Sea-level rise claims five islands in Solomons: study

May 7, 2016
At least 11 islands across the northern Solomon Islands have either totally disappeared over recent decades or are currently experiencing severe erosion, an Australian study shows

Five islands have disappeared in the Pacific's Solomon Islands due to rising sea levels and coastal erosion, according to an Australian study that could provide valuable insights for future research.

A further six reef islands have been severely eroded in the remote area of the Solomons, the study said, with one experiencing some 10 houses being swept into the sea between 2011 and 2014.

"At least 11 islands across the northern Solomon Islands have either totally disappeared over recent decades or are currently experiencing severe erosion," the study published in Environmental Research Letters said.

"Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations."

The scientists said the five that had vanished were all vegetated reef islands up to five hectares (12 acres) that were occasionally used by fishermen but not populated.

"They were not just little sand islands," leader author Simon Albert told AFP.

It is feared that the rise in sea levels will cause widespread erosion and inundation of low-lying atolls in the Pacific.

Albert, a senior research fellow at the University of Queensland, said the Solomons was considered a hotspot because rises there are almost three times higher than the global average.

The researchers looked at 33 islands using aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014, combined with historical insight from local knowledge.

They found that rates of shoreline recession were substantially higher in areas exposed to high wave energy, indicating a "synergistic interaction" between sea-level rise and waves, which Albert said could prove useful for future study.

Those islands which were exposed to higher wave energy—in addition to sea-level rise—were found to have a greatly accelerated loss compared with the more sheltered .

"This provides a bit of an insight into the future," he said.

"There's these global trends that are happening but the local responses can be very, very localised."

For now, some communities in the Solomons are already adapting to the changed conditions.

"In addition to these village relocations, Taro, the capital of Choiseul Province is set to become the first provincial capital globally to relocate residents and services due to the threat of ," the study said.

Explore further: Rising sea levels force Pacific Island capital to relocate

Related Stories

Recommended for you

California to 'whipsaw' between drought, floods: study

April 23, 2018

California will zigzag between droughts and floods which will become more intense and more frequent in the coming decades unless global emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases are checked, researchers said Monday.

Climate change intensifies droughts in Europe

April 23, 2018

Global warming will exacerbate soil droughts in Europe—droughts will last longer, affect greater areas, and have an impact on more people. If the Earth warms by three degrees Celsius, extreme events could become the normal ...

242 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

unrealone1
1.4 / 5 (32) May 07, 2016
At least 11 islands across the northern Solomon Islands have sunk?
The best of Australian engineering is unable to stabilize the islands and reefs?
China can build an airport on a reef in about 3 months?
MR166
1.6 / 5 (34) May 07, 2016
Sea level rise is less than 2MM/year. Oh the horror, however will humankind cope?
MR166
1.6 / 5 (33) May 07, 2016
This article was created as pure propaganda which will be used to scare the uninformed into accepting the AGW hoax as truth. Articles in 1960s Pravda were more truthful than some of the junk published today by the scientific community with YOUR money.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (37) May 07, 2016
@MR166, unrealone1.
If that article is not factual then show it.
You don't so your comments are a lie.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (31) May 07, 2016
MR166 shows the denier mentality in all its glory. The rise is actually 3mm per year MR http://ocean.nati...el-rise/ and that rate is accelerating - https://en.wikipe...vel_rise So take some science classes - and understand about feed back loops, and some math classes - and understand about non linear slopes. Hey - but thanks you two - for showing the world how little you know - but how much you like to advertise your idiocy.
eachus
2.1 / 5 (27) May 07, 2016
From the article: "Albert, a senior research fellow at the University of Queensland, said the Solomons was considered a sea-level hotspot because rises there are almost three times higher than the global average."

How does this happen? Simple, underneath the tectonic plates the Earth is fluid, more like molasses than water, so it moves very slowly. The current movements are dominated by recovery from the last ice age with the North American plate bouncing back the fastest. Since these changes don't change the Earth's volume, as some areas rise others fall. (Volcanic eruptions and subduction of tectonic plates change the volume of the mantle, adding mass and volume to the tectonic plates.)

The biggest component in the case of the Solomons is the subduction of the Pacific plate under the Australian plate. The Solomon Islands will end up under Australia, not anytime soon, but they are already riding the subduction conveyor down.
Fastfish
1.7 / 5 (36) May 07, 2016
This article does not improve the credibility of anthropomorphic climate change researchers. It clearly is written in such a way as to make the researchers appear that they were on a mission to find what they were looking for. Thousands of meters of shoreline are destroyed around the world every year and has been for millennia. A castle in Scotland that was once on the coast some 1000 years ago is now a km inland. The marks that Captain Cook made (1770) when landing in Australia for high and low tide are still there and accurate. Land masses go up and down quite significantly. Storms blow through and destroy exposed islands. New islands are being created naturally (without the Chinese help). Without the complete story, this article can at best to be chalked up to poor reporting and at worst - propaganda.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (28) May 07, 2016
Oh nose!! Run for the hills, Chicken Littles, run for the hills!
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (27) May 07, 2016
buttbuttbutttheresnoglobalwarming /denial

@greenos,
understand about non linear slopes
Butbutbut they'd have to learn calculus and stuff in order to deal with non-linear slopes.

I ain't exactly holdin' my breath.
rgw
1.4 / 5 (31) May 07, 2016
And how many semi-submerged, uninhabited 'islands' are created and destroyed worldwide in a given year?
HocusLocus
1.7 / 5 (30) May 07, 2016
Fixed headline: Coastal Erosion to blame for sweeping away houses. Sea level rise has lightly brushed against the wings of a gnat.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (32) May 07, 2016
And how many semi-submerged, uninhabited 'islands' are created and destroyed worldwide in a given year?
Don't know. So what? You think that asking one question - invalidates all the understanding that science has about climate change? No one denier comment above - presents any counter evidence to the reality that our climate is warming - as a result of loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases - and as a consequence - the ice sheets are melting, and the oceans are rising.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (18) May 07, 2016
M166,
I'm happy to give my money to NASA and the military.
HeloMenelo
3.7 / 5 (36) May 07, 2016
This article was created as pure propaganda which will be used to scare the uninformed into accepting the AGW hoax as truth. Articles in 1960s Pravda were more truthful than some of the junk published today by the scientific community with YOUR money.


This Moron is pure antogracle,waterprophet,benni,dogfart,shootist the potty miss, donglish sockpuppet material, he and his paid shills run a propganda sockpuppet campaign 24/7 they have nothing better to do in life than spread lies, taking turns to post BS through these pathetic sock puppets.
HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (33) May 07, 2016
Fixed headline: Coastal Erosion to blame for sweeping away houses. Sea level rise has lightly brushed against the wings of a gnat.


antigoracle sockpuppet hocus pokus has slightly brushed one of his sock's buttocks, now harassing his own socks.
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (32) May 07, 2016
And how many semi-submerged, uninhabited 'islands' are created and destroyed worldwide in a given year?


far less than the amount of sock you keep churning out here on physorg to post your BS.
HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (33) May 07, 2016
Oh nose!! Run for the hills, Chicken Littles, run for the hills!


Oh krut, i r babboon antisciencegorilla lost one more braincell...wait it is his last one !

https://idigitalc...Fw%3D500

don't cry monkey, got some more bannanas for ya ! ;)
kochevnik
1.3 / 5 (23) May 07, 2016
I'm happy to give my money to NASA and the military.
I am happy we have modern NATO NAZI nukes
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (23) May 07, 2016
HEY ASKDAD - can you at least admit that these guys are "climate refugees"?
MR166
1.8 / 5 (30) May 07, 2016
HEY ASKDAD - can you at least admit that these guys are "climate refugees"?


So let me get this right. If I build a house at the water line during low tide I am a climate climate refugee due to "Climate Change" at high tide? Right, The oceans have been rising for the 11,000 years since the last ice age and now all of a sudden man's CO2 emissions are the reason for coastal flooding and erosion.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.7 / 5 (23) May 07, 2016
Kochevnik,
NATO works for me, how is Putin working for you?
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (28) May 07, 2016
@MR166
From the plot in the link you can see that the rate of sea level rise over the last 6000 years was much smaller than the present 2-3 mm/year.
Please try to remain factual.
https://upload.wi...evel.png
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (26) May 07, 2016
@kochevnik
"modern NATO NAZI nukes"
Are you in the Putin Jugend ?
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (24) May 07, 2016
Or in Putin's secret army?
http://www.dailym...ope.html
ab3a
2.1 / 5 (27) May 07, 2016
The assumption behind this article is that the islands eroded and sunk only because of a rise in sea level. But it could just as easily be caused by a problem with plants, coral reefs dying off, and other geotechnical reasons.

That a slight rise in sea level might help to accelerate this process is indisputable. But to suggest that it is the ONLY reason is a bit presumptuous.
rrrander
1.6 / 5 (21) May 07, 2016
Before the 1900's, people had enough sense no to build, near forests, in floodplains or in areas low to sea level. Take New Orleans. They have a 100 year storm, the city is flooded, so what do they do? Spend $200 billion to rebuild, in the same spot. Even animals have enough brains to move to higher ground when water starts rising, what is wrong with these humans?
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (20) May 07, 2016
Phys1
Please try to remain factual.
Do those facts have to be accurate? That is a high bar for the denier gang - especially MR. Bet MR can't supply a link for this statement "The oceans have been rising for the 11,000 years since the last ice age."

Here is a question MR. About 8,000 years ago - temperatures started to trend downwards. Around the turn of the 20th Century - this trend reversed - and temperatures have been trending upwards sharply since then. What is the driver of that warming trend? My support - http://www.realcl...olocene/
tim_jonson_9883
1.4 / 5 (28) May 07, 2016
When another global warming/sea level rise type article fails to mention the ACTUAL SEA RISE in mm. over a defined time period, you know it's a bunch of nonsense. And they know they lose the argument if they mention the truth- the rise is about 2mm per year, for the last few thousand years. Nothing has changed.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (23) May 07, 2016
rrander
what is wrong with these humans?
Maybe these islands have been there home for many generations - is that too hard a concept to get your mind around? You deniers are in good form tonight.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (24) May 07, 2016
tim
the rise is about 2mm per year, for the last few thousand years. Nothing has changed
Do you know what accelerating means tim? http://www.realcl...a-level/ Do you have any support for your assertion?
xponen
4.3 / 5 (19) May 08, 2016
The 3mm/year is just the average. The actual geographical location determine the actual values. It's like how tide had different intensity in different places, some place had huge tide; which is even used to recharge dams for power generation.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
The assumption behind this article is that the islands eroded and sunk only because of a rise in sea level. But it could just as easily be caused by a problem with plants, coral reefs dying off, and other geotechnical reasons.

That a slight rise in sea level might help to accelerate this process is indisputable. But to suggest that it is the ONLY reason is a bit presumptuous.


and churning out the socks of antigoracle aka antisciencegorilla which one of the new ones ab3a has no end, what a moron... c'mon bonobo, throw us another one, we like to blow some more smoke into your new sock clowns :D
HeloMenelo
3.1 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
Before the 1900's, people had enough sense no to build, near forests, in floodplains or in areas low to sea level. Take New Orleans. They have a 100 year storm, the city is flooded, so what do they do? Spend $200 billion to rebuild, in the same spot. Even animals have enough brains to move to higher ground when water starts rising, what is wrong with these humans?


do i smell another ir baboon antigoracle sock?
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
HEY ASKDAD - can you at least admit that these guys are "climate refugees"?


So let me get this right. If I build a house at the water line during low tide I am a climate climate refugee due to "Climate Change" at high tide? Right, The oceans have been rising for the 11,000 years since the last ice age and now all of a sudden man's CO2 emissions are the reason for coastal flooding and erosion.


mr166th antisciencegorilla sock outsmarted by greenonions.... yet again as always :D
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (26) May 08, 2016
@tj
When another global warming/sea level rise type article fails to mention the ACTUAL SEA RISE in mm. over a defined time period, you know it's a bunch of nonsense. And they know they lose the argument if they mention the truth- the rise is about 2mm per year, for the last few thousand years. Nothing has changed.

Who are you, the oracle of Delphi?
Take a look at this page https://en.wikipe...evel.png
and you will see that the postglacial sea level rise has come to a halt about 6000 years ago.
HocusLocus
1.8 / 5 (26) May 08, 2016
Fixed headline: Coastal Erosion to blame for sweeping away houses. Sea level rise has lightly brushed against the wings of a gnat.
antigoracle sockpuppet hocus pokus has slightly brushed one of his sock's buttocks, now harassing his own socks.
I grew up near the shore and have been through two Cat 4 hurricanes. I shed no tears for those who fail to respect the ocean, or mouses that roar to attract free climate scam money. Your Dr. Seuss excretions are tiresome.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (25) May 08, 2016
HocusLocus
Your Dr. Seuss excretions are tiresome.
As are your comments that are devoid of any content - and show a complete ignorance of facts. Yes hurricanes are powerful things. So what? Does this invalidate the science behind climate change? Of course not. The ice sheets are melting. The ocean is warming. Sea levels are rising. This of course will have an impact on coast lines - as is happening. The effects of hurricanes will then of course be much greater. Large numbers of people live near the coast. Remember Catrina? The fact that you "shed no tears" for these people changes nothing - just makes you cruel.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (21) May 08, 2016
@MR166
From the plot in the link you can see that the rate of sea level rise over the last 6000 years was much smaller than the present 2-3 mm/year.
Please try to remain factual.
https://upload.wi...evel.png


So just for the sake of argument, lets say that man has increased the sea level rise from 10 meters / 8K years (your chart ) to 10 meters/3k years what exactly is the big deal? That being said I am not conceding to you the fact that today;s rate of rise is abnormal in any way since they do not know the short term/instantaneous rate of rise during any past 100 year period only the average over the entire 8k period. There is absolutely no reason why the change in the rate is rise is not cyclical like La and El Nino or all of the other cycles of the earth.
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (26) May 08, 2016
MR166
There is absolutely no reason why the change in the rate is rise is not cyclical
Then the onus is on you - to identify which cycle we are talking about - and to supply evidence. Otherwise - you are - as usual - making shit up. 8,000 years ago - global temperatures began a slow downward slope (see second chart on this site) - Over the past couple of hundred years - they have turned sharply up (see 2nd chart here) - http://blogs.edf....cause-3/ resulting in ocean thermal expansion, the melting of the ice sheets - and thus rising ocean levels. Which cycle? MR166 - where is your evidence?
Fastfish
1.6 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
greenonions is the Donald Trump of Phys.org.
BartV
1.5 / 5 (24) May 08, 2016
Would someone please add some science and facts to this article. It is based on a lot of hearsay. Please tell us clearly: how much were these islands above high and low tide levels? How high were these "homes" built? etc. Without this information this article reads like a marketing propaganda.

MR166
1.5 / 5 (22) May 08, 2016
The rate of rise is variable and any one period of time cannot be projected into the future with any type of accuracy.

https://stevengod...ce-1993/
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (20) May 08, 2016
@ Helo-Skippy. Ooops from me. I am sorry and make the mistake about the two "1" votes up there. I didn't want you to blame the wrong person non. I really meant to give you the "5" votes and got distracted. Sorry about that.
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (23) May 08, 2016
np Uncle, just gave you a 5 :)
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (24) May 08, 2016
Fastfish
greenonions is the Donald Trump of Phys.org.
How so? I provide a logical argument - and support it with references. Donald Trump demonstrates a complete unwillingness to engage is substantive debate. Look how I have challenged MR166 to support claims with actual science. What you get is more claims - changing the subject. MR166 claims that the sea level rise is "natural cycles" - but when asked to identify which cycles, or to support the claims - MR166 got nothing. Hey Fastfish - how about instead of posting childish quips - that contribute nothing to the science - you answer the question for MR166 - which cycles are we talking about - and where is the evidence. Come on Fastfish - or are you just another denier - with nothing to say?
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (30) May 08, 2016
I grew up near the shore and have been through two Cat 4 hurricanes. I shed no tears for those who fail to respect the ocean, or mouses that roar to attract free climate scam money. Your Dr. Seuss excretions are tiresome.

The only thing you've been through has been getting asigned a sock name by yourself aka antigoracle/antisciencegorilla, posting bs to make you and your paid shills look like idiots which is funny in itself, in turn earning more bannanas and less voting points... :D Meanwhile Climate Change is being proven left right middle and centre, and you cannot keep up with the amount of socks to try and counter reality, the funny reality is, that the more sock you churn out, the more ludricous your legacy becomes... and of course the more fun we have poking at them... :D
AGreatWhopper
2.8 / 5 (31) May 08, 2016

Phys1 4.7 /5 (11) 14 hours ago
@kochevnik
"modern NATO NAZI nukes"
Are you in the Putin Jugend ?


He sure is, and of the gay assaulting, jew killing variety.

So, is PO taking money from Russia as well? Shows how mendacious the current owners of the site are.

Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (24) May 08, 2016
np Uncle, just gave you a 5 :)

Thanks. Somebody has to keep on the anti-galore, good job. He is on my Ignore-This-Couyon list, because he is pretty lame and boring as far as trolls go.

Like Denglish Water guy, Obama-fan-Skippy, dog-Skippy, benchoft, bennie, vito, cantdrive-the NAZI and other such likes. PO should try to offer some remedial trolling classes for those guys, they are really really and one more really bad at it.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (27) May 08, 2016
MR166 - where is your evidence?


No idea but MR166/antigoracle/waterprohet/bartVart sockpuppet got caught posing for the public, that's about as best he can do to prove who he is :D

http://orig08.dev...hfan.jpg

HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (26) May 08, 2016
unfortunately no classes will work for this baboon, he always seem to end up with his socks in the bush barking and swinging from trees, you do what you always do uncle, keep up the good work, i'll hand out the bannanas for the clowns, always fun to do :D
HeloMenelo
3.1 / 5 (25) May 08, 2016
No sweat Ira, it's fun exposing lunacy, i found no classes will work for this baboon, he always seem to end up with his socks in the bush barking and swinging from trees, you do what you always do uncle, keep up the good work, i'll hand out the bannanas for the clowns, always fun to do :D
FritzVonDago
1.8 / 5 (25) May 08, 2016
More climate change HOGWASH......We need to defund these silly climate change Bogus Obama GRANT programs and let these so-call climate scientists find real jobs! I hear McDonald needs burger flippers!
ab3a
3.4 / 5 (18) May 08, 2016
and churning out the socks of antigoracle aka antisciencegorilla which one of the new ones ab3a has no end, what a moron... c'mon bonobo, throw us another one, we like to blow some more smoke into your new sock clowns :D


So your argument is identity politics? Do you have anything else? I've merely pointed out some obvious deficiencies in the way the article was posted. If I can't be critical of the article is it still science? Or is it religion?
BongThePuffin
May 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MalleusConspiratori
3.2 / 5 (31) May 08, 2016
HeloMenelo

4.7 /5 (14) 21 hours ago

Oh nose!! Run for the hills, Chicken Littles, run for the hills!

Oh krut, i r babboon antisciencegorilla lost one more braincell...wait it is his last one !


"Nose"? How illiterate do you have to be to not know the difference between "nose" and "no's"? I think Bong hit it. His performance IQ is above his subnormal verbal IQ. Probably has some really hands on job and his only way of hitting back at people that can speak normally is to constantly yell, "You stupid!". It's like "Dumb and Dumber". You can't beat the really stupid ones for constantly yelling how stupid everyone else is. Has he ever said anything but chicken little/stupid/brain?

How is that skepticism?
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (29) May 08, 2016
More climate change HOGWASH......We need to defund these silly climate change Bogus Obama GRANT programs and let these so-call climate scientists find real jobs! I hear McDonald needs burger flippers!


don't worry, we will never defund your stock of bananas, your comments secures you for at least another 100 year's of supplies as we are confident you'll still be swinging those branches... ;)
HeloMenelo
3.1 / 5 (28) May 08, 2016
and churning out the socks of antigoracle aka antisciencegorilla which one of the new ones ab3a has no end, what a moron... c'mon bonobo, throw us another one, we like to blow some more smoke into your new sock clowns :D


So your argument is identity politics? Do you have anything else? I've merely pointed out some obvious deficiencies in the way the article was posted. If I can't be critical of the article is it still science? Or is it religion?

time will tell what we make of you, it can be good or not, it's easy to ID a sock, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and not dig too deep, lets see how it goes. :)
jim_xanara
3 / 5 (32) May 08, 2016
re: antiscience How seriously can you take someone that is terrified of Al Gore? lol Probably has an anxiety attack just crossing the Tennessee border. Man. Hillary being the front-runner probably has him waking up at night in a cold sweat.

I've heard of some strange phobias, but how can Al Gore terrify someone?

"Nose"? How illiterate do you have to be to not know the difference between "nose" and "no's"? I think Bong hit it.


I like what you did with that!
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (33) May 08, 2016
From greenonions:


@MR166
From the plot in the link you can see that the rate of sea level rise over the last 6000 years was much smaller than the present 2-3 mm/year.


to which MRstickysick retorts:


[...]That being said I am not conceding to you the fact that today;s rate of rise is abnormal in any way since they do not know the short term/instantaneous rate of rise during any past 100 year period only the average over the entire 8k period..


greenonions had early posted this link:

http://www.realcl...013/09/p

Which says, in part:

" 1. There are a number of high-resolution proxy data series over the Holocene, none of which suggest that there was a previous warming spike as strong as in the 20th Century. Had there been such a global warming before, it would very likely have registered clearly in some of these data series, even if it didn't show up in the averaged Marcott curve. "

contd

Caliban
3.6 / 5 (31) May 08, 2016
contd

And furthermore:

" 2. Grant Foster performed the test and hid some "20th C style" heating spikes in earlier parts of the proxy data to see whether they are revealed by the method of Marcott et al – the answer is a resounding yes, they would show up (albeit attenuated) in the averaged curve, see his article if you are interested in the details. [Update 18 Sept: one of our readers has confirmed this conclusion with a different method (Fourier filtering). Thanks!] "

There is yet a third paragraph, which I'll skip for brevity.

Point is, stickysick, that you are Wilfully Disunderstanding the SCIENCE, which directly --and in detailed fashion-- refutes your oft-repeated, lying trollblatt.

Yet you persist with your gobshite, after being --again'n'again'n'again'n'again'n'AGAIN-- roundly rebuked for your antiscience.

Moron.

contd
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (33) May 08, 2016
contd

Here's the full link:

http://www.realcl...olocene/

The bits I've quoted above, stickysick, are the the first two of three numbered paragraphs in the article, just before the "Conclusions" section.

That means that they are near the end of the article.

I realize that this will be a challenge for your limited intellectual capacity, since you would need to --GASP-- read the whole article!!!!!!! in order to understand the context and which --incidentally-- paint you with the moron pigment, which, apparently, is where the "M" in MRstickysick comes from.

antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (21) May 08, 2016
"Nose"? How illiterate do you have to be to not know the difference between "nose" and "no's"? I think Bong hit it.

Uh huh, how illiterate?
http://www.urband...=oh+nose
I know stupid hit it.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (32) May 08, 2016
"Nose"? How illiterate do you have to be to not know the difference between "nose" and "no's"? I think Bong hit it.

Uh huh, how illiterate?
http://www.urband...=oh+nose
I know stupid hit it.


Yeah, goatTOOL!

Now, shut it.

Phys1
4.4 / 5 (25) May 08, 2016
[So just for the sake of argument, lets say that man has increased the sea level rise from 10 meters / 8K years (your chart ) to 10 meters/3k years what exactly is the big deal?

I do not agree with your reading of the chart. The sea level has risen by 0 meters in the last 2000 years, according to it. At the present rate that would have been 6 meters. The planet would really have looked different today. Back to your question "why worry about 3 mm/y?". That is still 30 cm in 100 years. It will require huge investments to maintain the status quo and it will give huge losses if we let it slip. Then, the 3 mm/y is caused by the melt down of the Greenland ice cap. We can not be sure that the melt down will not accelerate. That is a huge economic risk. If you do the accounting you will see that it warrants quite a budget to study and and act against AGW.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (27) May 08, 2016
Would someone please add some science and facts to this article. It is based on a lot of hearsay. Please tell us clearly: how much were these islands above high and low tide levels? How high were these "homes" built? etc. Without this information this article reads like a marketing propaganda.

You can take the horse to the water but you can't make it drink.
If you had any real interest in the subject you would have found this link for example:
http://www.abc.ne.../7392986
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (22) May 08, 2016
contd

Here's the full link:

http://www.realcl...olocene/


LOL.
RealClimate, the blog, for the REAL STUPID.
unrealone1
1.5 / 5 (22) May 08, 2016
Pacific islands growing, not sinking.
Climate scientists have expressed surprise at findings that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.
"Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger," he said.
http://www.abc.ne...g/851738
LikeWhatIWrote
1.5 / 5 (24) May 08, 2016
Since China is already building up islands for strategic reasons, perhaps Australia can be convinced to help its neighbour likewise in return for a new place to sequester refugees? Any recent island losses pale in comparison with humanity's determination to build its way around such challenges. All that's lacking in this case is a motivation that provides the long-term means and incentive to make it happen. It's time the Solomon Islands stopped bellyaching and made a deal with the wider world for its future well-being, just like the rest of us.
unrealone1
1.7 / 5 (23) May 08, 2016
Small atoll islands may grow, not sink, as sea levels rise.
Rising seas are eating away at small islands and will eventually turn their inhabitants into climate refugees, right? Not so for some of the world's most threatened islands, which have grown despite experiencing dramatic sea level rise.
But Paul Kench of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues found no evidence of heightened erosion. After poring over more than a century's worth of data, including old maps and aerial and satellite imagery, they conclude that 18 out of 29 islands have actually grown.
https://www.newsc...ls-rise/
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (26) May 08, 2016
unrealone gives us interesting links. Not sure what unreal's point is - other than to try spreading some dispute. A couple of quote's from the links -
But the key problem is that sea level rise is likely to accelerate much beyond what we've seen in the 20th century
no-one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation is not taking its toll and displacing people from their land
scientists agree further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kirabati and the Federated States of Micronesia.
Kench's findings do not apply to other types of island, like the volcanic main islands of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.
the atoll-building sediment comes from productive coral reefs, which face a range of threats such as warming oceans and pollution.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (26) May 08, 2016
goracle
RealClimate, the blog, for the REAL STUPID.
Oh look - goracle tried to assemble a response to some science. As usual - totally devoid of any substance - just a childish quip. What a surprise!
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (26) May 08, 2016
unrealone gives us interesting links. Not sure what unreal's point is ... A couple of quote's from the links -
But the key problem is that sea level rise is likely to accelerate much beyond what we've seen in the 20th century
no-one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation is not taking its toll and displacing people from their land
scientists agree further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kirabati and the Federated States of Micronesia.
Kench's findings do not apply to other types of island, like the volcanic main islands of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.
the atoll-building sediment comes from productive coral reefs, which face a range of threats such as warming oceans and pollution.


Unrealone's point is simple - he read the dumb Goddard blog post on this & never bothered to read the actual source material
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (25) May 08, 2016
Oh and yeah, climate deniers can't read. In case you needed another example.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (22) May 09, 2016
Oh and yeah, climate deniers can't read. In case you needed another example.

Yeah, read your lies.
The predictions for hurricanes and cyclones were for LESS of larger MAGNITUDE.
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (23) May 09, 2016
We should not call these deniers "stupid". That is impolite.
Let's call them Republicans instead.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (22) May 09, 2016
Let's call them Republicans instead.
In fairness - the line up of idiots running for the Presidential nomination this year - does not fully represent the Republican party. Chomsky does call the Republican party " a serious danger to human survival." because of it's denialist position. http://www.huffin...109aec78 But not all Republicans are on board - and many Republican mayors are now becoming vocal about the issue - http://mediamatte...m/209083
RobL
1.2 / 5 (17) May 09, 2016
Call it what it is please. "Marine transgression"
HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (30) May 09, 2016
"Nose"? How illiterate do you have to be to not know the difference between "nose" and "no's"? I think Bong hit it.

Uh huh, how illiterate?
http://www.urband...=oh+nose
I know stupid hit it.


aaa ir baboon, the original sock posting or is this just another sock you created from another one you made 8 years ago.... stupid hits you once again we see... :D
HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (30) May 09, 2016
contd

Here's the full link:

http://www.realcl...olocene/


LOL.
RealClimate, the blog, for the REAL STUPID.


now now ir baboon, don't be trying to sound clever when you dont understand any science.. ;) rather go have another bannana...yes... :D
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (29) May 09, 2016
Pacific islands growing, not sinking.
Climate scientists have expressed surprise at findings that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.
"Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger," he said.
http://www.abc.ne...g/851738


80 % of you and your similiar goons here on physorg are socks of antigoracle aka antisciencegorilla. including YOU... :D
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (29) May 09, 2016
Since China is already building up islands for strategic reasons, perhaps Australia can be convinced to help its neighbour likewise in return for a new place to sequester refugees? Any recent island losses pale in comparison with humanity's determination to build its way around such challenges. All that's lacking in this case is a motivation that provides the long-term means and incentive to make it happen. It's time the Solomon Islands stopped bellyaching and made a deal with the wider world for its future well-being, just like the rest of us.


one more antisciencegorilla sock monkeying about, but why are you only aking dumb deals with you and your socks posting bs on physorg then ? aaa... i know the what the answer is :D :D
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (29) May 09, 2016
Small atoll islands may grow, not sink, as sea levels rise.
Rising seas are eating away at small islands and will eventually turn their inhabitants into climate refugees, right? Not so for some of the world's most threatened islands, which have grown despite experiencing dramatic sea level rise.
But Paul Kench of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues found no evidence of heightened erosion. After poring over more than a century's worth of data, including old maps and aerial and satellite imagery, they conclude that 18 out of 29 islands have actually grown.
https://www.newsc...ls-rise/


and another antiscencegorilla sock
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (29) May 09, 2016
Oh and yeah, climate deniers can't read. In case you needed another example.

Yeah, read your lies.
The predictions for hurricanes and cyclones were for LESS of larger MAGNITUDE.


No the scientific proof is beyond overwhelming on the other hand, you don't want me to pull out the link where your obama sock aka you caught yourself trying to cover up another lie when Captain Stumpy caught you out :D maybe i'll post it now now ... ;)
johnhew
1.3 / 5 (30) May 09, 2016
Climate juju is about all run out now. Shark bites man due to nonlinear combination of sea level rise and totally gnarly waves.
jeffensley
1.3 / 5 (23) May 09, 2016
More fear fodder... odd that no one addressed eachus' above post about subduction. This tells me most of the 5-star crew that resides here is more interested in maintaining an AGW-centric narrative of fear than acknowledging all the elements of change inherent on this planet.
HeloMenelo
3.3 / 5 (29) May 09, 2016
Climate juju is about all run out now. Shark bites man due to nonlinear combination of sea level rise and totally gnarly waves.


antigoracle sock got pitched one in the nuts, now desperately squealing like a seaturd for low ratings and monkey recognition
HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (28) May 09, 2016
More fear fodder... odd that no one addressed eachus' above post about subduction. This tells me most of the 5-star crew that resides here is more interested in maintaining an AGW-centric narrative of fear than acknowledging all the elements of change inherent on this planet.


more antigoracle sock yanking, clearly with a donkey's outlook on the future of this planet, unable to understand science and not being able to think past the next 5 minutes.
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (22) May 09, 2016
more antigoracle sock yanking, clearly with a donkey's outlook on the future of this planet, unable to understand science and not being able to think past the next 5 minutes.


Thanks for so directly proving my point. Name-calling, didn't bother addressing the subduction issue, gets 5-stars. Comments here are a predictable echo-chamber.
HeloMenelo
3.3 / 5 (28) May 09, 2016
more antigoracle sock yanking, clearly with a donkey's outlook on the future of this planet, unable to understand science and not being able to think past the next 5 minutes.


Thanks for so directly proving my point. Name-calling, didn't bother addressing the subduction issue, gets 5-stars. Comments here are a predictable echo-chamber.


yes quite an echo you got rolling out here, what's than now 32 socks or so you blowing hot air into here ? :D
Don't worry, we've don't need to do any proving when you and your socks relentlessly proves your inability to comprehend basic science, o what's that another 1 out of 5 ? o nevermind that's your rating for the past 10 years now ;) c'mon monkey bring on some more socks, it's time to play...!. :D
HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (27) May 09, 2016
correction:
yes quite an echo you got rolling out here, what's than now 32 socks or so you blowing hot air into here ? :D
Don't worry, we've been here forever, we don't need to do any proving when you and your socks relentlessly proves your inability to comprehend basic science... come and get your bannana.... :D
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (21) May 09, 2016
Let's call them Republicans instead.
In fairness - the line up of idiots running for the Presidential nomination this year - does not fully represent the Republican party. Chomsky does call the Republican party " a serious danger to human survival." because of it's denialist position. http://www.huffin...109aec78

Then I owe the sensible Republicans an apology.
I just did not know they existed. Btw Trump is right when he say that 1) allies have take responsibility of their own defense and 2) taxes for the superrich must be increased.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (21) May 09, 2016
More fear fodder... odd that no one addressed eachus' above post about subduction.

As long as he does not put a number on it, he comes short of making a point.
This tells me ... blah blah

And jumping to conclusions again.
Dug
1.7 / 5 (22) May 09, 2016
"For the period between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels are estimated to have risen a total of 195 millimetres (7.7 in)..."

"According to one study of measurements available from 1950 to 2009, these measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 millimetres (0.067 in) ± 0.3 millimetres (0.012 in) per year during this period, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 millimetres (0.13 in) ± 0.4 millimetres (0.016 in) per year from 1993 to 2009."

(https://en.wikipe...el_rise)

Wow, less than seven inches of "sea rise" claims 5 islands. I think "eachus" comment above is t likely most correct. A combination of minimal sea level rise (less than 7 inches since 1935) and a lot more of island sinkage due plate tectonics. Clearly, without explaining that the island submergence isn't all climate change sea level rise does seriously undermine the scientific credibility of the authors. I would encourage the rest of you to trying reading more.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) May 09, 2016
...he comes short...

That's what the missus said about you.
eachus
2.1 / 5 (21) May 09, 2016
When I was a boy (in the late 1950's) we used to go to Avalon, NJ for the summer. I had lots of fun sailing Moths at the Avalon Yacht Club. The house we stayed in no longer exists, and the lot is under water. Global warming? No, the well understood phenomena of inlets on the US Atlantic coast migrating south. As you can see from this map: http://www.avalon...map2.gif The process started well before we ever visited Avalon, and once there was a First Avenue along Townsend's Inlet.

Why bring this up here? One of our neighbors invested almost a million dollars in sinking pilings all around his property to build a seawall. It worked--for a while. Eventually the sand under his house started squeezing out under the seawall.

You can fight global warming, but you can't win fighting the sea in Avalon, or in the Solomons.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (20) May 09, 2016
Dug
I think "eachus" comment above is t likely most correct.
Oh - well that settles it right? Dug "thinks" eachus' comment is "most likely correct". Why don't you write a book about it Dug? No need to do any research - to study the subject - to get yourself any credentials. Just make up shit - and "think" - it is "most likely correct." No different than MR166 claiming that it is "natural" cycles. I ask "which cycles might you be referring to?", and where is your support? Silence from the peanut gallery. But that is OK - cuz Dug "thinks" it is "most likely correct." Good job you never went to colidge Dug - they would have taught you about science....
HocusLocus
2.2 / 5 (17) May 09, 2016
Your Dr. Seuss excretions are tiresome.
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ...
Too bad 'ignore user' doesn't make your whole message disappear. You're still taking up valuable screen space. I'll cope.
eachus
2 / 5 (20) May 09, 2016
I'm sorry. I look at all the data posted by global warming believers, and wonder, where is the Younger Dryas? How about the comet/asteroid that impacted in the Indian Ocean 5 centuries ago (killing about 95% of the people alive at the time through climate change and starvation)? The eruptions of Tambora (1815) and Mount Rinjani (1258) are missing, along with other VEI 7 eruptions which caused global cooling well beyond the bounds of these graphs.

Note that I am very worried about the effect of rising CO2 levels on humans. The US even though it didn't sign the Kyoto protocol, met its obligations due to fracking. (Replacing coal-burning electricity plants with natural gas cogeneration plants--because they were cheaper.) But that is not enough. The US and everyone else needs to build nuclear plants. The US has started two, which is not nearly enough. But what about Fukushima Daiichi? A few people died from the explosions there, but 10,000 died from the tsunami that caused it.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (30) May 09, 2016
Wow, less than seven inches of "sea rise" claims 5 islands. I think "eachus" comment above is t likely most correct. A combination of minimal sea level rise (less than 7 inches since 1935) and a lot more of island sinkage due plate tectonics. Clearly, without explaining that the island submergence isn't all climate change sea level rise does seriously undermine the scientific credibility of the authors. I would encourage the rest of you to trying reading more.


Yes, well --if eachus had bothered to support his speculations with any evidence, then we might have to actually consider that possibility, then-- wouldn't we, dug?

Since none will be forthcoming, then I think that we can safely dispose of that eventuality.

So this leaves you, dug, with exactly zero legs to stand upon, so you'll just have to come up with some other Denierside strawman chicanery to earn your trollgelt.



Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (23) May 10, 2016
@eachus
The meteor impact crater in the Indian Ocean hasn't been cored or dated yet, and the current best guess is 4,500 years ago, not five hundred, and that's if it's real. It's currently a matter of dispute.

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis hasn't done very well. However, the Younger Dryas is in the data, against your claim. Here's a link to the data: http://www.realcl...r-dryas/ This article, along with later articles, makes it clear that the impact hypothesis is pretty close to dead at this point. The evidence simply doesn't support it. But there's plenty of data about the Younger Dryas.

Neither Tambora nor Rinjani were enough to affect the climate for a decade, and that's the shortest scale these graphs work on. You will find if you look it up that the Tambora event affected the weather for only two years.

I'm not sure why you think that tens of thousands of geophysicists would miss such obvious things.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (22) May 10, 2016

You can fight global warming, but you can't win fighting the sea in Avalon, or in the Solomons.

With serious engineering the Netherlands is quite successful at "fighting" the sea.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (23) May 10, 2016
A combination of minimal sea level rise (less than 7 inches since 1935) and a lot more of island sinkage due plate tectonics.

Without data or caution you advance a hypothesis that pleases you.
Such talk out of the blue is not serious.
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (25) May 10, 2016

Wow, less than seven inches of "sea rise" claims 5 islands.

If you think 7" is negligible you don't know much about engineering sea defenses.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (22) May 10, 2016
Here is the entire article. I hope this helps both sides of the debate to become (even) more factual.
http://iopscience...age=true
jim_xanara
3.3 / 5 (35) May 10, 2016
HocusLocus

2.3 /5 (6) 4 hours ago

Your Dr. Seuss excretions are tiresome.

Comment posted by a person you have ignored ...

Too bad 'ignore user' doesn't make your whole message disappear. You're still taking up valuable screen space. I'll cope.


Putting your hands over your ears and yelling "la-la-la"- while you continue to troll- is pretty much what one expects from deniers. Pure nursery school logic.
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (14) May 10, 2016
How much carbon is USA and NATO adding to atmosphere with their warmongering? More than enough to sink these four islands 2mm. "The United States Department of Defense is one of the largest single consumers of energy in the world, responsible for 93% of all US government fuel consumption in 2007 (Air Force: 52%; Navy: 33%; Army: 7%. Other DoD: 1%).[1] In FY 2006, the DoD used almost 30,000 gigawatt hours (GWH) of electricity, at a cost of almost $2.2 billion. The DoD's electricity use would supply enough electricity to power more than 2.6 million average American homes."
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (20) May 10, 2016
eachus
The US and everyone else needs to build nuclear plants.
Well - that statement shows how bias you are. Please - with examples - show us the current cost of electricity from nukes. If you can do that - I will then counter with the current cost of power from wind and solar. Now why would you support one low carbon technology, but ignore others? It does not matter what you or I think. It is pure narcissism to flood a science site with my 'beliefs' The facts are what matter. I hope we put money behind Trans Atomic (look them up on Youtube), and use their technology to reduce down the current stock piles of nuclear waste. But the power will be expensive compared to wind and solar. Energy policy is not just a matter of cost - but we have some shit messes to clean up - and it is going to cost a lot of money. Iraq war cost a lot of money, and we did that.
Zzzzzzzz
3.4 / 5 (27) May 10, 2016
More climate change HOGWASH......We need to defund these silly climate change Bogus Obama GRANT programs and let these so-call climate scientists find real jobs! I hear McDonald needs burger flippers!

Why not look into it? I'm sure you could use a job. You certainly don't sound like the sort of person who could get hired for their knowledge or intellect.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (30) May 10, 2016
Eventually the sand under his house started squeezing out under the seawall.

You can fight global warming, but you can't win fighting the sea in Avalon, or in the Solomons.


Cher, there is a great big difference between the geology of barrier islands and coral/volcanic atolls. They are nothing alike. And that tiny little 7 vertical inches translates into a lot of horizontal distance.
Zzzzzzzz
3.4 / 5 (28) May 10, 2016
Let's call them Republicans instead.
In fairness - the line up of idiots running for the Presidential nomination this year - does not fully represent the Republican party. Chomsky does call the Republican party " a serious danger to human survival." because of it's denialist position. http://www.huffin...109aec78

Sure has proven to represent the Republican Party's voting base
HeloMenelo
3.3 / 5 (26) May 10, 2016
...he comes short...

That's what the missus said about you.


did monkey missus leave monkey antigoricle ? aaah but we all know why ehhh.... ?
at least you can always hang out here so we can hand you some more bannanas, feeling better now... ? ;)
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (25) May 10, 2016
I'm sorry. I look at all the data posted by global warming believers, and wonder, where is the Younger Dryas? How about the comet/asteroid that impacted in the Indian Ocean 5 centuries ago (killing about 95% of the people alive at the time through climate change and starvation)? The eruptions of Tambora (1815) and Mount Rinjani (1258) are missing, along with other VEI 7 eruptions which caused global cooling well beyond the bounds of these graphs.

Note that I am very worried about the effect of rising CO2 levels on humans. The US even though it didn't .
this antigoracle sock got sacked real hard with Caliban's comment... :D
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (18) May 10, 2016
How much carbon is USA and NATO adding to atmosphere with their warmongering?

Do you work for Russia Today ? The information you give is so _perfectly_ biased that it looks like the work of a pro.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (17) May 10, 2016
eachus
The US and everyone else needs to build nuclear plants.
Well - that statement shows how bias you are.
@greenos, you and I disagree on this a bit. I would say that we must and should do everything we can with renewables, but if it comes down to nukes vs. coal, I'm going with nukes. I see it as the lesser danger. Maybe you think gas is better than nukes, and maybe you're right; but coal is far worse.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (18) May 10, 2016
Eventually the sand under his house started squeezing out under the seawall.

You can fight global warming, but you can't win fighting the sea in Avalon, or in the Solomons.
Cher, there is a great big difference between the geology of barrier islands and coral/volcanic atolls. They are nothing alike. And that tiny little 7 vertical inches translates into a lot of horizontal distance.
I'm gonna bet that both of them are, in various ways, like little islands moving around and appearing and disappearing in Big Mo', and I bet you got a lot of knowledge about how flowing water affects that, Ira. Do you just work on the engines, or do you got some navigation skillz too? I bet you know some pi-luts, Cher. ;)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (25) May 10, 2016
Do you just work on the engines, or do you got some navigation skillz too? I bet you know some pi-luts, Cher. ;)
Yeah, I have done every job on a towboat at one time or another over the last 19 or 20 years. I know lots and dozens of Captains and Pilots over the years. The towboats are a small little world on their own, 14 days on and 14 days off (for me sometimes only 7 days off) you pretty much know a lot about all the different jobs. I've got my inland waters master's ticket, not because I want to be the Skipper-Skippy, just because the company paid for me to get and keep it. Only three jobs on the kind of boats I work got to have a Coast Guard ticket, the Captain, the Pilot, and me the Engineer (only because of the size of the engines, size of the tows and all materials handling machinery we are required to have.) Other than that you just need the safety, fire and materials in-service classes from time to time.

Shorelines and wetlands are a hot topic for me.

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (17) May 10, 2016
Can't have too many extra pi-luts in case one has a bad day. And a good pi-lut knows how the shallows move.

I would bet shorelines and wetlands are a big topic for you; you can't hardly miss them where you work!
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (17) May 11, 2016
Da Schneib
you and I disagree on this a bit.
Probably not as much as you think. Renewables are by far the better option. If you look at Trans Atomic's proposal - they say they can take all the stored nuclear waste - that is going to be radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years - burn it in a liquid reactor (much safer than current designs), and make it only radioactive for several hundred years. This would produce enough power to run the world for around 70 years - buying us time to really scale up renewables. The cost of power would be expensive (based on current experience) - but that proposal makes sense to me. Better than burning FF.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (17) May 11, 2016
@greenos,

Yeah, there are a couple or three ways to go about burning the waste. There are a lot of technical and human factors challenges, but if we're smart we'll figure them out and get that stuff burned up.

But more important: anything but coal.
gkam
2.9 / 5 (23) May 11, 2016
And just in time, . . . .

http://www.thegua...and-lost
MR166
1.9 / 5 (14) May 11, 2016
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (17) May 12, 2016
MR166 never stops trolling the blog sites for hack pieces. Examiner.com is a blog - that has received criticism for it's content. Despite the hack piece that MR presesnts - here is a quote -
Albert also says he understands "why these more dramatic titles are used and it does help bring attention to the issue" that he firmly believes will become a "major issue for the islands in the second half of this century from climate change

Also from your blog
I would prefer slightly more moderate titles that focus on sea-level rise being the driver rather than simply 'climate change
Oh wow - and what is causing seal levels to rise?

How about - instead of cut an pasting bias blog articles - you answer questions presented to your opinion crap - such as "which natural cycles are you referring to MR."
MR166
2 / 5 (16) May 12, 2016
"Dr. Simon Albert, the report's co-author told the Guardian today that numerous media outlets, like the Washington Post and NY Times and Think Progress, have misinterpreted their work by trying to link sea level rise with climate change."

Onions he sounds pretty clear to me. The link between CO2 and sea level change is not proven.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (15) May 12, 2016
So then why did he also say
it does help bring attention to the issue" that he firmly believes will become a "major issue for the islands in the second half of this century from climate change
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (24) May 12, 2016
"Dr. Simon Albert, the report's co-author told the Guardian today that numerous media outlets, like the Washington Post and NY Times and Think Progress, have misinterpreted their work by trying to link sea level rise with climate change."

Onions he sounds pretty clear to me. The link between CO2 and sea level change is not proven.


Anything sounds clear to an antigoracle sock ;) those who can read and understand knows how to read the evidence.
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (22) May 12, 2016
So then why did he also say
it does help bring attention to the issue" that he firmly believes will become a "major issue for the islands in the second half of this century from climate change


monkey antigorcle sock MR166 asking for a bannana :D
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (14) May 12, 2016
Hey MR - and other posters who propose the problem is subduction etc. - why don't you read the original article. http://iopscience...5/054011 Oh right - that would require admitting you are wrong.
How islands and the communities that inhabit them respond to climate change and particularly sea-level rise is a critical issue for the coming century.

Oh right MR - that sounds like researchers who don't believe in climate change and sea level rise. FFS
The large range of erosion severity on the islands in this study highlights the critical need to understand the complex interplay between the projected accelerating sea-level rise, other changes in global climate such as winds and waves, and local tectonics, to guide future adaptation planning and minimise social impacts.
john_mathon
2 / 5 (21) May 12, 2016
This "study" like so many others is incredibly weak. Pictures are worth a thousand words but it doesn't explain what happened. At most in the 70 years between the pics IPCC would claim has seen 5 inches of sea level rise. If the islands were only 5 inches above sea level then wow pretty problematic. Why? Because in the 1800s sea levels rose 7 inches and this had nothing to do with man. Even if we had done everything and cut all co2 production we probably won't get below 7 inches of sea level rise and these islands are doomed. However, it turns out there is another big flaw in this research. 2 other studies looked at many of these islands and found that there was no evidence of sea level rise or loss of land on most of the islands. In fact many islands are reporting land area increases!! Why does this not make it at all into the article? The majority of islands are reporting net land growth because of accumulating phenomenon.
john_mathon
2 / 5 (20) May 12, 2016
In addition the article mentions the Louisiana rising sea levels but doesn't mention that the main reason (95% of the reason) Louisiana is losing so much coastline is the foot per decade drop in land from subsidance due to extraction of water and oil. Interestingly another study recently showed that increased rainfall over the last 30 years or so has been replenishing aquifers at an amazing rate and that sea level is DROPPING 0.7mm/year due to rising land as aquifers in many parts of the world are replenished. Oh no. You mean global warming might cause positive consequences? Another thing NEVER reported by the press. See my blogs at: https://logiclogi...e-change for more information and links on the 50+ failures of climate science
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (14) May 12, 2016
Oh wow - and what is causing seal levels to rise?
We should clear this up.

The link isn't directly between CO₂ levels and sea levels. It's between *temperature* and sea levels, and it's two-fold:
1. Rising temperature melts ice, primarily in terms of volume on Greenland and the Antarctic, increasing the total volume of water and therefore increasing sea levels, and
2. Rising temperature expands water, therefore increasing sea levels.

Thus, rising CO₂ levels raise the atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, and rising atmospheric and oceanic temperatures increase ice melting and expand the water in the ocean, leading to rising sea levels.

Feel free to try to figure out whether this is what Albert is saying. Perhaps with this information it will make more sense.

The *direct* effect of rising CO₂ levels on the oceans is ocean acidification.
bschott
2 / 5 (21) May 12, 2016
@John_Mathon

You are going to hate trying to be a voice of reason when commenting here. Linking the disappearance of these Islands to sea level rise or climate change should go in your list of 50+ failures of climate science.

Funny all of these "authorities" commenting here never bothered to check to see if the Maldives were still above water. Or Cook's tide markers in Australia showing the points of high and low tide which haven't changed since he marked them (that one is courtesy of a friend of mine).

I am not saying the climate isn't changing, it clearly is. But an ounce of objectivity in perspective will allow people to discern the propaganda from the data driven reports.

MR166
1.8 / 5 (16) May 12, 2016
"I am not saying the climate isn't changing, it clearly is. But an ounce of objectivity in perspective will allow people to discern the propaganda from the data driven reports."

Ah, propaganda vs true data, isn't that the crux of the true argument!!! Government data is nothing more than fodder for the masses.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (15) May 12, 2016
Government data is nothing more than fodder for the masses.
Yes MR - every meteorological agency in the world is engaged in a grand conspiracy - to deceive you. Thousands - perhaps millions of evil scientists who just want to f*ck with your head. They will never be found out - and the truth will never be revealed. They will keep telling us that the Earth is warming - when it is really not warming - but no one will ever notice - because the whole world is as stupid as you are - FFS. You never answered the question about which natural cycles - and of course you never read the original article.
leetennant
4.8 / 5 (16) May 12, 2016
Almost every scientist in every research organisation, university and meteorological bureau in the world for 200 years. Lying. Just so Obama can charge you more tax. Now that's a conspiracy!
viko_mx
1 / 5 (13) May 13, 2016
I think the big PR warming specialists needs to be more wary about the seven bowls of the wrath of God, because their today's fleeting worries will seem like a picnic in the forest.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (17) May 13, 2016
Thanks Viko - I took a minute to look that one up. I won't lose any sleep - worrying about your all loving god - who created a race of beings - and then chose to pound them to death with 100 pound hail stones... Well - I guess that is the ones who are left alive - after he smites the race of being that he created, and loves with the greatest godly love - with plagues, and burning and shit. Your thought pattern is every bit as interesting as MR166.
john berry_hobbes
2.5 / 5 (24) May 13, 2016

eachus 1.6 /5 (14) May 09, 2016
I'm sorry.


We've been aware of that for quite some time.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (14) May 13, 2016
John_Mathon I wanted to give you 2 fives for your very informative posts but was unable to because your post appeared as if I had already voted on it. Bschott's post had the same problem. None of the AGW advocates here had the same symptom. Perhaps someone has voted as me. I guess that I need to change my password. If this was not due to hacking, then Physics.org really needs to scrutinize the admins!!!
jeffensley
1.8 / 5 (19) May 13, 2016
John_Mathon I wanted to give you 2 fives for your very informative posts but was unable to because your post appeared as if I had already voted on it. Bschott's post had the same problem. None of the AGW advocates here had the same symptom. Perhaps someone has voted as me. I guess that I need to change my password. If this was not due to hacking, then Physics.org really needs to scrutinize the admins!!!


Unfortunately we're dealing with the middle-school mentality that social ratings have value. Posters fall over themselves to give 1-star ratings to AGW critics and 5-star ratings to everyone that has faithfully swallowed the AGW narrative, regardless of the actual post content. I don't think they see the irony in claiming to be on the side of science while reducing "truth" to a popularity contest.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (20) May 13, 2016
Jeff, I got my opinion on this by earning a Master of Science in the field. How did you get yours?
bschott
1.8 / 5 (16) May 13, 2016
Government data is nothing more than fodder for the masses.
Yes MR - every meteorological agency in the world is engaged in a grand conspiracy - to deceive you. Thousands - perhaps millions of evil scientists who just want to f*ck with your head.


I was unaware that the government was made up of millions of evil scientists who were all connected to every meteorological society, thanks for the enlightening info.

I am also glad you were here to translate MR166's comment for the rest of us....cause I thought he REALLY meant that he felt the government lies to us about statistics....yeah, he's probably the only person who feels that way besides me.

No data smoothing going on in climate science either - - hackhackhackcoughargoarrayhackcough
MR166
1.7 / 5 (12) May 13, 2016
Just look at the government data about employment and the economy. If the US is doing so fantastically well why is the middle class disappearing and the only group that has really gained in employment is the 55 and plus group IE part time retail sales? Government manipulation of the financial markets is making the banksters rich while the Federal deficit has gone up 10 TRILLION dollars in eight years. With that type of deficit spending the job market should bubbling over like Hollywood on crack!
antigoracle
2 / 5 (16) May 13, 2016
I was unaware that the government was made up of millions of evil scientists who were all connected to every meteorological society, thanks for the enlightening info.

They not only lie, but will do everything to defend their lies.
https://wattsupwi...ng-case/
MR166
1.9 / 5 (14) May 13, 2016
Most if not all, of the pro AGW posters on Physics.Org appear to be very well educated. Yet as bonafied Progressives they are more than willing to accept to accept the governments positions on AGW and most social issues. This is a very sad commentary on the educational system in general and personal critical thinking.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (15) May 13, 2016
bschott
I was unaware that the government was made up of millions of evil scientists who were all connected to every meteorological society, thanks for the enlightening info
That is clearly because you are a know nothing. You never heard of NOAA, or NASA, or MET, or Japanese Meteorological Agency etc. etc. Good to see you advertise your ignorance.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (15) May 13, 2016
Unfortunately we're dealing with the middle-school mentality that social ratings have value. Posters fall over themselves to give 1-star ratings to AGW critics and 5-star ratings to everyone that has faithfully swallowed the AGW narrative, regardless of the actual post content. I don't think they see the irony in claiming to be on the side of science while reducing "truth" to a popularity contest.
Of course, there are those of us who down-vote the utterly vacuous comments of certain posters who believe that resurrecting dead arguments as if they were never dealt with before is somehow "critical thinking". You know, like parroting the "it's A Conspiratory I tells Ya" line espoused by certain politically motivated conspiracists and their lackey's.

That you throw your lot in with such degenerates speaks volumes to your own political bent. That you defend such empty rhetoric in the face of such clear science speaks to your purposeful moral and intellectual deficit.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (14) May 13, 2016
10 TRILLION dollars in 8 years and nothing to show for it. According to government data inflation was insignificant during that period. Poverty has increased, exactly where did that 10 TRILLION go!!!!!!!!!!!!
bschott
1.8 / 5 (16) May 13, 2016
bschott
I was unaware that the government was made up of millions of evil scientists who were all connected to every meteorological society, thanks for the enlightening info
That is clearly because you are a know nothing. You never heard of NOAA, or NASA, or MET, or Japanese Meteorological Agency etc. etc. Good to see you advertise your ignorance.


But why do they only hire the evil scientists?

By the way, in my ignorance of knowing nothing I thought those were government funded agencies as opposed to actual branches of government...I think your onions are turning brown. (Green onions being representative of healthy brain cells...brown ones not so much)
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (13) May 13, 2016
Just look at the government data about employment and the economy. If the US is doing so fantastically well why is the middle class disappearing and the only group that has really gained in employment is the 55 and plus group IE part time retail sales? Government manipulation of the financial markets is making the banksters rich while the Federal deficit has gone up 10 TRILLION dollars in eight years. With that type of deficit spending the job market should bubbling over like Hollywood on crack!

You would have to blame previous governments.
In 2008 what is probably the biggest financial crisis ever broke out, at the end of 8 years of Republican government. The 10 trillion was spent to prop up the bankrupt financial system.
Did you miss that in the news?
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (13) May 13, 2016
MR
Most if not all, of the pro AGW posters on Physics.Org appear to be very well educated.
Makes sense - that people who respect the work of scientists - tend to be more educated than the politically motivated gang - wh will happily believe in a global conspiracy of scientists - who are able to fudge things like global temperature data - and not get caught. We try to argue the science - but it seems the political influence is far to too strong with you - you are not interested in science - just pushing your political views.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (12) May 13, 2016
The home mortgage fraud was 1 Trillion or so. If you want to be a realist, that can only be blamed on the entire US government and not solely on one party. Our economy has been supported by a series of bubbles starting with the Clinton internet bubble followed by the Bush housing bubble and finally possibly ending in the Obama money printing bubble.

Yea Bush increased the national debt 100% from 5 to 10 Trillion but Obama increased it another 10 Trillion while the official inflation rate was less than 3 %.

Sorry everybody but we are all screwed not at all like Zimbabwe. Perhaps not today, but SOON!!!!
MR166
1.7 / 5 (12) May 13, 2016
On a personal level this is not too much unlike an individual increasing their credit card debt in order to meet day to day living costs. Of course when the whole pyramid scheme collates under it's own weight it will be due to unfair lending practices and not individual malfeasance.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (12) May 13, 2016
Hummm I got a "1" about the home mortgage debacle. If that person would like to do some research they would find that the Democratically controlled Senate and Congress forced the banks to lower lending standards in order to insure "Equal Opportunity"! Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a "Sub Prime" lending crisis.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (13) May 13, 2016
http://iceagenow....-change/

The new interim step to " "Soylent Green"
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (13) May 13, 2016
bschott
I thought those were government funded agencies as opposed to actual branches of government...
Well you thought wrong - what a surprise.... http://www.noaa.gov/ https://en.wikipe...iki/NASA https://en.wikipe...t_Office https://en.wikipe...l_Agency
I wish you could see the problem. You spout nonsense about things like the grand conspiracy of all the world's climate agencies. You are called on your rubbish - and you say nonsense that is easily checked on google. You get your asses handed to you over and over - but next week the same old conspiracies come out It would be a fun game I guess - but there is just too much at stake.
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (15) May 13, 2016
I could never understand why, say, the Iranian meteorological orgnaisation would agree with the Israeli one because they're all in a conspiracy with the US government? Does that make sense to anybody? India and Pakistan are in league together with Afghanistan and Russia to progress a UN-led NWO to benefit Chinese communists? It's a completely batshit notion. But it makes sense because Obama is a Muslim communist. And that's why the Nordic nations accept the science. And you wonder why we think you sound like fruitcakes.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) May 13, 2016
I could never understand why, blah..blah..blah... And you wonder why we think you sound like fruitcakes.

Do you understand why you lie blatantly?
The predictions for hurricanes and cyclones were for LESS of larger MAGNITUDE.

Nope?. Therein lies your answer. And you wonder why we know you are a stupid liar.
meerling
5 / 5 (13) May 13, 2016
It's amazing how vocal, and ignorant some people are. As if their denials could change the universe to their own liking.

Virtually all of the worlds climatologists have studied the data of global warming and agree that it's definitely occurring, and accelerating. Now when a bunch of people that score points and prestige by finding flaws in their colleagues work all agree on something, there's really little room of any kind for arguing the point, especially if you don't have the degree of training in that field, which by the way, includes obtaining a degree in the field among it's other requirements.

Now please stop the genital waving and play nice because your non-climatologist opinions on climatological subjects aren't worth jack.
Thank you.
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (14) May 14, 2016
@ignoracle
"we"
How many of you are there?
This sounds like a conspiracy, most likely of sock puppets.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (13) May 14, 2016
The home mortgage fraud was 1 Trillion or so. If you want to be a realist, that can only be blamed on the entire US government and not solely on one party. Our economy has been supported by a series of bubbles starting with the Clinton internet bubble followed by the Bush housing bubble

We seem to agree on this, except the over 1 trillion spent by the Republicans on the disastrous Iraq invasion.
and finally possibly ending in the Obama money printing bubble.

What other options did Obama have ?

Yea Bush increased the national debt 100% from 5 to 10 Trillion but Obama increased it another 10 Trillion while the official inflation rate was less than 3 %.

Obviously Obama did not have a choice. These were delayed cost incurred by the Bush mismanagement.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (12) May 14, 2016
"Obviously Obama did not have a choice. These were delayed cost incurred by the Bush mismanagement."

If you want to have a rational discussion about the economy and government spending I am all for it. I think that the problem extends WAY beyond party lines since the Republicans did little or nothing to control spending ether. When you have to spend 10 Trillion more than you earn just to keep your head above water you have a serious problem. One that cannot be fixed by taxing 1000 Billionaires at even a 100% rate. This problem will not go away without a LOT OF INDIVIDUAL PAIN. Look at what is happening in Venezuela if you want to see the future of the US unless some sort of realistic spending plan is developed.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (15) May 14, 2016
The home mortgage fraud was 1 Trillion or so. If you want to be a realist, that can only be blamed on the entire US government and not solely on one party. Our economy has been supported by a series of bubbles starting with the Clinton internet bubble followed by the Bush housing bubble
We seem to agree on this, except the over 1 trillion spent by the Republicans on the disastrous Iraq invasion.
Actually, it wasn't the "Clinton Internet bubble." Members of the Clinton administration at the time indicated that they thought the Internet bubble was a case of "irrational exuberance." In addition, it is noteworthy that the collapse of the stock market in 2000 took some US$7 trillion, and much of that value wound up in the coffers of the rich and the banksters once the artificial depression of the stock market ended.

[contd]
gkam
2.7 / 5 (19) May 14, 2016
Maybe we should have not entertained the follies of the Republicans in the Reagan Administration. He is the one who took a 200+ year old National Debt from less than one trillion dollars to almost three trillion dollars in only eight years, and started the habit of hiding the Republican disasters in it. The Bush Wars soon followed, and the restrictions on taxing the rich made it impossible to pay off the Great Republican Debt.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) May 14, 2016
[contd]
Furthermore, the housing crash took nearly twice what the stock market collapse did; some US$13 trillion. This was due to unsound financial practices, not a traditional financial bubble. Some people blame this on subprime lending, but in actual fact the subprime lending was a symptom, not a cause; the cause was a flawed financial formula that appeared to encourage such lending in order to produce instruments that could be bundled into mortgage-backed securities which could then be sold for a profit. As with the 2000 stock market collapse, much of the value wound up in the coffers of the ultra-rich and the banksters.

Most of the cause of all of this was the repeal of Glass-Steagall; that it has not been reinstated brings the possibility that it could all happen again. Given that Clinton signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley, it could be blamed on him. Given that the Congress has failed to reinstate Glass-Steagall, it could be blamed on them.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (12) May 14, 2016
[contd]
In both cases the ultra-rich and the banksters eventually got most of the value by buying low, and the public was stuck with most of the liability because they had to sell low. I'd say there's plenty of blame to be spread around, but I'd also say that the results, where the rich get richer on the backs of the rest of us, speak for themselves. The Democrats are guilty of failure to act; the Republicans, however, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are guilty of acting in a manner that caused most people to be badly affected and that benefited the existing power/money structure. Of the two I can tell you who I pick.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) May 14, 2016
[contd]
and finally possibly ending in the Obama money printing bubble.
What other options did Obama have?
And in fact it worked; the economy has largely recovered, although the ultra-rich and banksters have retained their profits. No significant financial reform was possible in the face of the unwillingness to act on the part of the Democrats and the opposition to reform on the part of the Republicans. You are correct, Obama had no other options. But note also that what he did appears to have worked. What is now necessary is to reinstate Glass-Steagall and prevent us getting ripped off by the ultra-rich and the banksters again.

It would be nice if we could tax away the ill-gotten gains of the ultra-rich and the banksters, but I'm not exactly holding my breath. Devaluing those gains and making it easier for most people is about as far as Obama could get, and printing money is exactly how you do that. It's no wonder they're whining.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) May 14, 2016
[contd]
Yea Bush increased the national debt 100% from 5 to 10 Trillion but Obama increased it another 10 Trillion while the official inflation rate was less than 3 %.
Obviously Obama did not have a choice. These were delayed cost incurred by the Bush mismanagement.
In fact they were permanent tax cuts that Obama couldn't repeal. And the Republicans wouldn't vote to increase taxes back to the necessary point in other ways, so there was little or nothing Obama could do directly but print money. In the absence of heavy inflation, this was a measure that hurt the ultra-rich and the banksters far more than everyone else.

The takeaways here are:
1. Glass-Steagall, at least the most important parts of it, must be reinstated.
2. If we do not pay for government we are placing the burden of what must be done now on our children and their children. It's time to raise taxes; not suddenly, but judiciously and slowly.
MR166
2 / 5 (12) May 14, 2016
In fact there are similarities between the housing and internet bubbles. Bush tried to question the subprime market but was soundly defeated on the issue.

The takeaways here are:
1. Glass-Steagall, at least the most important parts of it, must be reinstated.
2. If we do not pay for government we are placing the burden of what must be done now on our children and their children. It's time to raise taxes; not suddenly, but judiciously and slowly.

As far as your last statement goes we are in full agreement. Just note that as far as the banksters/.1 Percenters go there is no substantial difference between the actions that the Republicans or the Democrats took. That is why I claim we really have a one party system that is controlled by the puppeteers!
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (14) May 14, 2016
@ignoracle
"we"
How many of you are there?
This sounds like a conspiracy, most likely of sock puppets.

How many?
You should pose that question to the missus, in relation to "your" children's daddies.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (18) May 14, 2016
goricle, are you trying to tell us something? You are hung up on the underwear of the wives of others, and the legitimacy of offspring.

Got problems?

Suspicions?
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (15) May 14, 2016
MR166
Sorry everybody but we are all screwed not at all like Zimbabwe. Perhaps not today, but SOON!!!!
Something we agree on 100%. You are getting what you deserve. You have created a predatory system - that is devouring itself. We would probably disagree on the root cause - that I put squarely on religion. I was raised a fundamentalist christian, and did not begin to learn to think critically until I dumped the cult. You exhibit the exact same characteristics with your hyperpolitical hijacking of every thread - as I remember from the authoritarians that run religion. No flexibility - no compassion - just pure ideology. I agree with you though - the U.S. is screwed. Hey - maybe Trump will turn it all around (sarcasm).
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) May 14, 2016
"We would probably disagree on the root cause - that I put squarely on religion."

Onions I really cannot believe that statement. You are blaming the fact that the "Puppeteers" are controlling the world governments on Religion. Please explain the logic behind this position.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) May 14, 2016
Let's see, the Puppeteers pretty much control the media and pre K through graduate school. Exactly where does religion play a roll?
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (13) May 14, 2016
Please explain the logic behind this position.
No sweat. A healthy vibrant society - would depend on a citizenship that had certain characteristics - such as critical thinking, compassion, integrity, positive self esteem etc. These characteristics are suppressed by religious thinking. When I look back now on what I used to believe - it makes me sick. God - the all powerful, all knowing, all loving creator of everything - created a race of beings, only to be pissed off with them - drown them all in a flood - and then send them all (except a select few) - to suffer for eternity in a lake of fire. I had to be brain dead to believe that shit. But most Americans do believe that. How could this be? (that is rhetorical). So a brain dead population - is ripe for the picking - by the unscrupulous.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (13) May 14, 2016
Onions I really cannot believe that statement. You are blaming the fact that the "Puppeteers" are controlling the world governments on Religion. Please explain the logic behind this position.
Allow me to offer one answer to this. If there were such a thing as "puppateers", they would BE religious leaders.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) May 14, 2016
@greenos, the fundies are the vocal minority. Most people seem to feel like they need a religion. But most people aren't fundies.

We're getting close now to 25% of people not caring about religion at all, and among millenials, it's more like 35%. In the total population, these people outnumber every faith but evangelical protestantism, and of the evangelical protestants only a minority are fundies.

This too shall pass, though not in our lifetimes. Science and technology have grown so fast that it has future shocked our society; it will take generations for the effects to percolate down, and you can count on the fundies to resist it every step of the way. It's the long fight for this one.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) May 14, 2016
"Allow me to offer one answer to this. If there were such a thing as "puppateers", they would BE religious leaders."

So religion is the root of all evil eh! Spoken like a true brainwashed Progressive.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) May 14, 2016
So religion is the root of all evil eh!
No, but it's a convenient handle to use to control people. And trying to control people is pretty much antithetical to freedom. I'm OK with you not being free if you are. I'm not OK with you trying to make me not free too. Get over it.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (14) May 14, 2016
So religion is the root of all evil eh! Spoken like a true brainwashed Progressive.
I would phrase it a little differently MR - I would say that fundamentalism is the root of all evil. Otto would call it tribalism. I am from this group, you are from that group - so I kill you. Look at the protestants and catholics in Ireland, or the sunnis and shia in middle east. Look at history. Look at this - http://nypost.com...enocide/ Cults do everything they can to forbid free thought. I used to respect conservatives more - and I share many of the views of libertarianism - but as I read your posts (and other conservatives like Noumenon) I lose respect for the cultish nature of your thought patterns. Look at how you know nothing about Maggnus - but hurl the label progressive around - and then feel all proud of yourself - for being dumb.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (16) May 14, 2016
So religion is the root of all evil eh!
No, but it's a convenient handle to use to control people. And trying to control people is pretty much antithetical to freedom. I'm OK with you not being free if you are. I'm not OK with you trying to make me not free too. Get over it.

Well said. The religious cannot seem to reconcile their belief in some all-powerful being with the fact that the writers of the book they gain their belief from did not understand where the sun went at night.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (13) May 14, 2016
Well Da just as long as you think you are free that's all that counts isn't it. BTW are you free to express a non PC opinion of most college campuses, yes? Enjoy the illusion.
chileastro
3 / 5 (20) May 14, 2016
bschitt 1.1 /5 (4) 22 hours ago

I think your onions are turning brown. (Green onions being representative of healthy brain cells...brown ones not so much)


There's no subject that the cranks don't have some brain-damaged gospel to quote. Their positions are not falsifiable, they're not going to change that whole raft of misconceptions to be logical on one point. What's the arguing with them in aid of?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (13) May 14, 2016
Well Da just as long as you think you are free that's all that counts isn't it. BTW are you free to express a non PC opinion of most college campuses, yes? Enjoy the illusion.
It always amuses me to see Americans who loudly proclaim the right to free speech while simultaneously stating "as long as you agree with me".

No all, or most - or even many - Americans, just the type like MR66 and others of a similar ilk.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) May 14, 2016
BTW are you free to express a non PC opinion of most college campuses, yes?
Well, if I had a non PC opinion of most college campuses, I might be. Or maybe if I had any opinion at all of most college campuses in the first place. Not having been on a college campus in several decades, however, I unfortunately don't have any opinions about them.

So, change the subject much when you don't have an answer? Just askin'.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (13) May 14, 2016
Well Da just as long as you think you are free that's all that counts isn't it. BTW are you free to express a non PC opinion of most college campuses, yes? Enjoy the illusion.
So now you want to claim that you know about being free - and no one else does. I have attended six or seven colleges in the U.S. over the years. I never felt that I was not free to express an opinion. I don't have a lot of respect for the U.S. educational system - but much of my criticism is of the students ability to think. I tried teaching one semester - and hated it. To be fair - it was a community college - but the base level of the incoming students was staggering. The Governor of the state does not know the three branches of government - http://kfor.com/2...p;wpmm=1 Pretty grim right? cont.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (12) May 14, 2016
cont. But don't pin all the blame on the teachers or the government. My kids went to public school, both got a great education, and are now doing really well in life. Both have advanced degrees - and are making a lot more money that I do. We were at every parent teacher conference, every band recital, every school event we could be at. We watched the news most days (and talked about how shallow it was) - and my kids know a thousand times more than I ever did about the world they live in. For me - what it boils down to - is a predatory system - that does not care how many people are crushed in the meat grinder - as long as the privileged keep their position of power. Political partisanship is one of the ways they keep control. You are the poster child for mindless partisan bickering MR - you just can't see it.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) May 15, 2016
I agree that the system is predatory but argue with your solutions. Bigger government and more controls only makes the problems worse since in reality the "People" do not control it and the rules are written to benefit the few. Just how many bankers were jailed after that huge fraud? One or two, that's it. People who argue for a smaller less powerful government are called bigots by those who do.

MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) May 15, 2016
People who argue for a smaller less powerful government are called bigots by those who do NOT.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) May 15, 2016
Also many of the people who call for more government are very happy to see selective enforcement of existing law. Laws that are enforced "at will" lead to a deteriorating respect for all laws and alienate law abiding persons.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) May 15, 2016
People who argue for a smaller less powerful government are called bigots by those who do NOT
I call for smaller - less powerful government. It makes me furious that I can't put a tornado shelter in my own home - without paying the government - and having to let them in my house to inspect a shelter - that is installed by state licensed installation company. First thing that would be cut by about 90% is the military - if I was king. No more Vietnam wars to let the generals play - while the poor people die. I really don't know what the solution to the rot of U.S. culture is. I take a little comfort in seeing that millenials are the least religious generation in U.S. history. Perhaps in time they will take over - and start shifting money from the MIC - into education. Drastically simplifying and cutting taxes would be awesome - but no Democrat of Republican is going to do that. MR - why don't you listen to what people say about your partisanship?
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (10) May 15, 2016
Laws that are enforced "at will" lead to a deteriorating respect for all laws and alienate law abiding persons.
Sure - but I don't see that as the biggest issue regarding the rot that is U.S. culture. Trump won't release his tax returns right? Why not? Probably because he paid close to 0% in taxes. In other words - he is a predator - who wants to get rich off the system - but has no concept of responsibility. Ditto Clinton. The culture as a whole - lacks the concept of responsibility. People looking out for each other - and giving back. Capitalism is a predatory system -and is heavily fueled by religious thinking. God wants you to be rich - and if you are poor - it is your own fault for not trusting god enough. The solution I am working on - is a small business model - that says take what you need - and then give back. See your responsibility to the whole system - including the environment.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) May 15, 2016
Just to play devils advocate here, since I also agree that our military interventions have all been a disaster since WW2, should we enter Venezuela and try to help the people form a functioning government or let say Russia or China do it? The whole system has broken down and soon there will be many deaths. Nary a peep out of that useless body called the UN. How about the islands that China is building in international waters, claiming sovereignty and a 200 mile (I think) limit, where is the outrage?
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) May 15, 2016
" Capitalism is a predatory system -and is heavily fueled by religious thinking. God wants you to be rich - and if you are poor - it is your own fault for not trusting god enough. The solution I am working on - is a small business model - that says take what you need - and then give back. See your responsibility to the whole system - including the environment."

Very Laudable idea but the human mind is not wired that way. Like every other animal on earth evolution has determined which characteristics were needed to survive. Thus it seems that greed is needed to some extent. The need to provide a better life for your children than yourself or your neighbors makes one want to work harder and or longer. One expects to earn more than one's neighbors by doing so.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) May 15, 2016
I don't know MR - what do you think? The problem with military intervention - is you cannot predict the outcome. Did we help the people of S. Vietnam? Libya? So maybe we need a whole different foreign policy. Consistency would be a good start. Don't support genocides when it suits us (East Timor - Guatemala etc. http://www.global...5331929. Become known in the world as consistently opposing dictators, and murderers - and don't do stuff like extraordinary rendition. Now maybe you have a basis to lecture the world on human rights - and to try to work with the international community - to oppose dictators and genocides. Putting Kissinger on trial would be a start - http://www.global.../5358322
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) May 15, 2016
Very Laudable idea but the human mind is not wired that way.
Oh - now you know how the human mind is wired. Care to provide support for your assertion? There are plenty of examples around the world, and throughout history - of people who are not predatory. I don't believe that is an inevitability. I think so much depends on what you are taught as you develop. Look at the people of Findhorn - https://www.findhorn.org/ As an atheist - I could not join such an organization - but I think they prove that there are ways of living - that do not involve devouring ourselves, and our world - just to have another million dollars in the bank.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (15) May 15, 2016
" One expects to earn more than one's neighbors by doing so."
----------------------------------

A light into the soul of conservatism. It is all for personal advantage, . . . compared to others.

Is life that silly game?

Not mine.

gkam
2.3 / 5 (15) May 15, 2016
The T-shirt which proclaims "He who dies with the most toys wins", has been replaced with the simple statement "I'm Shallow".

Unfortunately, our obsession is with owning "things". They do not fulfill us, but we "need" them,. .. don't we?

And when they do not satisfy us for long, we turn to nasty folk with nasty attitudes and plans for others, because it must be THEIR fault, . . the way they live, . . those "others", . . really!
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) May 15, 2016
"" One expects to earn more than one's neighbors by doing so."
----------------------------------

A light into the soul of conservatism. It is all for personal advantage, . . . compared to others."

Good God Gkam now working long hard hours in order to provide for your family is a character flaw. We really have reached the end of the road as a nation!
gkam
2.3 / 5 (15) May 15, 2016
Providing for the family is not the same as trying to outdo your neighbors for ego.

You have shown us the trouble with Capitalists - extreme selfishness.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) May 15, 2016
Good God Gkam now working long hard hours in order to provide for your family is a character flaw.
My wife and I have both worked long hard hours all our adult lives - and raised 2 kids along the way. Gkam is not saying that is a character flaw. The flaw is in a system - that says I will never be satisfied - no matter how much I have - and it does not matter if I tread down others, or the environment in the process. The current capitalist system pits us all against each other. Neighbors warring with neighbors - over trivial shit like who should pay for the fence. The system is predatory - and devouring itself. My example of Findhorn shows that there are other ways of organizing.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (14) May 15, 2016
The difference between liberals and conservatives seems to be in the way we each organize reality. Conservatives all believe we all compete against each other, and life is a contest. Liberals believe we are all in this together, and if we work together, we can all be better off.

Conservatives just have to be better off than anyone else. It is a fragile ego thing.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) May 15, 2016
gkam - I try to avoid the liberal/conservative labeling. I agree that many of the posters on this board - who self identify as conservative - have a very ideological, and not very compassionate approach to our world (Koch bros would also come to mind). I am not sure what a 'liberal' is. If Bill or Hillary are liberals - then I am definitely not one. There are many self proclaimed liberals - that I can't stand (Bill Maher.) I prefer to stay pretty independent - and look at issues individually. I align with many parts of libertarian thinking (small gvt - high personal responsibility). Seems many libertarians downplay the second part of that duo. I am definitely not Randian. Seems the Randians in the U.S. gvt push big gvt. I think that science pushes us to be honest - and to look at the facts. Ideology deters that. I am a pragmatic atheist - but again - that seems to just stem from the facts.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (14) May 15, 2016
GO, the labels are forced on us.

And they are not completely accurate, because the issues are not black and white.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) May 15, 2016
"The current capitalist system pits us all against each other. Neighbors warring with neighbors - over trivial shit like who should pay for the fence. The system is predatory - and devouring itself. My example of Findhorn shows that there are other ways of organizing."

Onions how would your system deal with people who are lazy and do not to do much of anything? Use a simple example like a farm. What happens when I see them not working and decide that my efforts are a waste of energy. What happens when they outnumber the actual workers. You see there are takers on both sides of the political equation.
MR166
2 / 5 (8) May 15, 2016
Onions as an almost Libertarian do you feel safe giving the Supreme Court the power to alter the Constitution at will? They seem to be able to do that now. Should the Constitution be a flexible document that can be bent to fit the times or be a rock solid foundation that can only be changed via amendments?
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) May 15, 2016
Onions how would your system deal with people who are lazy and do not to do much of anything?
I don't have all the answers MR. In my experience - given the right circumstances - people are not lazy - but actively look for stuff to keep busy with. Developing a reason to live is part of the issue. Growing up in poverty - people seem to lose the will to be engaged. There were studies done years ago on the relationship between poverty - and factors such as smoking, and not wearing a seat belt. The conclusion was - that often people give up. They say "Nothing I do matters - so I don't care if I die in a car wreck" Interesting book on education called "Summerhill" When teen agers were put in a residential school - and allowed to sleep all day - they did that for a few weeks, and then got bored of that - and came out looking for stuff to get into. It was a very successful program. Not saying that is the whole issue - but maybe interesting information.
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) May 15, 2016
MR
Onions as an almost Libertarian do you feel safe giving the Supreme Court the power to alter the Constitution at will?
I seriously don't care about your constitution. I do see that under said constitution - you currently have a mess. I work a lot with poor people - who are caught in the poverty trap. Their lives are shit. They are hounded by debt collectors, and live from pay check to pay check - often taking out pay day loans at 100% interest (for real). I fully agree with your post - that says we are in a shit mess (paraphrasing). I don't see your constitution addressing this shit mess - so I don't give it much thought. Perhaps it is time to let the whole thing collapse - and try something better, or perhaps evolution will be better - time will tell.
jeffensley
3 / 5 (8) May 16, 2016
green, the Constitution isn't the issue. The issue is bloated and inefficient governing. The principles of the Constitution are simple... the government's power is thankfully controlled and limited by this document. It basically protects the people from their own government based on the rights granted them by something bigger than the government. It was never meant to be a security blanket to protect people from failure or suffering. When you talk about the injustices of payday loans you aren't talking about failures of government or the Constitution... you are talking about the failure of community education and the unfortunate self-perpetuating cycle of ignorance.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (15) May 16, 2016
" The issue is bloated and inefficient governing."
----------------------------------

Compare the size of the Federal government under Bush to that of Obama.

Then, factor in the Bush Wars, which are in the National Debt you blame on Obama.

Who is the problem?
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) May 16, 2016
Jeffensley
When you talk about the injustices of payday loans you aren't talking about failures of government or the Constitution... you are talking about the failure of community education and the unfortunate self-perpetuating cycle of ignorance.


I don't think that the 'blame' can be defined quickly or easily. I totally agree that the government is bloated and inefficient. First thing I would cut if I was king - would be the military. What is clear to me - as MR articulated - under the current system (political and economic) - we have a mess. Solutions are much harder to identify.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (16) May 16, 2016
The difference between liberals and conservatives seems to be in the way we each organize reality. Conservatives all believe we all compete against each other, and life is a contest. Liberals believe we are all in this together
-And similarly, psychopaths are different from real human beings because they will pretend to be either liberal or conservative depending on which strategy will get them what they want.

"They will pretend to have feelings if it suits their purposes or gets them what they want. They will verbalize remorse, but their actions will contradict their words. They know that "remorse" is important, and "apologies" are useful, and they will give them freely, though generally in words that amount to blaming the victim for needing to be apologized to.

"And this is why they are so good at using Game Theory. And unless we learn the rules of how they think, they will continue to use it on us with devastating results."
gkam
2.5 / 5 (16) May 16, 2016
My god, otto, if it is so bad, get help!
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) May 17, 2016
There are 2 major problems with our government. The first is a maze of laws and court rulings that make it almost impossible for a small business to survive. Almost every agency has their own police force that is more than willing to pounce on even the slightest possible violation.

But the biggest problem is entitlements. SS, Medicare and Medicaid are not sustainable in their present form. Drugs cost many many times more in the US than in other countries. If you bring them in from another country you will be arrested even though you have a valid US prescription. The whole medical complex is protected from competition by the US Government. Try becoming a Dentist, it is almost impossible to get into a dental school. That way they do not have to compete with each other and can over price their services.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) May 17, 2016
Hospital costs are way out of control. It is very easy to rack up a $20K bill for a 2 day stay. Where exactly does that money go? Much of the staff are not really paid all that well. Am I paying for 10 other non-payers?
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2016
Lastly, in the past 8 years a huge number of people have been taken off the employment rolls and put on SS disability. To me, it looks like the government WANTS to have an ever increasing number of people dependent on it.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (13) May 17, 2016
Please take your political gripes to the right place.

Start with your Congressman. That is how I got my VA benefits I earned in the war after the Republicans took them away from us while sending troops to the Bush Wars.
jeffensley
2.6 / 5 (5) May 17, 2016
Entitlements are a big part of it but you have to agree that our military spending is simply ridiculous. It's worth at least TRYING to stop playing world police and getting into arms races once AGAIN with Russia and China. We unfortunately have impetuous children leading out respective militaries, more than willing to play games of chicken with the lives of their own citizens. Also, how in the hell did an article about the Solon Islands turn into this?
leetennant
4.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2016
I find the idea that the US has entitlements amusing, Nothing like a nation of people that will happily let others starve to death in the street. Which is why your wage system has endemic slavery factored into it. Maybe if you actually had a welfare system and decent minimum wage, you'd start to charge corporations some tax and wouldn't be constantly fighting their wars for them. Which is where your money goes, just FYI.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) May 17, 2016
Lets see Lee, most of the "Poor" in the US have cable TV, Air Conditioning and free cellphones. It has been estimated that the average welfare benefit is worth about 60K per year and that is why it never pays for a welfare recipient to get a job in the US.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (13) May 17, 2016
Get off the politics, 166. Or we we will make you pay for Reagan and Bush.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (14) May 18, 2016
The T-shirt which proclaims "He who dies with the most toys wins", has been replaced with the simple statement "I'm Shallow"
Is that your favorite one?

"Cleckley's seminal hypothesis concerning the psychopath is that he suffers from a very real mental illness indeed: a profound and incurable affective deficit. If he really feels anything at all, they are emotions of only the shallowest kind."

"Most people are able to combine ideas that have consistent thought themes, but psychopaths have great difficulty doing this. Again, this suggests a genetic restriction to what we have called the Juvenile Dictionary. Not only are they using extremely restricted definitions, they cannot, by virtue of the way their brains work, do otherwise. Virtually all of the research on psychopaths reveals an inner world that is banal, sophomoric, and devoid of the color and detail that generally exists in the inner world of normal people."

-The evidence is overwhelming.
greenonions
5 / 5 (9) May 18, 2016
MR166
It has been estimated that the average welfare benefit is worth about 60K per year and that is why it never pays for a welfare recipient to get a job in the US.
Please provide a source for this assertion - I think it's false and absurd. Please give us your source.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (14) May 18, 2016
Jeff, I got my opinion on this by earning a Master of Science in the field. How did you get yours?
No George this is a confirmed lie.

And the people who uprate you, including thermodynamics, for continuing to post such confirmed lies have no respect for this site or for truth in general.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (14) May 18, 2016
otto, you and your adolescent game are going to be stopped. Yeah, it must be really cool to attack others while you hide, like in your video games, but this is real life, and everything you do has a consequence.
Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (9) May 19, 2016
Lets see Lee, most of the "Poor" in the US have cable TV, Air Conditioning and free cellphones. It has been estimated that the average welfare benefit is worth about 60K per year and that is why it never pays for a welfare recipient to get a job in the US.
- MR166
A very astute observation, MR166
This is most certainly why Obama insists on NOT closing the borders, so that Mexico, Guatemala, etc. will empty out, sending the poor, their tired, their huddled masses, to the US to pick cotton, fruits & vegetables, work in sweatshops and pay their taxes, which will go toward subsidizing the welfare recips, since the NEW Spanish-speaking slaves will be willing to do the hard work for them.
Slave labor for a pittance is what Socialists want. The new slaves will enjoy a rise in sea level that will give them some relief from their sweat and toil for the Massah.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (11) May 20, 2016
TheGhostofOtto1923 with Huge hypocrisy claims
.. people who uprate you, including thermodynamics, for continuing to post such confirmed lies...
You confuse style, technical language with sporadic exaggeration & anything based in an education & totally miss psychology. Your claims of so called lies are *only* to put people down, distract & avoid responsibility for claims, you

1 Have no discipline
2 Are argumentative for (political) points & to hurt
3 Are immensely anti-intellectual
4 Are anti-education, you can't improve; tone, intent or knowledge since joining !

Outright falsehood TheGhostofOtto1923 claims
... have no respect for this site or for truth in general.
Thats YOU TheGhostofOtto1923 !

You sully with personal attacks, twist words you can't understand - point scoring, purposely misconstrue, refuse to learn Physics terminology & bandy insults around as a 15yr old, ugh

Eg
http://phys.org/n...ica.html
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) May 20, 2016
otto
A very astute observation, MR166
If that is your view - perhaps you would help us out with a source for the $60K. It sounds to me like a fabrication. How much interaction do you two actually have with poor people? My experience is that yes - most poor people own bigger tv's than I do (talking about my experience in the US) - but they get them from predatory companies like Aarons - who charge them by the week - and if you do the math - they pay an absurd amount of money. Much of the business of companies like Aarons - is debt collecting - repossessing furniture - and then turning right around and approving the same client - for stuff they cannot afford. Please give us your source for the $60k - or do you not care for the truth?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) May 20, 2016
otto, you and your adolescent game are going to be stopped
Stopped george? And who would stop you from lying and fact-fabricating? And then who would stop all the other people here from objecting to that, and continuing to expose you for what you are?

How are you going to stop all of THEM george?
Yeah, it must be really cool to attack others while you hide, like in your video games, but this is real life, and everything you do has a consequence
You bet. Lying, cheating, and fact-fabricating always has consequences. Sick people like George kamburoff actually crave some of those consequences.

Your abusive behavior is the only way you have left to get the attention you think you deserve. Here you can do whatever you want and not fear getting fired for it. Or thrown in jail, or forced into therapy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) May 20, 2016
You confuse style, technical language with sporadic exaggeration
No, I object when George kamburoff insists that

High-energy alpha cant penetrate skin
Fallout is the main cause of lung cancer
An H2-initiated explosion caused dirty molten Pu to fission at fukushima and throw debris 130km
Manure dust is called volatile solids and is the principle pollutant of the high air above the central valley
Swimming pools are routinely used for residential cooling
He is an engineer
He is better than an engineer
He has an MS in environmental mgt
He owns an EV car

-and dozens of other such lies which George routinely dumps here daily.
anything based in an education
George lied about his education.
totally miss psychology
?? Anyone who is a serial liar like George, has mental problems. His look a whole lot like psychopathy.

Have you missed all my convincing arguments?

One wonders about the psychology of you defending him.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) May 21, 2016
@TheGhostofOtto1923 (TGo)
You're showing falsehoods in so many ways, twisting to argue & can't progress a line of dialectic. Haven't seen many threads re your claims but, observed a couple.

In particular ref to you falsely claiming gkam wrote
"Swimming pools are routinely used for residential cooling"
Completely Wrong, IIRC not what he stated or prove it ?

A clear example in my last post, shows evidently YOU often twist comments to push/lift your status *only* to put people down, is that your only "skill" ?

You're primarily an attack animal with; nil discipline, nil interest educating or learning wasting time. You're not helping here, you only attack with nothing to move this forum along !

Eg. You tried to twist my words with negative ugly overtones:-
http://phys.org/n...ica.html

TGo says
.. wonders about the psychology of you defending him
No !
Its about your old ugly habit dragging this forum down :/
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) May 21, 2016
@TheGhostofOtto1923
I recall, this thread example of that ugly attack at best, yes or no ?
http://phys.org/n...rgy.html

Few points
1. You claim gkam said "Swimming pools are routinely used for residential cooling", no !
with nil suggestion it was ever "routine" - yet another example of your blatant lying, to twist words to try to push your status in a personal attack !

2. Eikka offered an opinion re heat loss, relevant but nil calculation. gkam is correct re"Coefficients of Performance" but, you Failed to understand & continued an attack !

3. You seized on Eikka's minimal input to further push personal attack !

Evidence you suffer anti-intellectual prejudice & twist to gain political mileage only, you have nil understanding of how to discuss maturely.

You attacked me re Eng pre-requisites again twisting words, Eg Apr 25, 2015, I also urged you check with a uni, did you ?

Please re-read my posts there as well, they are all correct !
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) May 21, 2016
TheGhostofOtto1923 (TGoO) says
Have you missed all my convincing arguments?
Facile one sentence "sound bites" aren't convincing or an argument !

TGoO there's much you don't understand, your main focus is to put people down, focusing on someone's ideas or style you don't like isn't a mature way at all to discuss anything technical with any interest of converging upon essential truths !

In many threads, issues arise re permutations applying Physics to engineering type issues, developing products, testing limits whilst resistant to being misled & manipulated by well funded firms protecting their turf ie Exploring alternatives

I also recall you claiming gkam "lost 20+ jobs", again twisting how those in engineering work, they move from project to project as their role is achieved. That is routine, re-read my posts, EE's can & do work on Mech Eng projects & vice versa. Its about specialisation & "Scope of Work"

TGoO you misconstrue so often just to attack :/
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) May 21, 2016
Mike, the others already told us he is a fat shut-in, with no other life. He is predictable and scornable. But I am more interested in the cases of those who got lured in by his nastiness, and revealed their own true character by encouraging otto in his nastiness.

Are they unaware we see it?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) May 21, 2016
Mike, I sent you a picture of the EV. Did you get it? And no, I did not lose 20 jobs. Go read my performance reports cleverly put online by otto's little brother Stumpy, and you will realize I got lured away from those jobs by better ones. I want everybody to read those performance reports to see what a special one looks like.

otto has no response to my work for NASA, or being a Senior Engineer in the world's biggest non-governmental power company. Or my awards from the Air Force Flight Test Center. And he has not seen the body of my Master's Thesis I sent to Ira and he could not read, so he assumes there is none.

Now, let's find out about otto. And we can tell his neighbors!!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) May 21, 2016
Facile one sentence "sound bites" aren't convincing or an argument !
You mean like 'WMDs!'?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (10) May 21, 2016
I did not lose 20+/- jobs
Sure you did. You described these jobs and didn't realize that people here would conclude that having so many jobs during a career means that you couldn't hold on to any of them.

What, do you think people here are dumb enough to think you got bored with ALL of them and just left?

No, you acted during your employment as you act here. You lied about your education and experience in order to get them and when your goober employers found out you weren't qualified, they sent you back to the job shop.

This includes your alleged senior PG&E engg position. When they found out you weren't an engr they put you in a lunch-and-learn team teaching position. Which you bullshitted your way out of as well.

The fact that this all is OBVIOUS to everyone here but YOU means some profound cognitive deficit is at work in that fuzzy little head of yours.

Psychopathy.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) May 21, 2016
"You mean like 'WMDs!'?"
-------------------------

Yeah. Did YOU fall for that ridiculous and transparent lie? I knew about the Office of Special Plans before the invasion. Why didn't you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) May 21, 2016

Yeah. Did YOU fall for that ridiculous and transparent lie? I knew about the Office of Special Plans before the invasion
-Because McNamara told you while you were moving things around and plugging things in for him personally?

In your role as 20yo personal spook to McNamara as you claimed?

This is why it is safe to assume that everything george kamburoff says here is bullshit.
Otto_Szucks
3 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
I see that you are still trying to steal George Kamburoff's soul, Theghostofotto. When are you going to leave him alone and let him be?
Oh that's right. You're unhappy unless you are chasing after your latest victim.
Isn't that right, Luci?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) May 22, 2016
otto is his own victim.

He is just responding to what life did to him, . . . and it ain't pretty.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) May 25, 2016
I see that you are still trying to steal George Kamburoff's soul
Some believe that psychopaths don't have souls.

"... read Cleckley's speculations on what was "really wrong" with these people. He comes very close to suggesting that they are human in every respect - but that they lack a soul. This lack of "soul quality" makes them very efficient "machines."

-Its like the way you don't obviously have a brain?

Maybe the 2 of you could go dancing down a road somewhere and find a wizard who could give these things back to you.
https://www.youtu...CIkKFFR4

My, just look at all of those trolls! You guys fit right in.
jeffensley
5 / 5 (1) May 31, 2016
" The issue is bloated and inefficient governing."
----------------------------------

Compare the size of the Federal government under Bush to that of Obama.

Then, factor in the Bush Wars, which are in the National Debt you blame on Obama.

Who is the problem?


Overly-simplistic partisan thinking. If your answer to that question isn't "The entire government made up of Republican and Democrat leadership" then you aren't being honest.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.