Re: OT: sea level 'rise' hmmmmm....

In article <487B4416.72F4A2C4@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eeyore wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The main issue shown by Loehle IMHO is that the MWP and Little Ace Age DID
exist in contrast to Mann's results. Things the IPCC wanted to eradicate to
support their case.

MWP and LIA merely make the hockey stick one having a couple curves in
its handle. The blade and general hockey stick shape are still there.

That's nothing short of a straight lie.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354

So you cite a page by a biased AGW-denialist with many dozens of
citations/links.

And what's wrong with THAT ? Links related to Mann's work ! There's not
just ONE thing wrong with it you blithering MORON !

This is typical of the fucking RELIGION based AGWism.

As if you think that finding fault specifically with Mann debunks
generally AGW.

It was key to popularising it through scare tactics.

But my point about your religion based attitude is that you yourself are a denialist
of any other view. I look at BOTH sides.

You're like a Muslim who calls people of other faiths 'unbelievers'.

I look at both sides.

Including The Register trying to have us believe two graphs disagree
when they don't,
cherrypicking on a period starting with an El Nino high and ending with
a La Nina low,
a bunch of links the first few of which don't do anything except find
fault specifically with Mann,
bad numbers as to how much CO2 humans are producing from fossil fuels,
bad numbers as to how much of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2,
claims that temperature never lagged CO2,
claims that positive feedback always makes a system unstable,
junkcience.com having bad science in its sea level rise calculator,
claims that warming of other planets means the sun is getting brighter,
a claim that people used to grow grapes in England but can't now,
etc.

- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)
.

Quantcast