nicknamenick - AKA Court Jester Quote "Your whole topic is an error. "How could Climate Scientists have arrived at the conclusions they did when this important factor was unknown to them. "

Permanent radioactivity is irrelevant to recent increased melting.

Looks like you are wrong.
First In above comments you defend what you say is an flawed topic, but don't mention you think it is flawed.

Second How could my topic be wrong if it is not a topic but a question? Forgot to add the question mark to the end, maybe in your haste to stick up for your mate Toni you missed the first word "How" at the beginning.

Toni Lavis Wrote"the world does not revolve around you or your half-baked ideas"

I replied - Never said it did.

Toni Lavis You replied with this blatant lie Quote "Never said you said it did. But you sure act like you think it does."

IF YOU NEVER SAID IT DID, how do you explain the following sentence from you?

"I recommend you get over yourself, because the world does not revolve around you or your half-baked ideas."
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 30 November 2018 7:51:11 PM

Toni Lavis Quote "Things that are demonstrably false don't magically become true if they go unchallenged in the Daily Mail for a fortnight."

** They would be challenged by the other MSM and refugee advocates. **

Bit long winded but to quote you again "n exactly the same way, when President Whatshisface is quoted as saying that Nauru is giving out free holidays, houses, jobs and healthcare, it's obviously ridiculous. As has already been pointed out to you, the economy of Nauru is well and truly stuffed. Can't get blood out of a stone, Phil. They haven't got the money for free housing and healthcare. They haven't got jobs to give. And as for free overseas holidays... I mean really, how are we supposed to take that one seriously? Do any well developed countries with strong economies that take in refugees free overseas holidays such as Australia, Canada, Germany etc. give them free overseas holidays? Of course they don't. It's a laughable idea.

So on the face of it, President Whatshisface's claims seem quite implausible and rather extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and since I've seen no proof - not even the ordinary kind - to support these claims, I see no reason to believe them."

** You based your argument on this **
I find that hard to believe. Nauru is an economic basket case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru#Economy

Unemployment at 90% and they're giving free housing and jobs to refugees? Pull the other one, President Waqa, it plays Jingle Bells.

** You failed to take into account everything Nauru gives them and does for them Australia pays for. **

** Refugees are such an emotive topic I guarantee it would have quickly been called out in the media, or by the refugee advocates. if it was false **

Quote "Jesus, I don't have time to point out every stupid comment you make, I'd never get aught else done."

You preface that with "Jesus" looks like you are getting frustrated.

I challenge the little Troll to point, out my "stupid comments" numerically your will outnumber any I make.

mhaze To add to what you wrote there is one very important question no scientists have been able to answer that is.

What should the global average temperature be?

mhaze
It was warmer 5000 years ago by about .4degree over 2 centuries ago. Now it is about .7 warmer than 2 centuries ago. "Unprecedented" as they say in Qld. There are cycles in temperature but the extreme rise matches modern industrial pollution. The rate of rise seems to be the problem.
Philip S
The article is not flawed. It corroborates AGW but you can't comprehend English. Your opening sentence assumes their conclusion is wrong , as written in your title: "Climate scientists calculations must be wrong".
Can you understand your own words?

WARNING, after killing yet another goat,its entrails lied, they said man has made global warming, we roasted it
Turned out we should have used wood, had the taste of coal in our mouths for hours

nicknamenick Quote "The article is not flawed. It corroborates AGW but you can't comprehend English."

It is you who are wrong and can't comprehend.

I agree the article is correct and has an effect on the climate.

Climate scientists made calculations, for argument sake I will say the results were correct.

This new source of melting ice just discovered was not known when the original calculations were made, now it is known it therefore make the original calculations wrong.

I further suggested there may be other factors which have not been considered.

nicknamenick aka Court Jester, you are starting to post more sensible comments lately are you back on your medication?