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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 21:03:19 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

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...

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

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)