Here you go, cohenite,

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

Loudmouth,

Darwin's point didn't mention any boundaries about what people say. I have never advocated controlling free speech. You are adept at skewing things to suit your agenda....and I see you remain quite happy to go with the manufactured inferiority..."....Which suggests to a fool like me..."

Still, carry on. As you point out, free speech rules, as does your freedom to dismiss information from people who understand climate better than yourself.

"...this suspicion that somebody, for their own ends, is crying wolf..."

"...but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..."

- especially when there's a conspiracy theory in the air.

bonmot, the Rahmstorf 'rebuttal' of Houston and Dean was, in turn, rebutted here:

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1

Do keep up.

Oh, sorry, that was Poirot; you look the same in the steamy air of the greenhouse.

Hi Poirot,

I certainly don't dismiss what someone writes - witness my responses to your constipated friend Bonmot above.

But at last, something has come out ! 0.9 degrees temperature rise (wow!) and 8 inches (20 cm) sea-level rise, in a century. Okay, we've got something to run with. So, assuming the rate of these rises is increasing over time, how quickly is the rate of increase in these factors increasing ?

And what do we do about it all ? What is being done now, and what are we learning that might work ?

Or as proper professional Leichhardt/Carlton-based latte-sipping observers of the world, is our role to describe and complain about how terrible it all is, not to try to change it for the better ?

What do you propose, Poirot, to change it for the better ? See, I'm assuming you're not one of those latte-sipping wa.nkers, that you have ideas :)

Cheers

Joe

Goodness me, loud mouth, you really are as arrogant as you appear.

"..Witness my responses to your constipated friend Bonmot above."

To be sure, loud mouth, your response wasn't constipated - the opposite in fact. That may be an example of the "confidence" of which Mr Darwin spoke.

You're an interesting psychological study. You've got so many tags on yourself - that, added to your sarcasm, basically guarantees your mocking style.

What's constipated about a climate scientist such as bonmot respectfully answering your questions?

That's what you said you wanted - and when you get it you respond with barely disguised scorn.

Joe, you’re no fool but you persist in saying you are – I find this perplexing.

Anyway;

1. Yep, some regions will be better off – most econometricians think the globe will be worse off.

2. Methinks sea level rise is a conundrum for you (and Anthony Cox). Perhaps you could look here:

I suggest you look here:

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_links.html

plus the embedded links, e.g.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/

and its embedded links.

3. Yes, 1998, 2005, 2010

4. Yep, on the button.

However, there are some ‘fake-sceptics’ out there, some vested interests, some political ideologues, some ‘whatever’, that for whatever reason … just don’t want to move forward.

Freedom of expression is one thing, but deliberately distorting, misrepresenting or dumbing down the author’s “ordinary people” is despicable, imho.

5. “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend. Seriously.”

I agree … but discard the poison or the ‘weeds’ - most people don’t even know what they are.

Given your latest remark, you're definitely not going to be part of any solution and like Anthony Cox, you keep your head fixed firmly in the sand and your butt directly pointed upward ... emitting a more powerful GHG than CO2 : ) smile!

As to you saying I'm (metaphorically) "constipated" ... thanks 'mate', I'm not going to waste any more time on you or your mate, R'shole!

Bye.