peladoboton wrote:

Buz Groshong wrote:Blah, blah, blah,...,same old burning bags of poop,..., blah, blah, blah.

(my edit )

Hey Ejnar! I think he just called your post a burning bag of poop!

peladoboton wrote:buz, you have posted 5 posts here that have nothing to do with the original subject, nothing to do with climbing, and seem to be mocking if not attacking.

PnP whore, nothing more.

The new rules seem to allow modified free-for-alls, which is what threads like this seem to morph into, so I thought I would just go with the flow. Besides, sometimes it's just so much fun playing with trolls that it's impossible to resist.

Oh no! Another burning bag of poop! http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=54050

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

builttospill wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

Buz Groshong wrote:

Aaron Johnson wrote:Hi Ejnar-

I did not move your thread, as I thought it was newsworthy. However, I can understand another staff member moving it once it wandered off into AGW land. I try not to move stuff around too much as it just confuses folks later on, including myself . Once a thread wanders way off course, I'm more likely to get rid of it, but I do that very rarely too.

Personally, I'm trying to give a wide latitude to thread subjects and where they are posted. I'm not sure about my cohorts. We're all in "summer mode," we've been vacationing, diverted and so forth so SP matters haven't been discussed as routinely as usual. I'll alert them to your query.

Gimme a break! It was bait for an argument. He was just trolling.

I report that a leading scientific journal (that actually used to be very pro-AGW) says the effect of CO2 on glacial retreat is just half of what has been assumed, and I'm trolling???

You play the victim terribly and unconvincingly.

You mentioned an article that agreed with your viewpoint, then went on to make unfounded claims and spurious arguments, and then failed to even ask a question (which you said you were going to do in your thread title. Moreover, you did all of this about a topic you know is controversial and over which you've gotten into countless pissing matches in the past. Your initial troll was decent, but this one is just sad.

I mentioned a new article that described some revolutionary findings by a team of Swiss glaciologists. To my knowledge, there has not been anything of corresponding importance reported from the IPCC these days, while it according to Nature (same paper) currently is having its "credibility under scrutiny" after they "wrongly stated that most Himalayan glaciers could disappear by the 2035."

I've known for a long time that you barely read what other people write before hitting reply. But it's now apparent that you don't even read what YOU write.

I suppose a simpler illustration of my point is possible. Ejnar, do you understand the difference between an opinion piece (like an editorial or op-ed) and a genuine news story? Do you know what trolling is? Let me explain with specifics regarding your post.

Headline: "A question to AGW'ers (about melting of polar ice)"

Wow, you've got a bad start. That can either be construed as a challenge to "AGW-ers" or a simple, friendly invitation to discussion (given the history, I took it as the former, but either way I wouldn't have accepted that as a headline when I edited my high school newspaper). Clearly trolling so far.

"I just want an answer to my question, not a nitpicking analysis of whether I quoted every single "the" and "and" in a two page article. Therefore I shall simply just mention a few interesting statements in the article. If you want to see the complete story, go to a library and have a look at the original article."

Okay, I guess you're explaining where you're going with this....continue.....

"But here goes: In a recent copy of Science (June 25, p. 1630-1631) it is claimed that if the Antarctic ice cap, together with that of Greenland were to melt away 'because of human produced CO2', then we might in about a millennium see a sea rise of 30 meters/100 ft.!! Goodbye Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam, London, New York, L.A. and any other city built near sea level."

This qualifies as "news." Well done.

"Now the interesting thing is that a sea rise of nearly the same size, also caused by glacial melting, took place five million ears ago (in the mid Pliocene for the cognoscenti), when there weren't any humans around."

Some scientific background, way to go.

"So why ascribe the present threat (if it materializes, which none of us shall see, it is just a prediction, while the Pliocene sea rise really took place) to human causes, when we know that nature is perfectly well able to arrange something like that?"

Now you've delved back into both editorializing and trolling.

"That is my question, what follows is just a few ruminations."

Oh god, here we go.....

"There is a passing comment in the article that the CO2 level in the Pliocene was about the same as that predicted by many scientists in 2100, but no data are quoted for this."

Wait, that's "news." Strange. Even interesting "news."

"But even if this was the case, it would of course only demonstrate that nature on itself can also produce CO2 enough to make the icecaps melt (if there really is a connection, correlation is not necessarily causation, for instance in Finland a close correlation between the sale of ice cream and the number of drowning accidents have been found, that doesn't prove one causes the other)."

That brief relapse into genuine reporting of interesting news about global warming apparently over, you jump back into editorializing, trolling, patronizing all other board members and also making a strange leap from X CAN cause Y to X DID cause Y. Odd for a scientist.

"Anyway, I think that the predictions about how much CO2 there will be in 2100 are very difficult to make. We may well see some developments within that time that will abolish any CO2 emissions (except from breathing and brewing and the like). Fusion energy may have become practical before that time, as may have greatly improved solar cells, or solar energy beamed down from space to mention a few possibilities, or one may simply wash CO2 out of the atmosphere, which could be done for a few cents per gallon of gasoline consumed, if CO2 is still considered the great threat then, of course."

Irrelevant babbling. Cut this, add a couple quotes from scientific experts and maybe a policymaker or two, and you've got yourself a story fit for printing in my local high school's newspaper.

Ejnar's a smart guy, undoubtedly. That's why it's so much more frustrating when he obfuscates, misunderstands (deliberately?), ignores and misconstrues. I handle that better from the local high school kids, because I have higher expectations of a guy with a PhD and an accomplished career as a scientist.

Further, an impressive posting history doesn't mean that errors or inconsistencies in the present should be overlooked or ignored. I know that that's not the way it works from personal experience on this board.

Anyway, that's all I've got to say. I'm certain Ejnar can handle the ribbing.

"news" rhymes with "snooze"

Neophiteat48 wrote:"news" rhymes with "snooze"

which rhymes with "booze" :lol: Time for a drink!!!!11