQUARE miles of oceans with the 4.3% of the water that is NOT located within the oceans.. show us the math.. you said I was wrong PROVE IT.

Note* posting the link to a website, is laughable, are you to LAZY to get that facts you claim to have? or can't you find the facts you WANT? posting a link that makes a point OTHER than the one you are calming is way beyond laughable.. didn't you question my ability to read? LMAO. thanx for the laugh.


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Show us the math morgan..


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Archer lets try this again and this time I will use very small words.

1. Here's one of many links:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-3/p12a.html

It contains the relevant information.

2. Asking me to do the math assumes I haven't

3. If you wish to dispute the physics ... YOU DO THE MATH.

I just love it when people who can't even be bothered to do simple research with google feel competent to pontificate on subjects on which they are clueless and then demand others to do what they, themselves, are too lazy to do.

If you made it through K-12 ... you do the math.

You posted links from NASA? Where? Certainly not these.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-023
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/844739.stm
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19039
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2006/Feb/17-57336.html

Everyone gets it except the SAGG trolls.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
LMAO... impressive..

Dont you think its rather ironic that you use NASA, when you are disputing the NEWEST NASA and ESA study? NASA? LMAO

Maybe you couldnt read clearly (learned that in 3rd grade too!).. where is the SEA LEVEL RISE THEY ARE CLAIMING HAS and IS happening? WHERE? lol OPPs.. lil did the rest of the planet know, we missed it! and only you and them got it?


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"here is what the story said."

No. This is your personal interpretation of what was written.
no, thats is exactly what he said. i agree that archer or anyone else that wants to know should read it themself

Quote:
Your final comment is ridiculous on its face as the expansion of water when it freezes only applies were the ice floating IN the water. Ice on land will add essentially 100% of its volume. And, of course, you still ignore the expansion of the water that is already present in the oceans due to their warming too.

Your spin doctoring is NOT science.
then explain why when you put water in a ice cube maker, you can only put half full, then have full size ice. its not floating on anything. Ice is ice. it does not matter where it is. it reacts the same no matter where it is.

please tell us what you teach. its obviously not physics, or you would know that ice expands.

its obviously not meteorlogy, or you would understand more about glacers.

its obviously not manners, or literature as no one who knew much about them would post the way you do.

im guessing politics or political "science". you seem to believe that what ever the political ppl say is always true.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
here is a quote from one of his sites.


The evolution of Greenland's ice sheet is being driven by several factors. These include accumulation of snow in its interior, which adds mass and lowers sea level ; melting of ice along its edges, which decreases mass and raises sea level; and the flow of ice into the sea from outlet glaciers along its edges, which also decreases mass and raises sea level.

notice that the part about how the ice in the interior lowers sea lvls.

you will note that they site specifies that they are not concerned about the ice build up in the interior. they dont bother figuring out if the build up is matching the amount of increased ice melted. why should they, it would go against what they were attempting to prove. read it yourself. they said they were trying to prove that ppl had underestimated the melt off. meaning that they went in with a preconcluded idea, and were looking for proof. when you look for proof, and are not willing to look at what might disprove your conclusion, its easy to find that proof.

check this out

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Archer asks:
"where is the SEA LEVEL RISE THEY ARE CLAIMING HAS and IS happening? WHERE?"

Go ask your mommy to spoon feed you.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Answer the question.. it should be simple you claim it has been going on for 10 years.. WHERE IS THE SEA LEVEL RISE? WHERE? or cant you answer it? so now lil morgan is going to talk about my mommy.. yeah IMPRESSIVE insight morgan, sound foundation, well presented facts! LMAO.. DIVERSION from your lack of facts AGAIN.

Simple fact is YOU CANT prove it.. NASA and the ESA says it's NOT happening like you claim! dont you hate when facts make ya look like a fool.. not to mention the people you quote as being YOUR source! lol


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Archer asks:
"Answer the question."

No. It is not my job to change your diapers, teach you to read, or solve math problems for you.

The information has been published and is all over every university library (you do know what a library is don't you?) and referenced all over the net.

If you are interested in science, reality, fact then you look it up yourself. If you are just trying to have an eye-popping testosterone contest than you win. I grant you are ten-times the Neandertal I am.

You do, of course, remember what happened to the Neandertals don't you? Oh probably not. I don't know why I ask rhetorical questions.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Seems simple enough.. were is the rise in sea level YOU CLAIM is and HAS BEEN happening?.. show us were? why is that so hard? lol


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/gloss/references.html

Learn to read for comprehension.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
Seems simple enough.. were is the rise in sea level YOU CLAIM is and HAS BEEN happening?.. show us were? why is that so hard? lol
have you notice that all of the sites he list are close to a decade old. all the stories he list, save about the hurricanes are stories from the last century.

and da, those sites were talking about a raise in sea lvl measure in cm per century. you claim meters? confused show me where someone clamied it would be meters per decade! :rolleyes:


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
its interesting that you gave those sites. one of them shows a color graphic of how much the ocean has chanced in ten years. the darker the color the less change there has been. the vast majority of the map is dark blue, which according to the legend, means less than one milimeter per year. That means less than a tenth of meter per century. there are some areas that have have compairatively huge gains (15 millimeters. meaning that those areas will see a raise of 1.5 meters in a century. several of those sites you used made it clear that there will be a raise in sea lvls around a meter per century. the thing the did not show is how much is the land rising or falling.

one of the big problems is that while the water lvls are rising, many of the areas that ppl have choisen to make their homes in, are in areas that are falling.

an example is lousiana and floida. both of these states have large areas that were created by river deltas. that means the soil that was deposited had a lot of water in it. as the weight of the land above it presses down, those areas are losing the water to that pressure. that means the soil is compacting. by one scientist calculation (dont ask, im doing this by memory, which is not near perfect) the majority of lousisana will be lower that the current sea lvl by the end of the century. florida is not far behind. ppl there are going to have to learn how to make dikes from the dutch if they are going to keep their homes. the dutch have had trouble with thier land sinking for a long time.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer:
"means less than one milimeter per year. That means less than a tenth of meter per century."

No it doesn't. It means you can't interpret what you read and I'll not spoon feed you.

Those whose IQs are higher than their age will immediately understand what you don't or can't: That those who did this work wouldn't be demanding action if the implication was as you state.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer:
"means less than one milimeter per year. That means less than a tenth of meter per century."

No it doesn't. It means you can't interpret what you read and I'll not spoon feed you.
Translation: I dont want to agree with the findings from NASA and the ESA, nor do I want to agree with dehammer, I have no facts, no studies, nothing in the manner to disprove NASA and the ESA, but I will ACT like I know something no one else does, and to make sure they believe it I will belittle dehammer as well to show myself to be of superior intellect and knowledge.. LMAO..

It is the typical "benevolent liberal" POLITICAL HACK ACT, when you dont have the facts to prove your POV, you attack the messenger, because you have no counter for the facts! old.. very very old and over done.


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I agree with NASA's findings. I disagree with your and dehammer's misinterpretation of them.

The folks at NASA are among those openly stating that we are in for flooding caused by rising sea levels. They are not so dumb as to say that if their data was interpreted as 1mm/century.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
How can this QUOTE from NASA and ESA be misunderstood?

Quotes:
"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to recent sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year,"

What part of that do you not get? thats TEN YEARS of "magic morgans flood".. ITS NOT HAPPENING like you wanted it to.. Both ESA and NASA say so..


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 30
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 30
Damn And morgan had me all full of hope that my home in hawaii would be beach front property soon.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Get your rubber duckie ready ... may not be the ocean rising that gives you your wish ... you just never know when one of those lava shelves will give way.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
I agree with NASA's findings. I disagree with your and dehammer's misinterpretation of them.
Yet again morgan holds true his consistent pattern of .. NO ANSWER.. when confronted to explain himself, you claim we have a made a MISINTERPRETATION of the findings.. explain what can be misunderstood?.. even a third grade education can understand what is being said in the NASA and ESA report!

SO.. WHERE'S THE FLOOD you claim morgan? enlighten us..


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Ask your mother. I won't be baited into spoon feeding you.

I can see it now ... Archer ... standing on the coast in Bande Aceh ... looking out at the surf ... saying "WHERE's THE FLOOD you claim morgan?"


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
no one needs to be spoon feed. they just need to open their eyes and read the articles without a knowing what it says before you begin to read. that leads to false understanding. weve done exactly that. why not try it yourself. Who knows, you might actually learn something that is not part of the party line.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Yet again morgan holds true his consistent pattern of .. NO ANSWER..


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Not my problem.

To quote Samuel Johnson:
"Sir, I have found you an explanation, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
we have the understanding just fine. how many ppl have to tell you that you have it backword before you see that it is. no one is agreeing with you. everyone is disagreeing.

if one person says the sun rises in te west and everyone else says it rises in the east, what is the chance the sun is truely rising in the west.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer asks:
"if one person says the sun rises in te west and everyone else says it rises in the east, what is the chance the sun is truely rising in the west."

What a truly lame pathetic analogy.

Ok ... lets try it your way.

Lets determine our national language by vote ... I vote we all speak Chinese: I win.

Lets determine the melting temperature of ice in degrees Celsius ... I vote 3.62 degrees.

100 years ago you likely would have asked for a vote to determine whether 747s were possible. Computers? Antibiotics?

To quote Dostoevsky:
"Nature doesn't consult you; it doesn't give a damn for your wishes or whether
its laws please you or do not please you. You must accept it as it is. . . ."

Your opinion and that of other equally uninformed people are valueless when discussing science. What has value is the scientific method. Feel free to bring forward peer-reviewed journal publications if you wish to dispute matters of science fact.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer asks:
"if one person says the sun rises in te west and everyone else says it rises in the east, what is the chance the sun is truely rising in the west."

What a truly lame pathetic analogy.

Ok ... lets try it your way.

Lets determine our national language by vote ... I vote we all speak Chinese: I win.

Lets determine the melting temperature of ice in degrees Celsius ... I vote 3.62 degrees.

100 years ago you likely would have asked for a vote to determine whether 747s were possible. Computers? Antibiotics?

To quote Dostoevsky:
"Nature doesn't consult you; it doesn't give a damn for your wishes or whether
its laws please you or do not please you. You must accept it as it is. . . ."

Your opinion and that of other equally uninformed people are valueless when discussing science. What has value is the scientific method. Feel free to bring forward peer-reviewed journal publications if you wish to dispute matters of science fact.
your right this is an even better analagy. you claim what we are speaking is chinees, while every else is saying we are speaking english.

its not a matter of vote. its a matter of who is seeing the reality.

here is the perfect one. everyone else says that water freezes at 32 f /0 c. do you really think that by claiming that everyone else is wrong that you will convience anyone that it freezes at 3.62 c. as you pointed out nature does not listen to you. neither do anyone else that has the ability to see for themself what is there. the only ppl you will convience are ppl that choise to not read. then again, once they see the way you win arguements is to insult everyone else, even they will stop listening.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"you claim what we are speaking is chinees"

In the future read for comprehension.

dehammer wrote:
"do you really think that by claiming that everyone else is wrong that you will convience anyone that it freezes at 3.62 c"

Of course not. But that is precisely what you proclaimed your desire to put whether the sun sets in the East or West up to a vote.

In the future ... read for comprehension. Or perhaps write with the concept of concise communication rather than muddle as your product.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"you claim what we are speaking is chinees"

In the future read for comprehension.

dehammer wrote:
"do you really think that by claiming that everyone else is wrong that you will convience anyone that it freezes at 3.62 c"

Of course not. But that is precisely what you proclaimed your desire to put whether the sun sets in the East or West up to a vote.

In the future ... read for comprehension. Or perhaps write with the concept of concise communication rather than muddle as your product.
your political science mastery is showing again. no one discussed votes but you. i never suggested a vote. what is said was what is the likely hood that you are right if everyone says your wrong. in extreamly rare cases, such as the wright brothers, this might be the case, but even then, there were tons of ppl all the way back to de venci (sp?) and further, that agreed with them. you dont have anyone agreeing with you.

once again you have taking a science discussion away from science to show off your political agility. just because you can prove it in politics, it does not neccissary mean its true. in this case, its very wrong.

since your insisting on making this politics instead of science. ill leave you to what ever pipe dream you wish to maintain.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Here's what you wrote:
"how many ppl have to tell you that you have it backword before you see that it is. no one is agreeing with you. everyone is disagreeing."

That is a vote. That is claiming something is factual based upon the sheer number of people that choose Brand A over Brand B. It is called voting.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:


Here's what you wrote:
"how many ppl have to tell you that you have it backword before you see that it is. no one is agreeing with you. everyone is disagreeing."

That is a vote. That is claiming something is factual based upon the sheer number of people that choose Brand A over Brand B. It is called voting.
no. its not a vote. its not at all claiming that facts are based on numbers. its stating that some ppl cant see the truth. if 99 ppl see the sun comeing up in the east and 1 sees it comeing up in the west, do you really think the 1 person is actually seeing it come up in the west. no. hes just not seeing the reality of the sunrise. the same is the case here. if you are seeing the site say one thing and everyone else reads it see it say the totally different thing, do you really think that you could concievably be the only person in the world that sees it right and everyone else is wrong. not likely. that is not a vote. that is reality. reality does not care for the number of ppl claiming it is one way of another. it is what it is. if you cant percieve it to be the way it is, that is likely to be a problem with your perceiption.

it is conceiveable that there is a case of mass delusion with you being the only sane person in the world, but that is not very likely. its more likely the reverse.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Nonsense. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west in accordance to the laws of physics. Not because most of the people think it does.

You can waffle and wiggle all you wish but once again you have gotten it wrong.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Nonsense. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west in accordance to the laws of physics. Not because most of the people think it does.

You can waffle and wiggle all you wish but once again you have gotten it wrong.
no. ive not got it wrong. your refusing to see the truth.

i am very aware that its the physics of the earth that makes the sun appear to rise in the east (it actually does not, the earth spins makes it appear that way).

the point is, that if you were that one person, you would have no more control over wheither or not the sun rose in the west than the others who claimed it rose in the east. the same can be said of the articles you quoted. if it means one thing, do you really think that by insulting everyone, that you can make it mean a totally different thing. everyone that has been there save you, read it to mean one thing, yet you claim it to mean nothing of the sort. you insult us, for reading it the way the arthor wrote it and claim that we are not smart enough to read. yet you are the only one here who can read it. do you really believe that you can be the only person in this forum that has the ability to read.

if this is your belief, then there is no need for me to every pay attension to any thing that you write again. i have notice that im one of the last to bother reading your post.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"i have notice that im one of the last to bother reading your post."

Please stop!


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day,

Hey this is fun. Finding different threads with the same arguments. Are any of these achieving anything? Is anyone learning anything, especially with insults flying?

I liked your post Archer that opened this post. I learnt something. Isn't that what these forums are for. Now if it had stopped there or it became an argument on the science this would have been a fun thread to read or participate in.

NASA's figure's in many areas of global warming do not support even the theory of global warming, let alone a rise in sea level but these do seem to get overlooked quite a bit. As just one example I could point to Mr Morgan's one reference he supplied in his discusions on another thread, that to the Goddard Institute's, world average temperature graphs. They showed a net cooling effect for continental US over the last 100 years or so and prolonged periods of cooling in the the same period world wide that pretty much matched the warming periods. They even pointed out the flaws in data collection which was likely to give falsely high readings.

If you go to the main page of this site, you will find a recent article concerning the Antartic. The article suggested that there is MORE ice on the Antartic because of global warming. I really liked the logic there. Apparently when they measured the interior ice sheet of the Antartic over the last couple of decades it has found to have increased sufficiently to counteract the loss at sea level. The supposition then made was that this was due to global warming causing a greater precipitation in the Antartic (pretty much the driest place on earth with precipitation below 4 inches a year). There were no figures for greater precipitation over the same period by the way so I guess the conclusion was an assumption.

Without wishing to really muddy the waters, or agree with anything that DA Morgan has said, there really is room for much higher ocean levels than we currently enjoy. From geologic records it is reasonable to assume that ocean levels have been around 40 metres higher than currently. That doesn't mean I think that is going to happen only that there is sufficient water locked up in ice over Europe, Asia, North America, the Antartic and the Artic to raise the water levels substantially above what the current levels are.

In order to get to much higher levels of ocean levels however, we need to pretty much eliminate all locked ice. That happened last around 40 milion years ago. It could have been a few million years later than this but in relative terms I'm happy to concede that it might have been as recently as 30 million years ago.

Since then the earth has had a massive REDUCTION in CO2 levels, the continents have shuffled around, it has warmed and cooled a fairly large number of times so imho it seems to need a really big change to get the earth into a position where all ice melts and ocean levels are much higher than they are now.

If the earth's average temperature rose by 6 degrees I'm willing to bet that this might be a big enough change. I have no science to support this however.

But global warming arguments should be about facts. The fact that sea levels really could be higher than they are now does not support any argument that global warming is occurring or if it does major sea level changes will occur. One does not automatically lead to the other.

Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by RicS:
G'day,

Hey this is fun. Finding different threads with the same arguments. Are any of these achieving anything? Is anyone learning anything, especially with insults flying?
actually with all the insults and such what, i was challanged to find arguements to back up my statement. in the course of doing so, i learned quite a bit. one thing that was achieved was that i was quite convienced that a super valcano was on the verge of erupting and when it did it would destroy our civilization. in the course of discussin this with you and others (da included, despite his insults) ive learned that it takes more than a valcano, even a super one, to do the damage i expected to happen in the next decade. also, ive learned that they volcano i was expecting to do so much damage, is not as likely to erupt as i thought.

so yes some good has come out of this. small though the good has been, its there.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
R
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
If we are flooding i cant see it. I live 6 miles south of the north sea in holbeach england and have seen no evidence of this. We will have problems if the sea level rises at its prediction of 5mm a year.Thats only a prediction, it is currently rising between 1.5 to 2mm yearly. Read this written evidence supplied to the house of commons as proof that we have nothing to worry about. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Robbie wrote:
"If we are flooding i cant see it. I live 6 miles south of the north sea in holbeach england and have seen no evidence of this."

Do you not believe that clocks don't work because you can't "see" the hour hand move?

Consider the following statement from the page you linked to: "For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data."

Reminds me of people who were saying "Well the levies here in New Orleans have never failed." You just sit their and hope you are right. With the certain knowledge that others will suffer if you are wrong. Some are not so callous.

Funny thing about some of you Brits. You're paying a phenomenal amount of money to drive cars and to have goods delivered by lorry. Here's an opportunity to save money, reduce the cost of goods, slow global warming, and decrease the impact of rising ocean levels ... and you want to argue the point ... you lose if you win. Go figure.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
so, da, what your saying is all the data that was there before ppl started manipulating it to prove global warming is wrong, yet all of that is proof that man has already destroy the world. your forgetting that the original predictions of the flood were that it would occur before 2000. here is it 2006 and the flood has not occured. where is it.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Funny thing about some of you Brits. You're paying a phenomenal amount of money to drive cars and to have goods delivered by lorry. Here's an opportunity to save money, reduce the cost of goods, slow global warming, and decrease the impact of rising ocean levels ... and you want to argue the point ... you lose if you win. Go figure.
You're not wrong, and I have no idea what it's going to take to get people to sit up and realise that we can't carry on the way we have been. And SUVs become ever more popular over here.

For those with their head in the sand who aren't sure that our CO2 contribution is all that significant - wouldn't it be prudent to reign in our output anyway, just in case. Or should we gamble with our children's children's futures?

For the record I have recently moved to a smaller car with a smaller engine. I don't feel so manly driving it smile but if vanity rules then we're all done for.

Blacknad.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day Blacknad,

Congrats on the change in car cool . There are really good economic and ecological reasons why SUVs are bad. The limit on supply of oil is one. SUVs are not safe or at least not as safe as sedans. They roll in high speed collisions more frequently and while they protect the occupants better against smaller cars or pedestrians they also kill or main those same other occupants or pedestrians.

Polution is not a good thing. Think of asthma. I could go on but you get the point.

So even if I do not agree with whether CO2 will cause Global Warming, I do agree that humans really can screw up the environment and lessen the impact or even making things better is a good thing.


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day DA,

I do admire your passion in the face of vehement opposition and the almost complete lack of facts to back up your statements. But since when do you need facts when your position seems to be: ?When all else fails in an argument, insult those who do not agree with you?

I find amazing you use a quote that really is particularly good to argue the opposite to the quote. Actually I?d like anyone arguing about Global Warming to read the House of Lords report web page . This is one presentation heavy on facts and light on supposition. Instead of finding fault with one comment which really does have a great deal of support including by scientists that fully support Global Warming (again I refer you to your one reference ? the Goddard Institute ? for comments in respect to the accuracy of data) how?s about countering the main argument or the data presented in the paper.

Since when is a comment obviously wrong because the levies in New Orleans failed and some people stuck their head in the sand and said they were going to be all right ? which might have had something to do with the US disaster organisation being subsumed by Homeland Security and the very big risk of natural disasters and the budgets that go with it being shredded in order to fund the much smaller per capita risk of terrorist attacks.

Oh, and by the way there was considerable concern, including from the Army Corp of Engineers concerning the New Orleans levies for a long time before Katrina. I remember even seeing a news piece on CNN when Katrina was only just starting out that voiced concern that the extensive levy system in New Orleans would probably not take a direct hit by a hurricane.

A better analogy would have been in the issue that the concerns over the levies were ignored despite the fact that there was good evidence to support the concerns. But it is still a lousy analogy just the same.

And because it is so good I think the original quote is worth repeating:

"For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data."



Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
ive said before and likely will again, when ppl are paid to find data that matches what the ppl paying them want others to believe, that data will be found. it does not matter if its pro global warming or anti.

during the early days of world war 2, a bunch of nazi simpathisers tried to prove that americans favoried nazi germany. when the straight forward data did not match, they manipulated it. the result showed that 99 percentage of americans wanted to be a nazi. these days no one would have believe that. at the time, it was all the goverment could do to bury it since they really could not discredit it.

all data can be manipulated the same way. for the last 30 years there has been a lot of money to prove that man is responsible for the global warming. there has been other money paid to prove cars and oil are not resposible. the end result is that we cant be sure what part of that data was distorted anymore.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
something ive notice is that you have no problem with peir review publications.... as long as the peirs are all ppl that agree with you. all of the peir review magazines and sites you site are paid for and pushed by global warming advocates. let someone, anyone, site a anti global warming site and your all over it as being unreliable. yet if someone does that to your sites, you insult them as being too stupid to understand things.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Mr Morgan,

Insults are one thing. You expect such things in robust discussions where views differ. However, there is also a concept called defamation. While just what someone's education qualification happens to be is totally irrelevant to this forum, you asked the question relating to qualifications previously and I gave the courtesy of a reply.

On this occasion, the only explanation for your comment is to impune my reputation, in an effort to bolster your own opinion. Now that goes from a simple insult way over into the territory of defamation. Since by doing so you have not only put at risk yourself but also the owner of this forum, the moderator and even your employer should you have made the mistake of sending your post from a work computer, all I can suggest is you apologise and take a great deal more care when you decide to insult someone on this or any other public forum.

As to your comment, what evidence would you see? Did you make enquiries with all Universities in the world?

I would ask you to edit your message to remove the offending comment however the message would already be archived in search engines etc and has already been read. I suggest that perhaps you make an apology instead.


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
For general information:

A levy is a rate of taxation. The plural is levies.

A levee is a dike protecting a town. The plural is levees.

Let's keep the forum for more professional behavior than slanging insults. I can and will edit.

"Amaranth"

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
To: Richard ( RicS)

I totally agree with you that insulting someones level of institutional learning is not appropriate on this forum.

to continue, defamation of ones credibility on this forum is also un called for.

with these things I can agree.

Please keep in mind that Da Morgan has been a member of this forum since the middle 90's when I first started leaving my little bits and pieces of my mind and ideas on the web...

if I recall correctly Da Morgan is/was a "teacher" at a college/university or something.

and because of his occupation his critisism may be akin to a father who scolds his child when brought to anger because he thinks otherwise when his child says something that he thinks he shouldnt have.

remember teachers? they try to teach with whatever method they have available.

Im sure he meant no harm to you personally.
probably all you really are to him is typed words he sees on the computer monitor in front of him.

thats really all we are here (words).

and our words show other words what type of words we are.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:


Last time I checked you were claiming a college degree. I see no evidence thereof.
This is a defamatory remark, and very insulting besides. Please try to refrain from making such comments in future, as it is very wearing to have to deal with them. An apology at minimum would seem to be in order.

Bear in mind that remarks posted here are the opinion of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the forum management.

That being said, please observe the following: Defamatory and inflammatory remarks will not be tolerated in this forum. Please keep to Science and Science related topics. Leave the personal remarks in the bit bucket. Stick to Science or you may face having your privilege to post here revoked. As our president should realize, no one is above the law.

"Amaranth"
Moderator

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day Paul,

Thank you for your comments. They were appreciated. I am coming along with the post and have been deciding whether to actually include references somehow. I can certainly email to anyone the document with references if they were interested.

And words sometimes have considerable power. Witness the attacks on Mrs McCarthy in the British press in the last week or so with allegations that included she stared in a German porno film and that she was an expensive prostitute. He effectiveness as spokesperson on landmines, one of her projects, is seriously diminished by those words. That is why defamation laws do exist.

And I too have been a teacher, lecturing students. Some needling of students is just expected, especially if you can stop inattentive students from interupting those that want to learn with a pun or witty insult rather than a rant. Other comments made by teachers are simply not tolerated by the student or the campuses. Insults based on race, gender are good examples, because they have power to really hurt. So I do not accept the occupation of teacher as an excuse.

That is not to say that your comments were not taken in the spirit that they were made and again I appreciate you making them.


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
if I recall correctly Da Morgan is/was a "teacher" at a college/university or something.
and because of his occupation his critisism may be akin to a father who scolds his child when brought to anger because he thinks otherwise when his child says something that he thinks he shouldnt have.
hes a instructor of a single computer languange of a college computer science program. that kind of thing might have been ok in the early 1900's along with spankings, switches, smashing fingers, etc. but they are not allowed anymore. they are never allowed in this kind of settings, nor is encouraging it.


Quote:
remember teachers? they try to teach with whatever method they have available.
yes, such as telling a child he cant dream, that he cant look outside of the box, and anything that is not up to the same cookie cutter stamp as everyone else would get punished with a ruler upside the hand or head.

Quote:
Im sure he meant no harm to you personally.
probably all you really are to him is typed words he sees on the computer monitor in front of him.

thats really all we are here (words).
then why is he here if he does not believe that there are real ppl with real feelings and why is he posting such insults, save to harm.

harming others for no more reason that he has, has no purpose other than to harm and prove that you are better than they because you can harm them. if he has been here as long as he has, he should know better. i have to wonder how many ppl he has chased out of the forum with his insults. i know of at least three.

i do have to say that you have earned some respect from me for standing with him.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
To:DeHammer

I am sorry that you thought I was standing with DA Morgan, I wasnt.

I was not taking up for anyone, only trying to lessen the enmity between fellow members.

To RicS

thank you for your kind words.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
maybe i should have said standing up for him, rather than with. the respect is still there.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
R
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
Attention DA Morgan. You misunderstood my point when i said i cant see the evidence of any flooding, i am talking about the sea level rise in the north sea over the last 50 years has been minimal. Did you realise that up to the year 1400 there was more carbon in the atmosphere than there is today. So tell me who or what was polluting the atmosphere then, did you think they drove suv's at that period in history. The sea temperature around greenland was 4 degrees C warmer in 1400 than it is now!!!!
As for New orleans which idiot decided to get rid of the natural marshes which would have acted as a massive sponge and soaked up the water which would have prevented a flood in the first place!!!

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
R
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
By the way D A MORGAN. The americans are the biggest polluters they have always drove big gas guzzling vehicles while the brits drive small economic cars. Our goverment taxes us heavily on fuel to stop us contributing to pollution, unleaded is currently 99.8 GPB a litre. This is your quote 'Funny thing about some of you Brits. You're paying a phenomenal amount of money to drive cars and to have goods delivered by lorry. Here's an opportunity to save money, reduce the cost of goods, slow global warming, and decrease the impact of rising ocean levels ... and you want to argue the point ... you lose if you win. Go figure.'
The british goverment is doing more than the usa to prevent global warming. Your such a hypocrite....get your facts right. By the way the earth is warming up naturally and pollution is making it warm up quicker...yes, but by such a small amount its barely significant. READ THIS SCIENTIFIC FACT http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming5.htm

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
R
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
One very last thing for you D A MORGAN to consider and its of some interest to others on this site. If D A MORGAN thinks that sea level will rise by 5 metres in 50 years because of ice sheet melt(lol)what do you think will happen to the gulf stream. I will tell you exactly, its not gonna take much more fresh water to dilute the salt in the gulf stream belt and making it cut off completely. Without the warm water it brings to GB and europe the whole of the northern hemisphere will experience a mini ice age. You see the gulf stream acts as the earths thermostat, if the earth gets too hot it cuts off. Everyone is worrying about coastline loss but when the belt cuts off we are gonna gain coastline well where i live anyway( the north sea was once a large land mass)The predicted future sea rise of 5mm a year(which i dont believe)will cut the belt off way way before too much coastline is lost(if any).

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Robbie wrote:
"By the way D A MORGAN. The americans are the biggest polluters they have always drove big gas guzzling vehicles while the brits drive small economic cars."

No question about it. We are the worst. And some of us are totally embarrassed by both our government and the selfish and greedy behaviour of our fellow citizens.


DA Morgan
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5