Loudmouth,

I was just having a look back at a post of yours in which you stated"

"Oy, I look forward to the time when the majority of people are university graduates, across every field, men and women, Black and White and everything in between, and that they can speak with the authority of their expertise, with each other, and realise the need to explain their theories to the rest of society in a respectful fashion."

Such honourable sentiments...

"...and that they can speak with the authority of their expertise, with each other, and realise the need to explain their theories to the rest of society in respectful fashion."

"Witness my response to your constipated friend Bonmot."

Respect works both ways. I can't believe you responded in such a manner to someone taking the time to seriously address your questions.

So much for your concocted morality....it has no substance.

This 24-hours thing is annoyng, isn't it ?

Bonmot, thanks for a good laugh ! At last, some actual evidence, after days of polite asking: after all, he who asserts must provide evidence. So thanks for that.

The trend line in one of your sea-level-rise graphs was drawn to go inexorably and uniformly up - but that's how they can be drawn. On a slightly closer look, it seems clear that yes, it seems that sea-levels rose from around (from memory) 1972 to 2000, then flattened off, and actually seemed to decline over the last three or so years. In other words, two intersecting trend lines could be drawn, the later one at a lower angle. Or even three trend lines, the latest one negative.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you, Poirot, for just so ever slightly missing the point yet again.

But isn't it nice that we can converse in a civilised way on issues over which we disagree, keeping insults to a minimum ?

Of course, there is a Principle involving ad hominems that you should take note of:

* He/she who resorts to ad hominems has given up on his/her argument.

In spite of this, I DO think there is some AGLW going on - perhaps not enough to get hysterical about - and that there are many remedies and initiatives which can be employed to diminish its effects. I don't look forward to some Armageddon for our grand-children - I would much rather put some effort, and even my own money, into finding ways to minimise, and even reverse, the effects of CO2 and other AGLW gases, to change the world for the better. But feel free to sit back and wring your hands :)

And I do reserve the right - the right that everybody has - to speak freely about these issues, to raise questions, to cast doubt if necessary, and not to take the pontifications of some soi-disant Public Intellectual as gospel truth.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

"He/she who resorts to ad hominems has given up his/her argument."

Thanks for the tip on the ethics of debate, but if I'm going to seek advice on the finer points of argument, I won't be looking in your direction.

"Bonmot, thanks for the good laugh! At last, some actual evidence, after days of polite asking...."

There was nothing particularly polite about your "polite asking" - which was, for all intents and purposes, a stunt.... as is evidenced by your subsequent ridicule.

Your ever-present tone of mockery and faux self-deprecation form the basis of your "technique", which you seem to regard as cutting-edge "clever". It appears that you have no idea how to debate in a candid manner.

Here's an article on the tension between argument and debate:

http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-science-and-policy-the-tension-between-argument-and-debate-8761

Poirot I'm still trying to get bonmot to comment on Houston and Dean's reply to the Rahmstorf and Vermeer paper [which you linked to at RC] on Houston and Dean's first paper about sea level rise being perfectly normal and showing no AGW influence, but no luck; maybe you'd like to apply your intellect to finding any loopholes:

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

Thank you, Poirot, for raising the art of hurling ad hominems to a more genteel level.

But the intention of ad hominems is to avoid the issues once the fragility of one's arguments has been exposed, and I commend your superior ability to do just that.

In my defence, I did ask Bonmot repeatedly, but courteously for some answers and it did take him/her around four days: I thought I might have to go around to his/her place with a poo-stick, but eventually he/she got it out, for which I am grateful.

So now we have an idea that temperatures have risen nearly a degree in a century, and sea-levels by something between two and eight inches.

Australia may well go over to solar power in the next few decades, it is being reported today. What impact might this have on the production of CO2 ? I hope this is the sort of thing that the carbon tax is funding - I'm certainly happy to pay more for my electricity if this is the case.

If government policies can be devised that successfully combat CO2 production, etc., what might be the impact of sea-level rise in coastal areas ? Is it possible that the effects of AGLW can be successfully contained by the year 2100 ?

Or does that go so much against the Deep Green notion of Inevitable Apocalypse (because we're all such Consumerist b@stards and deserve it), that we shouldn't talk about that sort of thing ?

Or will it become just a storm in a Carlton soy-chai-tea-cup ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hey r'shole, some of us have a life other than responding to your every whim, every question - the answers to which can be easily found with just a smidgen of effort.

If it is any of your business to know (it isn't) a very dear and close family friend had a massive heart attack.

If you really want to learn, to be part of the solution, use the brain your dear late partner in life so admired. From what you have displayed to me (and as Poirot has noted) you are losing the plot, can't see the big picture anymore.

If you think that ad hominem, so be it. As far as I'm concerned, both you and cohenite can whistle Dixie, I have more important things to do.

Adieu!