Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

[SpaceBlues]

Largelanguage wrote:

Lol, science fiction again eh BOY?

What's BOY?

What's science fiction?

[Largelanguage]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>What's BOY?
What's science fiction?

Trying to mimic a 2 year old now? Don't act smart.

[PHD]

What's missing is your usual scientific science fiction useless babble. When are you going to answer the question you were asked? What is "ony" you never explained.

[tina anne]

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you're posting in the wrong place. If you don't like what ANYone says on Wiki, then you should try to develop a TINY bit of courage, sign on there & tell them EXACTLY how they're wrong. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail. Period.
I reference Wiki because it's usually pretty accessible, plus they have lots of live links to reputable sources. Are they perfect? Of course not. But they're a LOT more accurate than the average site out there. The fact that so many people can input their own knowledge tends to push the site toward the truth.
So you're talking to the wrong guy in the wrong place. Either post on Wiki & tell them exactly HOW they're wrong - or SU.
You might also show a BIT more respect by learning how to spell proper names. It's "Wikipedia" & "William Connolley."

Perfect, they are so bad that professors and teachers refuse to accept them as a source. That they have a history of false entries.

The fact that so many can input could push it to the truth but it can and has pushed it the other way. If you look at the numbers you would discover that Wikipedia has become static in the number and type of those who contribute. Similar in demographics and even views which is not a receipe for accuracy.

Of course if you don't believe me then ask Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifi...

http://www.wikipedia-is-wrong.com/

[PHD]

They learned their scientific science fiction from the teachers. It's a vicious circle of scientific science fiction depending who receive the largest tax dollar.

[Wallop10]

Nrthie wrote:

<quoted text>
Half of Arctic sea ice has vanished since measurements began in the late 1950s.
http:/nsidc.org/cryosphere/sot c/sea_ice.html

thanks.

[HomoSapiensLapto picus]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Still no facts.

What, you can't read graphs? To understand "hard" science, you simply HAVE to be able to read graphs.

That graph shows Arctic Ocean icepack volume simply COLLAPSING at a very, very high rate. There simply isn't any doubt.

If you are unable to do a google search, what exactly are you doing at a computer? There are also a whole bunch of live links on the page to other graphs & explanation. If you don't understand science but want to comment on a science thread, why don't you ask someone to explain it to you?

[HomoSapiensLapto picus]

Largelanguage wrote:

Lol, science fiction again eh BOY?

And here's a link to a lay press article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/au...

[HomoSapiensLapto picus]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Perfect, they are so bad that professors and teachers refuse to accept them as a source. That they have a history of false entries.
The fact that so many can input could push it to the truth but it can and has pushed it the other way. If you look at the numbers you would discover that Wikipedia has become static in the number and type of those who contribute. Similar in demographics and even views which is not a receipe for accuracy.
Of course if you don't believe me then ask Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifi...
http://www.wikipedia-is-wrong.com/

And?

I didn't say Wiki was perfect, I said the large number of posters tended to push it toward the truth.

It's still way, way, way, way, WAY more reliable than the average denier or tabloid site deniers usually post here. It's also easier to understand than scientific journal articles but DOES have links to them so you can read the original after getting general background from Wiki. It remains a very good place to start.

[SpaceBlues]

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

<quoted text>
And?
I didn't say Wiki was perfect, I said the large number of posters tended to push it toward the truth.
It's still way, way, way, way, WAY more reliable than the average denier or tabloid site deniers usually post here. It's also easier to understand than scientific journal articles but DOES have links to them so you can read the original after getting general background from Wiki. It remains a very good place to start.

Agree.

This is a recurrring theme with tina. It's part of her antiscience stance because she has no science or mathematics.

She's promoting a parallel system where antiscience fights science.

[litesong]

'large lying language' wrote:
Lol, science fiction again eh BOY?
/////////
SpaceBlues wrote:
What's BOY?
////////
litesong wrote:
'large lying language' thinks its before the Civil War & it is looking for slaves to kill.'large lying language' is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener.

[litesong]

"phud fetid feces face fiend" flopped forth:
science fiction from the teachers......
//////////
litesong wrote:
"phud fetid feces face fiend" never had a teacher so it could get a science or mathematics degree. "phud fetid feces face fiend" never had a teacher to teach him upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for his poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa!

[SpaceBlues]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Trying to mimic a 2 year old now?..

No, I am not but I am smart, are you?

[PHD]

litesong wrote:

"phud fetid feces face fiend" flopped forth:
science fiction from the teachers......
//////////
litesong wrote:
"phud fetid feces face fiend" never had a teacher so it could get a science or mathematics degree. "phud fetid feces face fiend" never had a teacher to teach him upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for his poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa!

And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>No, I am not but I am smart, are you?

Well if you consider scientific science fiction cut and paste useless babble smart than you win hands down.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text> Well if you consider scientific science fiction cut and paste useless babble smart than you win hands down.

More science friction. Whaxk. Whackxxx.

[PHD]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
More science friction. Whaxk. Whackxxx.

Are you wearing head protection before you got whacked?

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>Are you wearing head protection before you got whacked?

More science friction. Whaxk. Whackxxx.

[PHD]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
More science friction. Whaxk. Whackxxx.

So are you going to wear head gear next time?

[Largelanguage]

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

<quoted text>
What, you can't read graphs? To understand "hard" science, you simply HAVE to be able to read graphs.
That graph shows Arctic Ocean icepack volume simply COLLAPSING at a very, very high rate. There simply isn't any doubt.
If you are unable to do a google search, what exactly are you doing at a computer? There are also a whole bunch of live links on the page to other graphs & explanation. If you don't understand science but want to comment on a science thread, why don't you ask someone to explain it to you?

How were the graphs calculated? Still no explaination.