"West Antarctic Ice Sheet's Collapse Triggers Sea Level Warning"

[IlarMeilyr]

PrickAbe can't answer your questions.

"PrickAbe". Wow. You guys are clever and your wit is BITING. I'll be agonizing over that one for... gosh, microseconds.

Said little prickabe, agonizing the entire time.



Look, Abe. In case you haven't yet caught it: nobody buys your malarkey. Your ignorance is just too profoundly obvious.

He, instead, runs to find if some blog says what he thinks is a good sounding answer.

No, I don't. I far more often find peer reviewed studies. They provide good-sounding answers because they provide good answers.

Prick thinks that "peer reviewed" is the same as majority rule.

And the "answers" don't sound all that good when examined in the light of contrary facts. They aren't good. They just satisfy your petty urge to quote folks who seem to be authorities when their assertions correspond to your preconceived notions.

I never got into all that Dunning-Kreuger (Kruger?) stuff, but I can see where they get it.

The laughable part, Prick, is that you DO the very thing you accuse others of doing. It's called "projection."

 

[mamooth]

Isotope ration C13/C14 is NOT definitive for proving anthro origins.

You mean C13/C12 ratio.

Particularly because of converted Methane (oxidation).

By mass or moles, CO2 emissions are at least a hundred times methane emissions. Even if the methane had a differing isotope ratio, there's simply not enough methane to change the atmospheric isotope ratio.

Also because the markers for the 2 elements statistically overlap. Plenty of ancient carbon entering the atmos naturally. The ocean is FILLED with ancient CO2.

A 500-1000 year cycle time. 1000 year old ocean CO2 has the same isotope ratio as pre-industrial CO2, so it would be driving the ratio to look like fossil fuel CO2 is there.

 

[mamooth]

Ice ages occurred prior to human industry. The ice also RECEDED prior to human industry. THEY (not you) would therefore not shirk the undeniable conclusion: such climatic changes can occur without human causation. With that as a GIVEN, they might wonder if humans are capable of causing (or contributing to) such grand climate changes. That is a fair question. But accepting that it can happen and has happened without human causation IS necessary if one is truly trying to seek scientific knowledge about the multifaceted and inter-related causes of climate change.

And since every scientist does accept it, one wonders why you keep bringing up that idiot strawman. Again, you're rather ignorant of the basics.

You are quite vain. You actually WANT to believe that we humans are even slightly capable of CAUSING climate change. Ok. Anything's possible. But the "evidence" imbeciles like YOU point to is: "See??? We have added maybe a couple of hundred parts per billion to the carbon dioxide load in our atmosphere!" Yeah. Ok. That MIGHT even be true. And?

You bragging about your inability to understand the science doesn't make the science wrong, it just makes you look stupid. I follow the physical evidence. You follow your cult's religious pronouncements, and get so amusingly upset when anyone dares contradict them.

What ACTUALLY follows from that factoid, genius?

That you're a poster child for Dunning-Kruger, which leads to your belligerent ignorance routine.

Let's get real. You can spout your untested and unproven theory all day every day, but you have not yet EVER supported it.

You'll get accolades from your fellow cultists for that mantra, sure, but everyone else is just laughing. You are useful to rational people in one way, given how reliable you are at being wrong. If it makes you whine, it's probably correct, and if you agree with it, it's probably cult bullshit.