mhaze as well as being hung up on past sea levels, he can't disagree and debate without the typical slurs of climate cult doomsayers. Obviously sea levels have been much higher, as evidenced by marine fossils in limestone caverns which were once coral reefs, now hundreds of metres above current sea levels and also in central Australia which was once an inland sea. As well as proving that reefs thrived back then with much higher CO2 levels, it does nothing to support the claims we are now in an era of "global boiling" as the kids are being indoctrinated.
And when there is clear physical evidence in the ancient ice cores that warmer temperatures always preceded any increase in CO2 by many years (hundreds) it's obvious CO2 did not cause the warming.

post-truth mhaze,

Well that had me in stitches.

My argument decimated? ROFL.

Firstly why did I need to provide a link to a thread you had already linked to? Utterly inane accusation.

And this was my comprehensive reply to you:

Quote

Oh my dear mhaze,

Now you are just camping it up.

You didn't show me a pause because there isn't one.

From your link;

Degrees C warming per Decade

Land/Ocean
HadCRUT4 - Trend: +.084
NOAA - Trend: +.121
Karl(2015) - Trend: +.121

Global
GISTEMP - Trend: +.123
Berkeley - Trend: +.098
HadCRUT4 krig v2 - Trend: +.098
Karl(2015) global - Trend: +.134

Land
Berkeley - Trend: +.134
NOAA - Trend: +.151

Satellite
RSS - Trend: -.027
UAH - Trend: +.076

So 10 data sets showing upward trends in global temperatures, only 1 showing a negative trend. 6 of the 10 actually show a trend above .12 degrees which perfectly reflects the predicted .13 rate.

End quote.

Something you really never addressed fully did you.

Anyway how is this quote from you going?

“Actually Demos, after a decade of zero warming and now that we are entering a multi-decade cooling period, it is the so-called denialists who are saying "told you so". Its just that you can't hear us because you're too busy listening to false prophets.”
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 13 December 2007

Dear Mikko2,

Tut, tut. You poor thing. Some anonymous bloke on a backwater forum calls you out on a ridiculous article and you sook up.

Your article contained disparaging remarks such as "perpetual alarmists" "The sickest aspect" "dodgy computer modelling". I'm just returning the favour.

Your article directly quoted Wikipedia"

"Concentrations of CO2in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 ppm during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago, and as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.[4]Reconstructed temperature records for the last 420 million years indicate that atmospheric CO2concentrations peaked at approximately 2,000 ppm during the Devonian (400 Ma) period, and again in the Triassic (220–200 Ma) period and was four times current levels during the Jurassic period (201–145 Ma).[16][17]"

With the implication that rising CO2 levels were nothing to worry about.

But at least you have acknowledged the higher sea levels even though you haven't directly related them to higher levels of CO2. Some progress at least.

Are you prepared to acknowledge the current increase in CO2 has been and will continue to contribute to sea-level rises or not?

"Something you really never addressed fully did you."

Well I did. I pointed out that that when you give trend lines you need to give a start end end date which you didn't do because you ("then and now" ) didn't/don't understand the nature and significance of trend lines.

I do recall that after you'd been utterly eviscerated you were left with a post that read "LOL" because you had nothing of substance to refute my points whereupon you exited the thread, suitably chastised.

What can be drawn from this is that, back at the time of your original embarrassment, I was pointing out that the significance of the so-called pause was that it invalidated the models. You never understood that. And what this latest paper is doing is showing the limitations of the models. You'll never understand that.

And since this whole, stupid scare is based on models, invalidated models does rather put a dent in the scare. You'll never understand that.

" now that we are entering a multi-decade cooling period,".
Well it's nice to see you trolling trough my past posts to try to further your education on the subject. Keep trying.

Multi-decade means many decades. If you find a 10 year old with a calculator you'll find out that means 30 or 50 or 70 years. Not 15. Numbers always did bamboozle you, didn't they.

In a word SR. No!

This forum is being ruined by paid Labor party operatives, using the facilities of parliament to research & invent garbage to support the current narrative.

Is SR & now WTF reading from the lefty hymn book, or are they ones who wrote it?

I admire those who still continue to contribute.