re: #1180 Ludwigvanquixote

Sal, Hansen may seem hysterical to you, however, simply because he is a pinata of rightwing cranks does not make everything he says wrong. That is also to show you that indeed there are plenty of people in the field who say much worse is coming than I do.

Further the links are from either science or Nature, they are top flight journals.

Further don’t hand me that just because one paper is a few months older or younger than another does it mean that it can be discounted or bolstered up.

You claim that no one claims greater than one meter rise in the community. I found you multiple links where that is indeed the case.

Now, stop the side show, the evidence is there that you are wrong.

Let’s get back to your other false claims.

How exactly did your experiment conclusively prove anything?

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND STOP DICKING AROUND.

re: #1181 Ludwigvanquixote

And cut the shit Sal, you don;t read the journals and you haven’t even read the one you are talking about. So stop acting as if it is the bellweather that the whole community follows.

Bullus Shittus. A few fucking months, you say?

The newest of those papers you linked to is more than TWO FUCKING YEARS OLD! But both the Bristol and the EOS paper, which I brought to the discussion, are summer of 2009; state of the current art.

Your cutting edge is duller than dirt. And nearly as old, in climatological research terms.

It is surpassingly obvious that you searched for more current links that support your cataclysmic contentions, just so you could prove me wrong. It is equally obvious that you were unable to find them; otherwise, you would be posting links to them, rather than trying to divert attention from the fact that you couldn’t fucking find any by blusteringly but vainly trying to change the subject from the obvious fact that you lack all current climatological support for your bizarre and obsessive catastrophic infatuation.

Once again, it clear as glass who is supported by current climatological science - and who is not. And which of us is and is not being scientific about this issue.

Come back when you have some credible contemporary empirical support for your emotionally invested convictions. Ungrounded propaganda in service to your visceral beliefs and desires just doesn’t cut the mustard around here.

As it stands now, your assertions are so two years ago. And clearly superseded by subsequent Sal-linked science.