Gwobull Warbling: It's Thience!

[JTEM is my hero]

We're at the point where the older the cite, the
more accurate, as "News" and "Science" are
now gone. Everything serves an agenda.

You can say "Politics" but it's probably most
accurate to say "Agenda." Everything
masquerading as "News" or "Science" serves
an agenda at this point. So...

Here's a story about a peer reviewed, "Scientific"
study that was published in the journal "Science"
back in 2006. But it's behind a paywall today,
assuming you can even get it:

https://news.mongabay.com/2006/03/sea-levels-to-rise-20-feet-if-ice-melting-trend-continues/

: The study, published in the March 24 issue of the journal
: Science, projects that by 2100 the Earth will likely be at
: least 4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present, with
: the Arctic at least as warm as it was during the last
: interglaciation, 129,000 to 116,000 years ago, when sea
: levels were about 20 feet (six meters) higher than the present.

It's literally spelling out the fact that if "Climate Change"
is allowed to continue unchecked, if we don't stop
Gwobull Warbling then by the year 2100 the earth may
reach totally normal, natural levels as seen well over
100,000 years before the invention of fossil fuels.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721628733650485248

[jillery]

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 03:28:34 -0700 (PDT), JTEM posted:

Once again, what happened 100,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago, or
even 1,000 years ago, doesn't inform what is happening now. Instead,
what is happening now are effects resulting from anthropogenic causes,
with rates of change unprecedented in the past. Not sure how even you
still don't understand this.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Once again, what happened 100,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago, or
> even 1,000 years ago, doesn't inform what is happening now.

Good dog!

You're *Very* well trained!

In the real world though, outside the propaganda, comparing the
Holocene interglacial to the Eemian interglacial is valid. Comparing
the Holocene interglacial to itself is not.

> Instead,
> what is happening now are effects resulting from anthropogenic causes

That is a "Conclusions" -- an article of faith -- derived from the
exposure to extensive propaganda. If you look at the Eemian
interglacial, study what an interglacial WITHOUT fossil fuels
looks like, humans have cooled the planet.

Actually, if you look at totally normal and natural peaks in
temperature WITHIN the Holocene, and compare them to
today, we have cooled the planet.

It's like this: You lend me $100. I pay you back $90. You
aren't $90 richer, you're $10 poorer. And just like that it got
cold during "The Little Ice Age." When that ended it warmed
up, but not by as much as was lost during "The Little Ice
Age."

This has to do with the fact that fossil fuels are cooling
engines. First of there's the particles, "Particulates." They're
tiny but when you start gushing giga tons of them into the
atmosphere they add up. They shade the planet. Again,
only by the most minuscule amount but, given the giga tons.
there's not a tiny amount of surface area.

AND THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A LOT!

Even worse though is the sulfur. The sulfur doesn't shade
the planet, no, it reduces the amount of sunlight getting
here in the first place.

Sulfur converts into an aerosol in the atmosphere, reflecting
the sun's energy back out into space so it never even gets
to the point where it's shaded...

> with rates of change unprecedented in the past.

This is bullshit. It's ignorance. It's a religious believe,
contrary to facts. The climate has changed overnight, and
on a geologic time scale this is even frequent!

Cooling is the more common event. Volcanoes are
massive climate drivers, and the cool. A very large volcano
can easily eclipse any kind of "Emissions" we humans
could manage, plunging the earth into what is called a
"Volcanic Winter."

Hmm. Billowing all that CO2, sulfur & particles into the
atmosphere plunges us into a "Volcanic Winter," by far
less and it overheats the planet?

Stupidity.

If you knew anything about human origins you'd already
know that you're full of shit.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721666107169292289

[jillery]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 03:40:03 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Once again, what happened 100,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago, or
>> even 1,000 years ago, doesn't inform what is happening now.
>
>Good dog!
>
>You're *Very* well trained!
>
>In the real world though, outside the propaganda, comparing the
>Holocene interglacial to the Eemian interglacial is valid.

The Eemian interglacial doesn't inform the rapid changes happening
now.

>Comparing the Holocene interglacial to itself is not.

The Holocene interglacial doesn't inform the rapid changes happening
now.

>> Instead,
>> what is happening now are effects resulting from anthropogenic causes
>
>That is a "Conclusions" -- an article of faith -- derived from the
>exposure to extensive propaganda.

"that" refers to measured data of rapid sea level rise and
acidification, polar and glacial ice loss, and atmospheric CO2
increase. To call these data an article of faith is the propaganda
here.

>If you look at the Eemian
>interglacial, study what an interglacial WITHOUT fossil fuels
>looks like, humans have cooled the planet.

Why focus on the Eemian interglacial? The Earth was even warmer
during the PETM, which makes your Eemian interglacial look arctic in
comparison. You're rationalizing an arbitrary starting point.

>Actually, if you look at totally normal and natural peaks in
>temperature WITHIN the Holocene, and compare them to
>today, we have cooled the planet.

The present is WITHIN the Holocene. You previously claimed that was
an invalid comparison.

But go ahead and cite any data from "WITHIN the Holocene" that shows
rapid changes similar to what's happening now.

>It's like this: You lend me $100. I pay you back $90. You
>aren't $90 richer, you're $10 poorer. And just like that it got
>cold during "The Little Ice Age." When that ended it warmed
>up, but not by as much as was lost during "The Little Ice
>Age."

Incorrect. The more accurate and relevant analogy is instead of
giving me $90 at once, you give me $1 a year for 90 years. There's a
difference.

>This has to do with the fact that fossil fuels are cooling
>engines. First of there's the particles, "Particulates." They're
>tiny but when you start gushing giga tons of them into the
>atmosphere they add up. They shade the planet. Again,
>only by the most minuscule amount but, given the giga tons.
>there's not a tiny amount of surface area.
>
>AND THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A LOT!
>
>Even worse though is the sulfur. The sulfur doesn't shade
>the planet, no, it reduces the amount of sunlight getting
>here in the first place.
>
>Sulfur converts into an aerosol in the atmosphere, reflecting
>the sun's energy back out into space so it never even gets
>to the point where it's shaded...

What you describe above is similar to the conditions of most populated
areas before WWII, due to burning coal. Look up acid rain. Compare
the conditions in London then with Peking today.

>> with rates of change unprecedented in the past.
>
>This is bullshit. It's ignorance. It's a religious believe,
>contrary to facts. The climate has changed overnight, and
>on a geologic time scale this is even frequent!
>
>Cooling is the more common event. Volcanoes are
>massive climate drivers, and the cool. A very large volcano
>can easily eclipse any kind of "Emissions" we humans
>could manage, plunging the earth into what is called a
>"Volcanic Winter."

<https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate>
*****************************************
In 2010, human activities were responsible for a projected 35 billion
metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions. All studies to date of global
volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial
and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon
dioxide released currently by human activities.
****************************************

>Hmm. Billowing all that CO2, sulfur & particles into the
>atmosphere plunges us into a "Volcanic Winter," by far
>less and it overheats the planet?
>
>Stupidity.
>
>If you knew anything about human origins you'd already
>know that you're full of shit.

I agree that your comments above are of the same quality as your
comments about human origins.

[Gary Hurd]

On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 3:30:25 AM UTC-7, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> We're at the point where the older the cite, the
> more accurate, as "News" and "Science" are
> now gone. Everything serves an agenda.
>
> You can say "Politics" but it's probably most
> accurate to say "Agenda." Everything
> masquerading as "News" or "Science" serves
> an agenda at this point. So...
>
> Here's a story about a peer reviewed, "Scientific"
> study that was published in the journal "Science"
> back in 2006. But it's behind a paywall today,
> assuming you can even get it:
>

Apparently you are too stupid to independently check sources.
Here:
"Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise"
Science, 24 Mar 2006, Vol 311, Issue 5768, pp. 1747-1750
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1115159

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> The Eemian interglacial doesn't inform the rapid changes happening
> now.

#1.
There are no rapid changes happening now.

The climate history of the planet is littered with vastly more
significant changes occurring orders of magnitude faster than
the Gwobull Warbling narrative pretends.

#2.
If you want to know if human industry is warming the planet,
a comparison to an interglacial without human industry is
valid. But you idiots don't do that. instead, you compare a
tiny unrepresentative sampling of the Holocene interglacial
to itself, and pretend that it doesn't match.

It's not science.

But, the peer reviewed journal "Science" did publish a study
that claimed Gwobull Warbling was going to warm us all
the way up to the planet's normal and natural highs.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721666107169292289

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally unstable, Gary Hurd wrote:

> Apparently you are too stupid

Speaking of which...

> "Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise"
> Science, 24 Mar 2006, Vol 311, Issue 5768, pp. 1747-1750
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1115159

Quote:

"Polar warming by the year 2100 may reach levels similar to those
of 130,000 to 127,000 years ago that were associated with sea
levels several meters above modern levels; both the Greenland Ice
Sheet and portions of the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be vulnerable."

So EXACTLY as I stated: Gwobull Warbling is so bad that the
earth might -- and I did say /Might/ -- reach its normal and
natural high temperatures.

Gwobull Warbling is so bad that the planet may warm all the
up to exactly where it was more than 100,000 years before
fossil fuels.

What's wrong with you? Why this emotional need for the
propaganda to be right?



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721666107169292289

[jillery]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 15:21:22 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> The Eemian interglacial doesn't inform the rapid changes happening
>> now.
>
>#1.
>There are no rapid changes happening now.

Between 1960 and 2020, measured atmospheric CO2 increased from 320 ppm
to 420 ppm:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere>

Also:
<https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/>
**************************************
Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and
see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant
past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past
400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per
million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they
hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2
levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history.
***************************************

According to the measured evidence, there has never been a time in the
past 400,000 years, which includes the Eemian interglacial, when
atmospheric CO2 increased 31% in 60 years. IOW an unprecedented level
reached at an unprecedent rate.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Between 1960 and 2020, measured atmospheric CO2 increased from 320 ppm
> to 420 ppm:

The planet had entered a cold period around WWII, and didn't
snap out of it until the very late 1970s.

Of course if CO2 was a climate driver then it should have been
heating up that whole time...

But Gwobull Warbling is idiocy. You're comparing a tiny,
unrepresentative sliver of the Holocene to itself, pretending
it doesn't match, and then crying "Gwobull Warbling!"

A legitimate comparison would be between the Holocene
and the Eemian, but that proves your religion FALSE. So
you avoid that like hell.

> Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and
> see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant
> past.

Depends on where you look and how distant we're talking about.

Glaciers flow. And the whole Quaternary Period, the ice age, only
goes back something like 2.6 million years...

> They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
> atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past
> 400,000 years.

And yet it was a lot warmer during much of that time. So it can't be
CO2 or it all would be cooler. It has to be something else.

> During ice ages

You mean interglacials? Because there's only been one ice age for
over 2 million years, and you're pretending to care about the last
0.4 million... so you must mean "The Ice Age." Singular.

> CO2 levels were around 200 parts per
> million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they
> hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph).

And yet if we look back at the last interglacial, it was warmer. Sea
level was higher. And the dire predictions of the propagandists --
PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS -- is that
Gwobull Warbling may get as hot as the planets normal, natural
temperatures.

Wow.

> According to the measured evidence

You're out of your mind.

It was warmer during the Eemian, as warm as the propaganda
claims Gwobull Warbling can go, and you already testified that
CO2 was significantly lower. So CO2 wasn't driving the
temperatures.

And never have.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721666107169292289

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 07:21:52 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Between 1960 and 2020, measured atmospheric CO2 increased from 320 ppm
>> to 420 ppm:
>
>The planet had entered a cold period around WWII, and didn't
>snap out of it until the very late 1970s.
>
>Of course if CO2 was a climate driver then it should have been
>heating up that whole time...

Incorrect. Recall what you wrote about sulfur and particulates.

>But Gwobull Warbling is idiocy. You're comparing a tiny,
>unrepresentative sliver of the Holocene to itself, pretending
>it doesn't match, and then crying "Gwobull Warbling!"

My previous comments above don't compare anything. They refer to an
absolute measure which you conveniently handwave away.

>A legitimate comparison would be between the Holocene
>and the Eemian, but that proves your religion FALSE. So
>you avoid that like hell.

Once again:
<https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/>
**************************************

Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and
see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant

past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the

atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past

400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per

million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they

hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2
levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history.
***************************************

According to the measured evidence, there has never been a time in the

past 400,000 years, which includes the Eemian interglacial aka I did
NOT avoid it, when atmospheric CO2 reached that unprecedented level,
which you conveniently handwave away.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> JTEM trolled:

> >Of course if CO2 was a climate driver then it should have been
> >heating up that whole time...

> Incorrect.

You're WRONG. As always. In fact, The Greta Gospels have the
imaginary Gwobull Warbling beginning in the 1800s.. THE EARLY
1800s.

1830 is the current sermon.

The claim is that emissions hit 1 billion tons annually, touching
off Gwobull Warbling.

So you're wrong. You're actually ignorant of your own position!
You don't even know what you're defending, you're so ignorant!

...you don't know what science is, either, thinking you can
compare something to itself...

We know it was warmer in the past, when CO2 was significantly
lower. Which is why you idiots insists on staring at the present.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/7035801057

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 13:02:35 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> JTEM trolled:
>
>> >Of course if CO2 was a climate driver then it should have been
>> >heating up that whole time...
>
>> Incorrect.
>
>You're WRONG.

The following makes sense only if CO2 was the only thing that controls
Earth's climate. Since there are many other factors, the following is
complete nonsense.

>As always. In fact, The Greta Gospels have the
>imaginary Gwobull Warbling beginning in the 1800s.. THE EARLY
>1800s.
>
>1830 is the current sermon.
>
>The claim is that emissions hit 1 billion tons annually, touching
>off Gwobull Warbling.
>
>So you're wrong. You're actually ignorant of your own position!
>You don't even know what you're defending, you're so ignorant!
>
> ...you don't know what science is, either, thinking you can
>compare something to itself...
>
>We know it was warmer in the past, when CO2 was significantly
>lower. Which is why you idiots insists on staring at the present.

--

[Gary Hurd]

I like collecting examples of internet goofballs, the "somebodysdad" goof is Joe "Sharon" Gallien AKA "Sharon" the "retired marine biologist," AKA "Joe G," AKA "Joe the Joke."

Is "JTEM is my hero" another spasm? Their jerk-off spew seems similar.

[jillery]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 19:12:18 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net>
wrote:

>I like collecting examples of internet goofballs, the "somebodysdad" goof is Joe "Sharon" Gallien AKA "Sharon" the "retired marine biologist," AKA "Joe G," AKA "Joe the Joke."
>
>Is "JTEM is my hero" another spasm? Their jerk-off spew seems similar.

JTEM is a type-specimen. This makes me wonder why so many posters who
act as if they know better, would choose to ape him.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> The following

You're a fraud. You don't even know what science is. Harvest
headlines, pretend to be thinking when you can't even
comprehend the stories you're mistaking for science. This
thread starts with one such example.

The claim was that, unchecked, your precious Gwobull
Warbling might make things just as was warm that they were
more than 100,000 years before industrialization... or logging,
for that matter.

: the Earth will likely be atleast 4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer

: than present, with the Arctic at least as warm as it was
: during the last interglaciation, 129,000 to 116,000 years ago,
: when sea levels were about 20 feet (six meters) higher than
: the present.

There you. No such thing as Gwobull Warblng... "Omg! The
planet is well below it's normal and natural highs! Quick!
Impoverish billions before we all don't freeze!"



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721968221374365696/saw-a-ghost-today-in-fact-saw-two

[JTEM is my hero]

Gary Hurd wrote:

> I like

Who gives a fuck? Seriously. Who asked you to tie on your
narcissism and talk about your worthless feelings?

Grow up. Get medicated. Join a therapy group or three to
help you work out your social issues.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721968221374365696/saw-a-ghost-today-in-fact-saw-two

[JTEM is my hero]

Unstable, frightfully stupid but not named jillery wrote:

> JTEM is

...your god.

You are so utterly defeated at the hands of JTEM, and
crippled by your disorder that you have to resort to
rotating sock puppets and distractions...

You can't compare an unrepresentative sample of
the Holocene to itself and determine that humans are
changing the climate. It's impossible. What you need,
emotionally, to be true just plain isn't. It's not science.
It's not how anyone with an interest in science, instead
of just hoping to be "Right" for a change, would
investigate the claim.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721968221374365696/saw-a-ghost-today-in-fact-saw-two

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 09:10:19 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> The following
>
>You're a fraud.

Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

>You don't even know what science is. Harvest
>headlines, pretend to be thinking when you can't even
>comprehend the stories you're mistaking for science. This
>thread starts with one such example.
>
>The claim was that, unchecked, your precious Gwobull
>Warbling might make things just as was warm that they were
>more than 100,000 years before industrialization... or logging,
>for that matter.

Not my claim, nor the claim of the article I cited:

>><https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/>
>>**************************************
>>Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and
>>see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant
>>past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
>>atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past
>>400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per
>>million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they
>>hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2
>>levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history.
>>***************************************

[JTEM is my hero]

Emotionally disturbed, mentally chellenged, jillery wrote:

> >The claim was that, unchecked, your precious Gwobull
> >Warbling might make things just as was warm that they were
> >more than 100,000 years before industrialization... or logging,
> >for that matter.

> Not my claim

It was what was published in a respected peer reviewed journal.

You used to care about that.

Wait. Only kidding. You only give a shit when it involved
confirmation bias.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722141766714818560

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 07:20:16 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Emotionally disturbed, mentally chellenged, jillery wrote:
>
>> >The claim was that, unchecked, your precious Gwobull
>> >Warbling might make things just as was warm that they were
>> >more than 100,000 years before industrialization... or logging,
>> >for that matter.
>
>> Not my claim
>
>It was what was published in a respected peer reviewed journal.

Cite... oh wait... you don't know how... nevermind.

[JTEM is my hero]

Confessed shit head, jillery wrote:

> JTEM pointed out:

> >It was what was published in a respected peer reviewed journal.

> Cite... oh wait... you don't know how... nevermind.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Aldz7tj5myg/m/BdKVMWt2AwAJ

That's the original post -- the first post in the thread.

You just admitted that you have zero reading comprehension
and retention. But I knew that already.

Congratulations on exposing the fact that you're a fraud, again.

Switch handles. Attack me for being accurate. You're good at
that.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721968221374365696/saw-a-ghost-today-in-fact-saw-two

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 08:19:37 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Confessed shit head, jillery wrote:

Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Yeah, I get

No. If you could "Get" anything, you would stop demanding cites
for things already cited, or saying "You first" for things which I
had already done, first.

The truly odd thing about the Gwobull Warbling hoax: The loss
of fossil fuels will warm the planet!

As our fossil fuels no longer darken our skies, more sunlight
will reach the surface. As we stop billowing the sulfur into the
atmosphere, we won't be bouncing the sun's energy back out
into space. We will get warmer.

The hoax, the Gwobull Warbling scam is actually going to
create, not avoid, Gwobull Warbling.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721968221374365696/saw-a-ghost-today-in-fact-saw-two

[jillery]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 05:27:41 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

>As our fossil fuels no longer darken our skies, more sunlight
>will reach the surface. As we stop billowing the sulfur into the
>atmosphere, we won't be bouncing the sun's energy back out
>into space. We will get warmer.

Your comment above ignores the well-documented fact that the
percentage of atmospheric CO2 necessarily increases the amount of heat
the atmosphere can hold.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Your comment

You can't deconstruct the problem. You don't understand how to
approach things scientifically. You can't grasp what is and is not
a valid test. What you're doing in the case of Gwobull Warbling is
exactly the same you do for every topic: Read a headline.

That's it.

You actually "Argue" that if we want to know what the climate
should look like, in the absence of human industry, we shouldn't
look at the climate back before human history, we should compare
two points within the exact same periods and pretend there's
some reason why they should match.

> above ignores the well-documented fact that the
> percentage of atmospheric CO2 necessarily increases the amount of heat
> the atmosphere can hold.

This is not true at all. Rising temperatures cause a rise in CO2.

But even this is overly simplistic because you don't understand
the basics. Like, the permafrost isn't permanent. In fact, it didn't
exist during the last interglacial, what you think of as the "Ice
Age." Because the ice changed the way the earth circulated
energy, so places we believe should have been much colder than
they are now were not.

Test this. Pretend you have "Scientific" curiosity and test this.

Google: ice age animals melting out of permafrost

From there, either conclude that ice age animals had Star Trek
transporter technology, and enjoyed beaming each other into
the permafrost, or it's all been fucking bullshit.

"Oh, look! LOOK! Siberia is returning to what it looked like during
the last ice age! Clearly we're burning up!"

Normal people, those who are not dizzy with propaganda, would
think a return to ice age conditions would indicate the opposite
of warming...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722572844550275072

[jillery]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:45:20 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Your comment above ignores the well-documented fact that the

>> percentage of atmospheric CO2 necessarily increases the amount of heat
>> the atmosphere can hold.
>
>This is not true at all. Rising temperatures cause a rise in CO2.

Q1: What do you think causes the initial rise in temperature?
Q2: What do you think is the source for increased CO2?

>You actually "Argue" that if we want to know what the climate
>should look like, in the absence of human industry, we shouldn't
>look at the climate back before human history, we should compare
>two points within the exact same periods and pretend there's
>some reason why they should match.

You're confused. I made no such argument.

>But even this is overly simplistic because you don't understand
>the basics. Like, the permafrost isn't permanent. In fact, it didn't
>exist during the last interglacial, what you think of as the "Ice
>Age."

You're confused. Nobody thinks the last interglacial was the "Ice
Age". Do you understand what "interglacial" even means?

>Because the ice changed the way the earth circulated
>energy, so places we believe should have been much colder than
>they are now were not.

Q: how does miles-thick ice not cool things down?

>Test this. Pretend you have "Scientific" curiosity and test this.
>
>Google: ice age animals melting out of permafrost
>
>From there, either conclude that ice age animals had Star Trek
>transporter technology, and enjoyed beaming each other into
>the permafrost, or it's all been fucking bullshit.

Or conclude that ice age animals died in bogs which later became
frozen during a Ice Age; no transporter required.

>"Oh, look! LOOK! Siberia is returning to what it looked like during
>the last ice age! Clearly we're burning up!"

Returning to the last ice age implies getting colder, not hotter.

>Normal people, those who are not dizzy with propaganda, would
>think a return to ice age conditions would indicate the opposite
>of warming...

So you recognize you're not normal. That's the first step to healing.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Q1: What do you think causes the initial rise in temperature?

Normal fluctuations as seen throughout history and prehistory
works just fine.

Want something more specific: The end of the "Little Ice Age."

Even more specific: The sun. Fluctuations in the amount of
energy from the sun, and how it is distributed.

Even more specific: This is a goddamn interglacial. As long
as it goes on, thermal dynamics should be warming things.

The longer it lasts, the longer heat has to move from the
air into the water and ground.

If you weren't a fraud you'd know this. Because it's all recorded
in the history of mankind. And pre history. The entire history of
the genus Homo is pretty much limited to the Quaternary
Period, the current ice age, all the swings of the glacial/interglacial
cycle...

> Q2: What do you think is the source for increased CO2?

There's no increase in CO2. Even fossil fuels are only storing it.

Most of our CO2 comes from things like Volcanoes.

Breathing is a great source. We've like doubled the amount of
CO2 that supposedly touched off Gwobull Warbling in the first
place, just from our increase in population and all the breathing
people do.

Truth is though, it's not warmer. We just ended a triple-dip
La Nina, COLDEE THAN NORMAL ocean temperatures, with
the propaganda screeching about "Record highs" the whole
time.

"IT'S SO HOT THAT IT'S COLD!"

The 1930s were were. Not the record, but much warmer.

The previous interglacial, turning the clock back more than
100,000 years before fossil fuels, was warmer temperatures
and sea level about 16 feet higher.

That's the normal and natural "High." We are BELOW the
planet's normal and natural temperatures. Sea level is LOWER
than the normal and natural peaks.

Common sense says that if we're not at our normal and
natural peaks then we're either past them already, and heading
into the next glacial period ("ice age") or we have yet to reach
the normal and natural peaks... we're overdue!

You need to be gullible. You need to be the opposite of "Science
based" or oriented or whatever you pretend to be, in order to
look at the facts and conclude "GWOBULL WARBLING!!!"






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722573580036177920

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 09:32:50 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Q1: What do you think causes the initial rise in temperature?
>
>Normal fluctuations as seen throughout history and prehistory
>works just fine.
>
>Want something more specific: The end of the "Little Ice Age."

That's not specific at all. That just shifts the question to "What
caused the end of the Little Ice Age?".

>Even more specific: The sun. Fluctuations in the amount of
>energy from the sun, and how it is distributed.
>
>Even more specific: This is a goddamn interglacial. As long
>as it goes on, thermal dynamics should be warming things.

Once again, you continue to ignore the unprecedented rapid increase in
warming. Why is that?

>The longer it lasts, the longer heat has to move from the
>air into the water and ground.
>
>If you weren't a fraud you'd know this. Because it's all recorded
>in the history of mankind. And pre history. The entire history of
>the genus Homo is pretty much limited to the Quaternary
>Period, the current ice age, all the swings of the glacial/interglacial
>cycle...
>
>> Q2: What do you think is the source for increased CO2?
>
>There's no increase in CO2. Even fossil fuels are only storing it.

To refresh your convenient amnesia, you wrote:

"Rising temperatures cause a rise in CO2."

Stop waffling and answer, where does YOUR rising CO2 come from?

>Most of our CO2 comes from things like Volcanoes.

Incorrect. The amount of CO2 from volcanoes is well-documented, as
are all natural sources, and all natural sources combine don't even
come close to the measured increase.

>Breathing is a great source. We've like doubled the amount of
>CO2 that supposedly touched off Gwobull Warbling in the first
>place, just from our increase in population and all the breathing
>people do.

Incorrect. CO2 from respiration is distinguishable by its isotopic
ratios.

>Truth is though, it's not warmer. We just ended a triple-dip
>La Nina, COLDEE THAN NORMAL ocean temperatures, with
>the propaganda screeching about "Record highs" the whole
>time.

Each La Nina has been warmer than the previous since at least the
1950s:
<https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/where-does-global-warming-go-during-la-ni%C3%B1a-0>

>"IT'S SO HOT THAT IT'S COLD!"
>
>The 1930s were were. Not the record, but much warmer.

Warmer than what? You don't say.

>The previous interglacial, turning the clock back more than
>100,000 years before fossil fuels, was warmer temperatures
>and sea level about 16 feet higher.

Incorrect, as I previously documented, which you conveniently ignored.
There were many "previous interglacials". Your obsession with the
previous one is a case of cherrypicking.

<https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/>

>That's the normal and natural "High." We are BELOW the
>planet's normal and natural temperatures. Sea level is LOWER
>than the normal and natural peaks.
>
>Common sense says that if we're not at our normal and
>natural peaks then we're either past them already, and heading
>into the next glacial period ("ice age") or we have yet to reach
>the normal and natural peaks... we're overdue!
>
>You need to be gullible. You need to be the opposite of "Science
>based" or oriented or whatever you pretend to be, in order to
>look at the facts and conclude "GWOBULL WARBLING!!!"

You sound like an imbecile desperately trying to rise to the level of
idiot.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> >Normal fluctuations as seen throughout history and prehistory
> >works just fine.
> >
> >Want something more specific: The end of the "Little Ice Age."

> That's not specific at all.

You're a fucking idiot.

By definition, when the "Little Ice Age" ended it had to grow
warmer. When did the Little Ice Age end? Why, golly, pretty
much exactly when the gospels claim that Gwobull Warbling
began.

First off, you being a raging jackass, it never occurred to you
but it would be a good thing if the earth warmed. We're in
an ice age. It's cold. It's colder now than when Neanderthals
were ruling Europe, back during the previous interglacial.

Sea level is about 5 meters too low right now!

"Warmer" would be good. "Warmer" is normal for the earth.
If we could geoengineer an end to the ice age we would
be making the planet warmer AND we would be sparing the
billions of lives that are going to be lost during the next
glacial period... which is already overdue.

not only is the data faked, not only is it distinctly NOT
scientific to compare un unrepresentative slice of the
Holocene to itself (only to declare it doesn't match) but
the very premise of a warmer earth being bad is idiotic.

You are a jackass. You have zero scientific curiosity,
you have no skepticism what so ever, you regurgitate
headlines and convince yourself that this makes you
smart.







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722572844550275072

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 23:50:05 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> >Normal fluctuations as seen throughout history and prehistory
>> >works just fine.
>> >
>> >Want something more specific: The end of the "Little Ice Age."
>
>> That's not specific at all.
>
>You're a fucking idiot.

Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Yeah, I get

So break it down for us. In the last million years, how often has sea level been
is low as it is not, and when did this happen.

You pretend you're educated. You pretend you're well informed. So spell it out





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721968221374365696/saw-a-ghost-today-in-fact-saw-two

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 19:18:52 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I get
>
>So break it down for us. In the last million years, how often has sea level been
>is low as it is not, and when did this happen.

If you meant to type:

"how often has sea level been as low as it is now"

<https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506 >
*****************************************
As you can observe in these graphs, sea level has been highly variable
and “periodic” with sea levels higher during warm periods and low
during cold periods. In fact, sea levels about 18,000 years ago were
as much as 120 meters below present.
*******************************************

Now your turn. Break it down for us, how that shows AGW is fake... oh

wait... you don't know how... nevermind.

[JTEM is my hero]

Fucking idiot who isn't even named jillery wrote:

> <https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506 >
> *****************************************
> As you can observe in these graphs

You're such a useless fraud but, sea level was about 16 feet
HIGHER during the previous interglacial. How does that compare
to your graph?

"Knowledge follows interest."

If you had any interest in human origins, and you're at least 30,
you know WHAT the glacial/interglacial cycle is, and you know
for a fact that the previous interglacial was a lot warmer.

BECAUSE you couldn't avoid learning this as it was the environment
where they Neanderthals thrived... the cold-adapted Neanderthals
THRIVED in a warmer climate than we're experiencing...

Again, Knowledge follows interests.

You're so fucked up you can't even see that they seem to have
REVERSED cold and warm periods. Glacial periods, what you
nimrods call "Ice Ages," are significantly longer than interglacials.

Your graph doesn't show this.

Knowledge follows interest.

You're intellectual dog shit.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723026966788423680

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 11:47:54 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Fucking idiot who isn't even named jillery wrote:

Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

>> <https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506 >
>> *****************************************
>> As you can observe in these graphs
>
>You're such a useless fraud but, sea level was about 16 feet
>HIGHER during the previous interglacial. How does that compare
>to your graph?

To refresh your convenient amnesia, your challenge was:

"how often has sea level been as low as it is now"

The cited graph provides those answers.

But since you asked, the previous interglacial was about 130K years
ago. The cited graph shows mean sea level then was higher than
present. You're welcome.

>"Knowledge follows interest."
>
>If you had any interest in human origins, and you're at least 30,
>you know WHAT the glacial/interglacial cycle is, and you know
>for a fact that the previous interglacial was a lot warmer.

That's what I said.

>BECAUSE you couldn't avoid learning this as it was the environment
>where they Neanderthals thrived... the cold-adapted Neanderthals
>THRIVED in a warmer climate than we're experiencing...

Neanderthals adapted to the cold during glacial periods, not
inter-glacial periods.


>Again, Knowledge follows interests.


Your post shows you have zero knowledge and interest in this topic.

>You're so fucked up you can't even see that they seem to have
>REVERSED cold and warm periods.

The cited graph shows no such thing. Colder periods correlate with
lower than average sea levels.

>Glacial periods, what you
>nimrods call "Ice Ages," are significantly longer than interglacials.
>
>Your graph doesn't show this.

The cited graph shows brief periods where mean sea level was higher
than present, and much longer periods where mean sea level was much
lower. This answers your previous challenge. To correlate the cited
graph to glacial and inter-glacial periods, one has to know when those
periods happened. Apparently you don't know and you have no interest
in knowing.

>Knowledge follows interest.
>
>You're intellectual dog shit.

And you're a willfully stupid troll.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

So in your alternative state, only stupid people who are trolls don't
believe your name is jillary... lower case 'j'.

You, lady, are 19 shades of FUCKED UP.

> >> <https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506 >
> >> *****************************************
> >> As you can observe in these graphs
> >
> >You're such a useless fraud but, sea level was about 16 feet
> >HIGHER during the previous interglacial. How does that compare
> >to your graph?

> To refresh your

It was a simple question, though perhaps not simple enough for
someone as retarded as you. But I'll try again:

See level was higher during the previous interglacial. It was approximately
5 meters higher, a little over 16 feet. But does your graph show sea level
to be lower or higher during the previous interglacial?

HINT: It places it lower. Your graph places sea level at present HIGHER
than sea level during the previous interglacial, even though this is not
true at all.

Your cite is debunked. And not just your "Cite" but you are debunked.
You never read it. You never even looked at the picture, like a good
little special needs student.

As always, you cherry picked something that you thought might
contradict me. You never cared about the topic, you have no interest
in fact, this is all about you. You just wanted to "Get" me as you're so
fucking stupid that, once again, you got yourself.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723026966788423680

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 09:55:43 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.
>
>So in your alternative state, only stupid people who are trolls don't
>believe your name is jillary... lower case 'j'.
>
>You, lady, are 19 shades of FUCKED UP.

Yeah, I also get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

>> >> <https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506 >
>> >> *****************************************
>> >> As you can observe in these graphs
>> >
>> >You're such a useless fraud but, sea level was about 16 feet
>> >HIGHER during the previous interglacial. How does that compare
>> >to your graph?
>
>> To refresh your
>
>It was a simple question, though perhaps not simple enough for
>someone as retarded as you. But I'll try again:

When did you try the first time?

>See level was higher during the previous interglacial. It was approximately
>5 meters higher, a little over 16 feet. But does your graph show sea level
>to be lower or higher during the previous interglacial?
>
>HINT: It places it lower.

Incorrect. The cited graph explicitly identifies average sea level
during the last interglacial to be higher than current average sea
level.

>Your graph places sea level at present HIGHER
>than sea level during the previous interglacial, even though this is not
>true at all.

You continue to show you have no knowledge and no interest in reading
graphs.

[JTEM is my hero]

Willfully stupid troll, jillery wrote:

> > You, lady, are 19 shades of FUCKED UP.

> I also get that a lot

You certainly do.

> >It was a simple question, though perhaps not simple enough for
> >someone as retarded as you. But I'll try again:
> >

> > [Sea] level was higher during the previous interglacial. It was approximately

> >5 meters higher, a little over 16 feet. But does your graph show sea level
> >to be lower or higher during the previous interglacial?
> >
> >HINT: It places it lower.

> Incorrect.

You mentally ill jackass:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg

That's your graph. It unambiguously places sea level higher NOW
than during the previous interglacial. But reality is the opposite.
Sea level some 5 meters or so higher -- a little more than 16 feet
higher -- during the previous interglacial.

You're just to mentally ill to accept reality.

You made a fool out of yourself. Again,

I have no patience for you. I'm willing to rub your node in it all
day every day, and I probably will.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721968221374365696/saw-a-ghost-today-in-fact-saw-two

[jillery]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 13:48:02 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled yet another
self-parody:

>Willfully stupid troll, jillery wrote:
>
>> > You, lady, are 19 shades of FUCKED UP.
>

>> I also get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.
>
>You certainly do.


At least you agree about that. Now accept the rest of reality.

>> >It was a simple question, though perhaps not simple enough for
>> >someone as retarded as you. But I'll try again:
>> >
>> > [Sea] level was higher during the previous interglacial. It was approximately
>> >5 meters higher, a little over 16 feet. But does your graph show sea level
>> >to be lower or higher during the previous interglacial?
>> >
>> >HINT: It places it lower.
>
>> Incorrect.
>
>You mentally ill jackass:

Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

>https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg


Thank you for reposting my cite you previously deleted.

>That's your graph. It unambiguously places sea level higher NOW
>than during the previous interglacial.

It unambiguously does no such thing. What part of "Mean sea level at
present" do you not understand?

>But reality is the opposite.
>Sea level some 5 meters or so higher -- a little more than 16 feet
>higher -- during the previous interglacial.

Learn to read for comprehension.

>You're just to mentally ill to accept reality.
>
>You made a fool out of yourself. Again,
>
>I have no patience for you. I'm willing to rub your node in it all
>day every day, and I probably will.

And you're proud of it.

[JTEM is my hero]

Cowering behind a rotating sock puppet, jillery wrote:

> >https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg

Your "Cite" places sea level at present HIGHER than during the previous
interglacial, and this is false.

Your "Cite" is pretending that sea level is higher right now than during
the previous interglacial, and that is a lie.

You are a fucking idiot who never even noticed that the cite is bullshit.

You, being a loser, cherry picked something you never read, never looked
at and simply thought you might contradict me with it.

You're a low life who seeks the negative attention that used to pass for
love in your childhood.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723706649198690304

[jillery]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 23:54:04 -0700 (PDT), JTEM continued to troll his
self-parody:

>
>Cowering behind a rotating sock puppet, jillery wrote:
>
>> >https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg
>
>Your "Cite" places sea level at present HIGHER than during the previous
>interglacial,

Incorrect. The "previous interglacial" was approximately 130Kya. The
cited graph explicitly shows mean sea level at that time higher than
"MEAN SEA LEVEL AT PRESENT". Not sure how even you *still* don't
understand this.


> and this is false.


Yes, your comment is false.

>Your "Cite" is pretending that sea level is higher right now than during
>the previous interglacial,

Incorrect. You're pretending you know what you're talking about.

>and that is a lie.

Yes, your comment is a lie.

>You are a fucking idiot who never even noticed that the cite is bullshit.
>
>You, being a loser, cherry picked something you never read, never looked
>at and simply thought you might contradict me with it.
>
>You're a low life who seeks the negative attention that used to pass for
>love in your childhood.

Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls. Try to post
something intelligent, if only for the novelty of the experience.

[JTEM is my hero]

Low life and blithering idiot cowering behind a sock puppet, jillery wrote:

> JTEM rubbed the mental case's nose in the shit again:

> https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg

Your "Cite" places sea level LOWER during the previous interglacial. This is
false. It's fake. Sea level was approximately 5 meters higher, a tad over 16
feet higher, during the previous interglacial. Instead of admitting your stupid
mistake, instead of admitting how gullible you were, you doubled down on
your mental illness. You pretended that the image showing sea level LOWER
during the previous interglacial is not showing this.

You're just a mental case acting out.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723733228961382400

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:03:50 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled with yet
another self-parody:

>Low life and blithering idiot cowering behind a sock puppet, jillery wrote:
>
>> JTEM rubbed the mental case's nose in the shit again:
>
>> https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg
>
>Your "Cite" places sea level LOWER during the previous interglacial.

Once again, no it doesn't. You either don't know what you mean by "the
previous interglacial, or you don't comprehend written English, or
both.

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally fucked up jillery wrote:
> Blessed JTEM bestowed upon us thusly:

> >> JTEM rubbed the mental case's nose in the shit again:
> >
> >> https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg
> >
> >Your "Cite" places sea level LOWER during the previous interglacial.

> Once again

We're not arguing here. If there's anyone other than yet another product of
your deeply disturbed mind here, and they look, they can see you're full of
shit.

Your "Cite" places sea level during the last interglacial LOWER than the
present interglacial, even though the opposite is true. Gwobull Warbling
genuinely is propaganda.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723946617934348289

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 21:07:24 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Mentally fucked up jillery wrote:
>> Blessed JTEM bestowed upon us thusly:
>
>> >> JTEM rubbed the mental case's nose in the shit again:
>> >
>> >> https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg
>> >
>> >Your "Cite" places sea level LOWER during the previous interglacial.
>

>> Once again, no it doesn't.
>

>We're not arguing here.

You're right about that. l'm stating facts. You're spewing willful
stupidity.

[JTEM is my hero]

SEVERELY disordered but not named jillery wrote:

> >> >> JTEM rubbed the mental case's nose in the shit again:
> >> >
> >> >> https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg
> >> >
> >> >Your "Cite" places sea level LOWER during the previous interglacial.

> You're right about that.

Your "Cite" depicts sea level as being lower during the previous interglacial,
when the opposite is true.

Your narcissism bars you from conceding error.

This is funny. I am laughing at you.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723940383376162816/1976-cadillac-eldorado-convertible-for-sale-used

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 05:37:49 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled yet another
self-parody:

>> https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg

>
>Your "Cite" depicts sea level as being lower during the previous interglacial,

Q: When was the previous interglacial?
A: About 130K-115K years ago.

Q: What sea level does the cited graph show during that period?
A: *Above* present mean sea level.

You are unambiguously and categorically incorrect.

[JTEM is my hero]

Sick in the head, jillery lied:

> >> https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg
> >
> >Your "Cite" depicts sea level as being lower during the previous interglacial,

> Q: When was the previous interglacial?

Wait. Are you pretending that the previous peak in sea level was during the
glacial period? Is that your "Argument?"

You are SO fucked up, SUCH a fraud that you don't even know WHAT an
"Argument" is!

"No! The vastly _Lower_ peak is what my cite is pretending was the
peak during the previous interglacial."

Or...

"No! That spike which is close to but still visibly short of what they're
claiming for the Holocene? That was during the glacial period!"

Either way, you're a paste eating, hockey helmet wearing, short bus
riding imbecile.

...and I don't mean that in a good way, if you were wondering.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723733228961382400

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:39:59 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled yet another
self-parody:

>Sick in the head, jillery lied:
>
>> >> https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg
>> >
>> >Your "Cite" depicts sea level as being lower during the previous interglacial,
>
>> Q: When was the previous interglacial?

>> A: About 130K-115K years ago.
>

>Wait. Are you pretending that the previous peak in sea level was during the
>glacial period? Is that your "Argument?"

What part of INTER-glacial do you not understand? Clearly ou don't
know what you're talking about and are proud of it.

[JTEM is my hero]

Psycho, jillery wrote:

> >> >> https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg
> >> >
> >> >Your "Cite" depicts sea level as being lower during the previous interglacial,
> >
> >> Q: When was the previous interglacial?
> >> A: About 130K-115K years ago.

So you're "Arguing" that your cite is depicting a spike in sea level NOT
during the last interglacial, but during a glacial period.

Damn. You are TWISTED!

So does that sick, twisted excuse for a mind ever actually research shit?

Remember last year, the propaganda was ordering you to believe that
the Rhine river was running dry? You "Rocket Scientists" read the
headline then shit yourself silly. I Googled a webcam in Cologne (Koln)
Germany, overlooking the Rhine. It was perfectly normal. And today?

Google temperatures in Europe. They're cooler than New England. Much
cooler. Oh, Rome is slightly above average is meaningless, because
the term "Average" requires that some days are always going to be
higher, some lower...

You? You are divorced from the man you pretend to be. You're a fraud,
a disordered jackass.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723946617934348289

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 18:54:45 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled yet another
self-parody:

>

>Psycho, jillery wrote:
>
>> >> >> https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg
>> >> >
>> >> >Your "Cite" depicts sea level as being lower during the previous interglacial,
>> >
>> >> Q: When was the previous interglacial?
>> >> A: About 130K-115K years ago.
>
>So you're "Arguing" that your cite is depicting a spike in sea level NOT
>during the last interglacial, but during a glacial period.

If you were really this stupid, you would have died long ago.

[JTEM is my hero]

Nine shades of fucked up, jillery wrote:

> >> >> >> https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Your "Cite" depicts sea level as being lower during the previous interglacial,
> >> >
> >> >> Q: When was the previous interglacial?
> >> >> A: About 130K-115K years ago.
> >
> >So you're "Arguing" that your cite is depicting a spike in sea level NOT
> >during the last interglacial, but during a glacial period.

> If you were

You pretended that the last interglacial saw SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER sea
level, even though it was warmer and sea level was about 16 feet or more
higher. You're not identifying the second, the early spike in your "Cite" as
the previous interglacial. you're "Arguing" that the previous interglacial
was more recent, that it's represented by far LOWER sea level even though
it was higher...



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723946617934348289

[jillery]

For the last time, everything you post about what I argue is
unambiguously INCORRECT.

[JTEM is my hero]

Total psycho, jillery wrote:

> For the last time

Here's your cite again:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth107/files/Unit2/Mod4/Figure16.jpg

You're so fucked in the head that you're insisting that the second spike
in sea level, the one off on the right of your chart, is NOT placed during
the last interglacial. No, it's during the glacial period, what is popularly
known as the "Ice Age." You're so fucked up you're claiming that sea
level during the last interglacial was even LOWER than the idiotically
low level your chart places it!

Sea level during the previous interglacial was HIGHER, like 16 feet or
more higher. And your cite places it LOWER.

You're not smart. You're not some clever troll only pretending to be
a jackass. You're a troll cowering behind the rotating sock pupper
BECAUSE you're stupid and mentally unstable.

You can't admit your stupid mistake, and I will derive endless pleasure
from rubbing your face in the stink.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723706649198690304