Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
[blah blah blah snipped]

Evasion noted.

However, very recently you said: "By the way, neither I nor anyone
else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100. That's all in your
head. You're delusional."

So which is it? 20' rise or not?
Oh -- another recourse of the alarmists, to wit "It's not linear."

You are being obtuse, as usual. I'm beginning to think it might not
be intentional. Can't understand anything besides a straight line?

Thus, there is no point in time which we can examine the claims and
see if there if progression towards the ultimate hypothesis or away
from it, proving or disproving thier claims.

That's happening right now, but you've never actually looked into it,
have you?

You're fond of repetition so I'll repeat what you snipped: you don't
know what you are talking about--and you can't be bothered to find
out, apparently.

How very convenient.

Actually, I'll keep it up so you continue to expose yourself as a
zealot.

More huff-n-puff signifying nothing. Who's being exposed?

You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you haven't
made a single substantive criticism of AGW science that you would
have to defend on the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but
perhaps you have an excuse to offer.

Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help me
reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question: Will
there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200 years), or
will there not?

Which is it?


Doesn't matrer, is the answer. Whatever else is going to happen, our
weather is going to become much more hostile, energy will get insanely
expnesive if we continue to use the current methods of obtaining it and
the world will generalyl become an even ****tier place to live except
we'll probably have realistic virtual sex and fancier video games.



Bertie