Posted: Apr 28, 2010 9:38 am
Leonidas wrote:
I am not convinced that sea-level is rising in some parts of the world and not others. I don't doubt that there are some technical reasons for local differences but that has always been the case. Parts of northern Europe are currently rising because of isostatic adjustment after the last ice-age and this is evidenced locally by long term retreat of the sea. It has nothing to do with world sea-level.
So the data is just all lies, huh?
So the world was quite naturally a lot warmer then that it is now. I wonder how that happened without human release of CO2?
How hard is it to understand, really? Just because the world has warmed for reasons other than GHG's doesn't mean GHG's can't cause a warming.
Care to answer a question yourself for once? Two actually:
1. Do you accept that the greenhouse effect regulates temperature on the planet?
2. Can you not accept that a 40% change in GHG concentrations could alter the climate?
So for this climate scientist it's not 1 metre by 2100, it's not even 6 metres by 2100 it's 'many metres' although no time scale is quoted. How can all this be called a consensus? It's amazing how alarmist you can be provided you start the sentence with "There could be..."
Who the hell has ever predicted 6 metre by 2100? There is uncertainty in every field of science. There is considerably more uncertainty when it comes to evolution. Are you also an evolutionary sceptic?