WTF,

"the important word here is acceleration. "

Yes it is. And the claim has been that the rate is or will accelerate. Because the current rate isn't enough to justify the wild scare-mongering that revolves around this. So acceleration has always been the main game and this paper calls it into question.

"Now I know that in the past I have schooled you in how statistics work "

Pretty funny WTF. I actually have statistics in my degree and spent a goodly part of my life working on computer programmes providing statistics to the international shipping industry. So your schooling will probably be beneath me.

"Glacial Isostatic Adjustment or GIA is the process where the earth mantle is recovering from the presence of an iceshelf that has since disappeared. "

This isn't new. I've talked about this process on these pages many time before although the term I'm more used to is Continental Rebound. Indeed, I first became aware of it in a book by the great Tasmanian John Daly back in the mid-1990s

"So this means that sea water levels can continue to rise but not at an increasing rate."

Yeah, like they have been for the past twelve millennia or so.

I didn’t "poo-poo" greening, mhaze.

I called out its misuse as a simplistic rebuttal to climate change concerns - exactly how ttbn deployed it.

Again, what I actually wrote was:

"Yes, CO2 can enhance photosynthesis under controlled conditions – but in the real world, benefits are limited by water, nutrient availability, and heat stress."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10656#371964

That’s not denial, it’s context. Which you’ve again skipped past.

You now say: "Well I didn't. that's just your usual misunderstanding of the plain written word."

And yet you brought greening up as if it undermines the idea that CO2 is a problem. Either it supported your position, or it didn’t. If not, then what was your point?

For the slow:

- Greening is happening.
- It has some short-term benefits, particularly for photosynthesis.
- But it also comes with well-documented downsides - ecosystem disruption, nutrient dilution in crops, altered carbon/water cycles, and increased vulnerability to drought and fire.

That’s not a "whirling dervish" move, it’s just the part of the science you’re ignoring.

//False. False....and false.//

Actually - true, true... and true:

- Ice sheet mass loss: Tracked by NASA and ESA’s GRACE satellites in both Greenland and Antarctica.

- Ocean current slowdown: AMOC weakening is evident in multiple studies (e.g. Caesar et al. 2018) and flagged in IPCC AR6.

- Biodiversity loss: UN IPBES (2019) warns that ~1 million species face extinction - many due to climate stressors.

//...scenarios that project high future emissions also project high future economic activity.//

Correct.

But those same models factor in rising costs from climate disruption. That’s the point, you can’t ignore one side of the ledger.

//I’m not holding this paper up as a game-changer...//

Then why post it with "Right on cue..." followed by digs about "fatuous standards"?

You keep presenting fragments as if they challenge the broader picture. But the fragments are already part of the broader picture.

You’re not resolving a puzzle. You’re scattering the pieces, then pointing to a single green tile and claiming the whole puzzle must be a tree.

"And yet you brought greening up as if it undermines the idea that CO2 is a problem. Either it supported your position, or it didn’t. If not, then what was your point?"

No. You said it was a red herring. I set you right. You've been trying to wriggle out of that ever since.

"Biodiversity loss: UN IPBES (2019) warns that ~1 million species face extinction - many due to climate stressors."

So no documented biodiversity loss as you erroneously claimed. Just fear-mongering. A favourite question I ask those who fret over the extinction meme,... name 10 species that went extinct last year, or in any year this century.

"Then why post it with "Right on cue..." "

Because I said you'd try to find a way to ignore it and you did so with alacrity. Very pavlovian,

Oh no....

"BHP scraps renewable energy projects, casting doubt on emissions targets" http://tiny.cc/0pas001

I guess the subsidies weren't high enough!

Oh,,, and release the daleks.

No wriggling required, mhaze.

//No. You said it was a red herring. I set you right. You've been trying to wriggle out of that ever since.//

I said using greening to downplay climate risk is a red herring. I’ve been consistent on that. You’re "correcting" a claim I didn’t make.

Should we bring some dispassionate referees into it?

//So no documented biodiversity loss as you erroneously claimed.//

That’s not how this works. Biodiversity loss includes declining populations, shrinking habitats, collapsing ecosystems - all of which are well documented.

//Just fear-mongering. A favourite question I ask... name 10 species that went extinct last year...//

Asking people to recite annual extinction trivia doesn’t refute global biodiversity decline. That’s like denying cancer because no one you know died from it yesterday.

//Because I said you'd try to find a way to ignore it and you did so with alacrity. Very pavlovian.//

Your prediction was right only because your source was predictably weak. MDPI has a well-known reputation for lax review standards. Dismissing it isn’t Pavlovian, it’s called having standards.

//Oh no.... BHP scraps renewable energy projects... I guess the subsidies weren't high enough!//

Funny, but the article doesn’t mention subsidies. It says BHP cut internal spending, and was criticised for walking away from climate commitments. That’s not a win for your argument, it’s your side dragging its feet and others calling it out.

//And release the daleks.//

Cute.

But a sci-fi punchline doesn’t change the fact that even BHP says 70% of its power is already renewable, and that it cut emissions from electricity use by 80% since 2020.