You are a funny guy. Mischaracterizing my statments, unable to prove your own and then claiming victory. Just like the man made global warming superstars. Do they provide you guys free seminars on that technique?
NASA says? I have already shown you hard evidence that nasa isn't a reliable source. At this point, saying nasa says is about like saying wiki says. You do know about wiki and the global warming hoax don't you?
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/wikipedia-meets-its-own-climat
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/143215.html
Here are a few recent papers regarding so called sea level rise.
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/575k5821r2w23t73
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618210000224
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
I didn't forget. I already gave you a few that covered the spread I claimed. In typical warmer fashion, you complained about them on the grounds that they might not have been from the same year. Irrelavent. The sources I gave you cover a few years. A few years in which the claimed global termperature rise was on the order of a fraction of a tenth of a degree. The claimed change during the time frame covered is no where near the disparity between the various global means claimed.
The fact is that claimed warming being due to anthropogenic causes has no basis in fact. When observed temperatures don't cooperate with those being predicted by climate models which simply assume that CO2 is a prime driver of climate, then a linear study is done to obscure the fact that the models are failing and that there is nothing going on in the present climate that even begins to approach the borders of natural variability.
