…because unlike yourself who seems to cut & paste arguments from Googling…
Thank you! I’ll take that as a compliment. You can do a search using portions of my text. It’s not difficult. If you find any source for my cut and paste, please let me know and I'll chase them for plagiarism.
I’m not trying to fool anyone. I just kicked your soapbox from beneath your feet and you don’t like it. Get over it!
So, is the sea level rising or falling? You said it would have made for a long post for you to have included the appropriate graph, so I linked it for you. Now you don’t like the results.
…but otherwise shows absolutely nothing but steadily rising sea levels.
Is that a statement of support for AGW scepticism? Let me add, “…since the end of the last ice age.” And the important word here is “steadily”. No acceleration upwards as predicted by the pro-warmers. Steadily! A little over 3mm per year. That puts the sea level by the end of this century about 27cm higher than the present position. That's assuming this decline we're in now turns around. This could be horrendous for people everywhere!
If Qantas shares went up an average of one cent a day for 10 years, then I think I’d be justified in saying this was a trend. Temperatures have been trending down for 10 years. Not long, I know, but if you want to use long term data trends, then let’s start the trend line from the period around the Medieval Warm Period and see how we’re still trending down. Why is this ten year period important? Answer: Because the pro-AGWers make no allowance for any decrease in their forecasts. The world is supposed to be on a rocket climb to the heights of destruction by now. That hockey stick that you put your faith in is obviously wrong, which impacts the entire premise of CO2 caused global warming. If the predictions are wrong, then something is wrong with the model, right? I don’t have a problem with modelling. The data used in this case is either incomplete, wrong, or both and obviously so. It needs more work.
You can’t argue that a rise in global temperatures is caused by human production of CO2, but any decrease in global temperatures is caused by natural variability. That’s an admission that natural variability must also play a role in increasing temperatures. Once again, the global warmers are placing bets both ways and claiming a victory on the outcome whether it be heads or tails. It rained again in Australia after a drought that was not supposed to end. England is still getting snow. New York has just had one of the earliest snowfalls on record. Doesn't stop the pro-warmers announcing a predictive victory.
BTW, what do you regard as a suitable time period of descending or stagnant temperatures before we see a rise again and a renewed faith in AGW? I see on a few websites that 10 years has already been extended to 15 years and now to 17 years. What do the pro-AGW scientists know that you don’t? The truth is that this period of descending/stagnant temperatures is embarrassing for the entire AGW hypothesis. It’s ruining political influence everywhere except Australia where the science might not be settled, but the legislation is.
As for the last 2/3rds of my post: I was trying to keep somewhat on the topic of the original thread. Can I return to reading my fake science articles written in unreal science publications by unreal scientists, as well as several ancient planetary physics textbooks now? I might include this fact on my business cards. Someday, someone, somewhere might be in awe, but I doubt it.