progressiveslol wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:



Wow!!  Oopps!!  Your conspiracy theory is showing!!!!

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

hmmm maybe this guy is going to lose, sorry was going to lose his job/funding.

I look forward to you linking to the quote or there abouts in the peer-reviewed paper.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

So, let's recap here:

The Australian misrepresents a scientific paper - and Mr Gullible here falls for it HOOK, LINE  and SINKER.

Next day - one of the author's of the paper says that The Austalian misquoted the paper:
“So sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it is clearly linked to increases in greenhouse gases, and that’s actually in the paper which was quoted by The Australian. So the quote is, I’m sorry, inaccurate,” ,
and
even The Australian backpeddles:

CSIRO scientist Dr John Church, regarded as Australia's leading authority on sea level and climate change, said they were clearly connected.

"It is clearly linked to increases in greenhouse gases," he said.

And ol' Progs is STILL in denial!!!!!!



progressiveslol wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

The paper is right here champ:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

Why don't you show us where it claims " Sea rise 'not linked to warming'

The Abstact cartainly does not imply that in any way:

Confidence in projections of global-mean sea-level rise (GMSLR) depends on an ability to account for GMSLR during the 20th century. There are contributions from ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction and reservoir impoundment.

Are you now going to tell us that ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets are not linked to warming?!?!?!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

I reckon ol' Progs will still have a crack at it though

Unfortunarely, the damage is done, rabbitoh. When I read the headline this morning, I had to do a double take. It amazes me that the Australian's editorial position since 1995 has been consistent with the scientific consensus "that global warming is occurring unnaturally, primarily as a result of industrial development and deforestation, is no longer seriously disputed in the world."

On July 19, 1996, it said: "The greenhouse problem appears to be worsening, according to the international scientific consensus, and the pressure on Australia and other nations whose exports depend heavily on fossil fuels is growing stronger."

On November 2, 2006, the paper said: "You can accept the significant risk that the climate is warming while wishing to employ scepticism and scientific rigour when working out what to do about it. Eventually an international carbon pricing system that sets proper price signals for pollution will further drive this process."

It has accepted the findings of the UN panel on climate change. On February 5, 2007, it said: "The real news from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report, issued last Friday in Paris, is the higher level of implied scientific certainty - first that global warming is unequivocally happening, and second that humans are, in the panel's view, highly likely to be causing most of it.

"Let there be no mistake: all the signs suggest the need for action on climate change. But cool heads are essential."

That's cool heads, progs, not dead heads.

It would seem the editorial position taken by the Australian is very different to what it would like it's readers to think. I wonder if the Australian will do a retraction on the front page.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 5:55pm:


I'll send you a bottle of wine rabbitoh, if you can get greggery to get down to specifics.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing(that should be APPARENT). Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.

ohh but now he is saying it is strong. Weak, non existent(absent). Meaning "is it even there. Does it even exist. Will I get bullied into submission for this"

I knew you couldnt come up with the quote, or anything like it, because as in the paper, the relationship of co2 and sea level rise, is non existent, absent.