Debating With Morons At HuffPo

Look at this exchange. I pointed out that the rate of sea level rise has not changed in New York over the last 160 years.

These morons come back “sea level has risen since 1880.” They have no technical understanding or skill or any clue what I am talking about, which is why they believe what they do.

How do you argue with imbeciles?

ScreenHunter_36 Apr. 20 08.47

Elliott Negin: Coastal Cities Confront Global Warming-Induced Sea Level Rise

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Debating With Morons At HuffPo

  1. Andy DC says:

    The old alarmist trick, use their own bogus charts with doctored data to “prove” their point.

  2. diogenes100 says:

    Steven, This exchange (and your frustration) is symptomatic of the great devolution in basic academic skills over the last few decades. Understanding “rate of change” as a distinct concept from “quantity of” would have been learned in sixth grade science and/or 8th grade algebra in the good old days of education.
    Plus, you must add in the precepts of the Gaia religion – such as a perfect world existing before industrialization – in order to comprehend why these folks are so sure you must be wrong, and their ignorant view must be right.
    The basic principle of our New Progressive Age is: “Believe what you want to believe”
    Obama uses that principle every day in communicating with his disciples . . .

  3. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    First derivative? Hmmm. Tricky. Second derivative? WTF? You mean there are two of them?

  4. Bill Gannon says:

    Well Steve, use the Maldives Islands for an example. If the sea level is rising, then the Islands will be under water soon, some thing that can be observed in our life time, not fifty years down the road.
    According to the president of Nauru, the Maldives are ranked the third most endangered nation due to flooding from climate change. In March and April 2012 the previous President of the Maldives Mohamed Nasheed stated: “If carbon emissions were to stop today, the planet would not see a difference for 60 to 70 years,” Nasheed said. “If carbon emissions continue at the rate they are climbing today, my country will be underwater in seven years.”

  5. Petrossa says:

    “Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

  6. Dave N says:

    Whirlpool is from a gathering of nuts… as is Elliot

  7. John B., M.D. says:

    Interesting, none of Elliott Negin’s links work to his own UCS data.

  8. fridayjoefriday says:

    Never argue with fools. perhaps that’s my problem. On the opinion page of the Corvallis Gazette Times, there’s a letter that states in part, trust the scientists not the shills. Some of the crazy things are Obama’s center right, the major networks are center right, Antarctica is shedding more ice than it accumulates, on and on it goes.

    More lunacy at NASA:

  9. Also interesting – according to the Union of Concerned “Scientists”, there’s no such thing as subsidence. It’s well known that subsidence of the Mississippi River Delta due to oil and gas extraction has caused the land to sink and flood over 34 square miles (88 km2) of marshes and land each year. Since 1930, Louisiana has lost 1,200,000 acres (4,900 km2) of land.

    And, since they love to use Manhattan as a poster child for “sea level rise”, how is it possible that the land area of Manhattan has actually expanded since it’s founding?

    The first land reclamation was undertaken by Peter Stuyvesant upon taking over as the colony’s governor in 1646. Pearl Street, which was at the water’s edge, is now 4 blocks inland.

    See here for an excellent slide show covering the expansion:

    • T.O.O says:

      That is simply not true. From the very link in Steve’s conversation: “In the Gulf region, land is subsiding, which allows the ocean to penetrate farther inland.”

      Steve’s assertion that sea level rates have not increased over the past 2 decades is also untrue. From 1879 to 1990, global sea level rose at 1.33mm per year (160mm) and from 1990 to 2012, the rise was 70mm or 3.2mm per year:

      • Complete bullshit. The post-1992 numbers are based on switching measuring systems from tide gauges to satellites. Tide gauges show no acceleration.

        Junk science at its worst, equivalent to Mike’s Nature Trick.

      • T.O.O says:

        Again, not true — the link I provided included tidal records up to 2009 and it follows the satellite trend.

      • Complete bullshit. The graph in the paper shows exactly what I was saying.They ended the tide gauge data during an uptick in 2009 (and added a blue fake error bar) to fool gullible people like you. The satellite trend is nearly double the tide gauge trend since 1992.

        Do you actually believe that there is no tide gauge data after 2009? This graph is a blatant attempt at deception, and it worked on you.

      • T.O.O. says:

        Of course there are tidal gauge readings since 2009 and from 1992 to that date, they precisely matched the amount of increase as measured by satellite. I don’t know the reason why the last 3 years of tidal records are not on the graph but unless those readings DROPPED by 30mm in the past 3 years, then you are WRONG about the rate of rise is not accelerating.

        Is that what you are now saying Steve? That sea levels have dropped 10mm per year since 2009?

      • Sorry. I forgot not to argue with morons.

      • Complete bullshit. You are spam. I am sick of you wasting my time with your stupidity.

  10. Chewer says:

    When the rate of rise slows down and stops, we’re in deep shit, which means the inter-glacial is coming to an end.
    I’ll take an increase in the rise rate, knowing what comes after, as defined by every transition for the past 1.22 million years…
    Man has been dancing under the stars for 50,000 years and we’re quite fortunate to have had the nicely warming environment for the past 1/10th of that time.

  11. Traitor in Chief says:

    Funny that however much sea level has risen around New York, (because of man) Manhattan got bigger…

  12. chris y says:

    NOAA recently published a report indicating that sea level rise during 2005 – 2012 is about 1.2 +/- 0.9, or 1.6 +/- 0.8 mm/year, based on combining Argo with GRACE, Jason 1 and Jason 2 satellite measurements. In other words, recent MSL rise is somewhere between 0.3 – 2.4 mm/yr, which essentially agrees with tide gauge measurements.

    “The Budget of Recent Global Sea Level Rise, 2005-2012”, by Eric Leuliette.

  13. RealOldOne2 says:

    Yeah, I went over there & debated w/the morons too. Amazing that the “super users” are the most moronic!
    I suspect that the super users, who by their comments are obvious CAGW doomsday cult zealots, are doing some wholesale deletion of comments. They’ve deleted several of mine, AFTER they had already passed initial moderation. I thoroughly pwned their silly nonsensical illogical comments further down the thread, & low & behold an upstream comment was “removed due to violation of our guidelines”.

    The comment I responded to was:
    “Could you kindly tell us when the Industrial Revolution began?
    Mankind’s increased use of fossil fuels didn’t just start in the 20th century.”

    My reply was:
    “The Industrial Revolution began about the same time the Little Ice Age ended, around 1800 +/- 50yrs.
    Only ~3% of the total human FF CO2 ever produced was prior to the 20th century.
    Global temps increased due to recovery from the LIA, not from human CO2 emissions.
    Akasofu2010- ‘On the recovery from the Little Ice Age’- “We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present… solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery… These changes are natural changes”
    In the last ~15yrs humans have emitted 30+% of the human FF CO2 ever produced, yet it has caused no global warming. CO2 is not the primary driver of climate warming, natural climate variability is.”

    Factual, citing sources, not abusive, not uncivil, just against the CAGW dogmas!

    Of course it erased super user comments which I poked holes you could drive a Mack truck thru. Same dishonest, deceptive practices that SepticalScience practices. Don’t think I’ll waste much time playing in a rigged game in the future.

  14. diogenes100 says:

    I marvel at T.O.O’s misplaced hubris.
    First, he applies a precision in data trend analysis which is entirely unwarranted by the characteristics of the data.
    Secondly, he implies that short range trends in sea level rise or arctic ice extent (if those “trends” were legitimate) are PROOF of anthropogenic global warming. This is, of course, a fundamental logical error among the Climate Change cabal.
    It’s called “cum hoc ergo propter hoc”, meaning “believing that correlation implies a causal relation”
    Legitimate science has long been sensitive to avoiding this error, but the pseudo-scientists of Global Warming have embraced it as the basis for all they believe.
    Hence, T.O.O’s hubris.

  15. philjourdan says:

    If their leaders cannot tell the mode from the media, how do you expect them to tell the difference between change and rate of change?

  16. philjourdan says:

    Mode and median. My N must be sticking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s