On 5/31/2022 8:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Welp, the debate is over. The science is settled.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/tj3xn84f44tcqjy/SeaLevel.jpg?dl=0

High tide? Low tide? Both? Don't care?

NYC tide is about 4 ft. AGW threatens an additional 2 ft.

On 6/1/2022 12:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <cqLlK.62673$GTEb.5002@fx48.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/31/2022 8:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> Welp, the debate is over. The science is settled.
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/tj3xn84f44tcqjy/SeaLevel.jpg?dl=0
>>
>> High tide? Low tide? Both? Don't care?
>
> The tide markers are in the pictures.
>
>> NYC tide is about 4 ft. AGW threatens an additional 2 ft.
>
> The sea level hasn't risen at the end of my block in any noticeable way
> in the 13 years I've lived here, either.

See "How to boil a frog"...

> High and low tides come to the
> same point now as they did then. But according to ManBearPig hysterics,
> the jetty rocks at the far end should be underwater by now.

You're seeing more than I am. Is an extra foot of tide (less than a
foot is alleged, to date) sufficient to submerge those rocks?

> I've got a friend who has worked as a longshoreman on docks all around
> the country and he'll tell you the water level hasn't changed at any of
> them for 100+ years.
>
> But the TV told me that if I pay money to the government, the weather
> will be gooder.

Even on TV -- and though no one's completely trustworthy -- I rely more
on scientists (who say what *might* happen) than on politicians (who
say, "Well, it hasn't happened YET...").

On 2022-06-01 1:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <nFMlK.62000$wIO9.38038@fx12.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2022 12:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <cqLlK.62673$GTEb.5002@fx48.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/31/2022 8:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> Welp, the debate is over. The science is settled.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/tj3xn84f44tcqjy/SeaLevel.jpg?dl=0
>>>>
>>>> High tide? Low tide? Both? Don't care?
>>>
>>> The tide markers are in the pictures.
>>>
>>>> NYC tide is about 4 ft. AGW threatens an additional 2 ft.
>>>
>>> The sea level hasn't risen at the end of my block in any noticeable
>>> way in the 13 years I've lived here, either.
>>
>> See "How to boil a frog"...
>
> Except the ManBearPig acolytes keep saying "In 10 years... apocalypse!"
> If that's the case, 13 years should bring (at a bare minimum) a
> perceptible difference.
>
>>> High and low tides come to the same point now as they did then.
>>> But according to ManBearPig hysterics, the jetty rocks at the far
>>> end should be underwater by now.
>>
>> You're seeing more than I am. Is an extra foot of tide (less than a
>> foot is alleged, to date) sufficient to submerge those rocks?
>
> Yes, it would be.
>
>>> I've got a friend who has worked as a longshoreman on docks all around
>>> the country and he'll tell you the water level hasn't changed at any of
>>> them for 100+ years.
>>>
>>> But the TV told me that if I pay money to the government, the weather
>>> will be gooder.
>>
>> Even on TV -- and though no one's completely trustworthy -- I rely more
>> on scientists (who say what *might* happen) than on politicians (who
>> say, "Well, it hasn't happened YET...").

Once in a while, you have to believe your OWN eyes rather than listening
to politicians or scientists, particularly when you're closer to the
problem than they are.

--
Rhino

On 2022-06-03 5:20 AM, kensi wrote:
> On 2022-06-03 4:05 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>> kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2022-06-03 12:53 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-06-01 12:04 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/31/2022 8:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> Welp, the debate is over. The science is settled.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/tj3xn84f44tcqjy/SeaLevel.jpg?dl=0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> High tide? Low tide? Both? Don't care?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The tide markers are in the pictures.
>>>>>
>>>>> *What* pictures? Though the link you posted *claims* to be a jpeg
>>>>> file,
>>>>> koOk, it seems to produce a blank HTML page instead.
>>>>
>>>> It works or me and worked for everyone else, dipshit. Go learn
>>>> computers
>>>> and get back to us.
>>>
>>> Your previous ridiculous dropbox memes have all loaded fine for me, and
>>> I didn't do anything differently this time, so you must have fucked this
>>> one up, kOok.
>>
>> Again, it works for me and it worked for everyone else, dipshit. Go
>> upgrade
>> your computer or your browser or both then get back to us, dipshit.
>
> Neither of them is out of date. The only one who can have done something
> different this time is you. Therefore you fucked it up.
>
> My logic is undeniable.
>
The fact that you think so reveals what a demented individual you are.

His pictures come up fine on my computer.

--
Rhino

On 2022-06-03 6:38 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2022-06-03 4:05 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>> kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-06-03 12:53 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> kensi <kkensington01-NOSPAM@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-06-01 12:04 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2022 8:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Welp, the debate is over. The science is settled.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/tj3xn84f44tcqjy/SeaLevel.jpg?dl=0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> High tide? Low tide? Both? Don't care?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The tide markers are in the pictures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *What* pictures? Though the link you posted *claims* to be a jpeg file,
>>>>>> koOk, it seems to produce a blank HTML page instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> It works or me and worked for everyone else, dipshit. Go learn computers
>>>>> and get back to us.
>>>>
>>>> Your previous ridiculous dropbox memes have all loaded fine for me, and
>>>> I didn't do anything differently this time, so you must have fucked this
>>>> one up, kOok.
>>>
>>> Again, it works for me and it worked for everyone else, dipshit. Go upgrade
>>> your computer or your browser or both then get back to us, dipshit.
>>
>> Neither of them is out of date. The only one who can have done something
>> different this time is you. Therefore you fucked it up.
>>
> Again, it works for me and it worked for everyone else. Obviously we're all
> more intelligent than you, dipshit.

Compost is more intelligent than the guy who calls himself "kensi" and
fancies himself a girl.

--
Rhino

On 6/3/2022 9:20 AM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2022-06-01 1:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <nFMlK.62000$wIO9.38038@fx12.iad>,
>>   moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/1/2022 12:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <cqLlK.62673$GTEb.5002@fx48.iad>,
>>>>    moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/31/2022 8:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> Welp, the debate is over. The science is settled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/tj3xn84f44tcqjy/SeaLevel.jpg?dl=0
>>>>>
>>>>> High tide? Low tide? Both? Don't care?
>>>>
>>>> The tide markers are in the pictures.
>>>>
>>>>> NYC tide is about 4 ft. AGW threatens an additional 2 ft.
>>>>
>>>> The sea level hasn't risen at the end of my block in any noticeable
>>>> way in the 13 years I've lived here, either.
>>>
>>> See "How to boil a frog"...
>>
>> Except the ManBearPig acolytes keep saying "In 10 years... apocalypse!"
>> If that's the case, 13 years should bring (at a bare minimum) a
>> perceptible difference.
>>
>>>> High and low tides come to the same point now as they did then.
>>>> But according to ManBearPig hysterics, the jetty rocks at the far
>>>> end should be underwater by now.
>>>
>>> You're seeing more than I am. Is an extra foot of tide (less than a
>>> foot is alleged, to date) sufficient to submerge those rocks?
>>
>> Yes, it would be.
>>
>>>> I've got a friend who has worked as a longshoreman on docks all around
>>>> the country and he'll tell you the water level hasn't changed at any of
>>>> them for 100+ years.
>>>>
>>>> But the TV told me that if I pay money to the government, the weather
>>>> will be gooder.
>>>
>>> Even on TV -- and though no one's completely trustworthy -- I rely more
>>> on scientists (who say what *might* happen) than on politicians (who
>>> say, "Well, it hasn't happened YET...").
>
> Once in a while, you have to believe your OWN eyes rather than listening
> to politicians or scientists, particularly when you're closer to the
> problem than they are.

Indeed, pay no attention to a tornado siren until you feel a draft...