[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:27:22 -0800 (PST), landotter
wrote:

On Nov 26, 10:23*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:21:21 -0800 (PST), landotter



wrote:
On Nov 26, 10:17*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:03:49 -0600, Tim McNamara

wrote:
You've not been paying attention, then. *Almost all of the measured
changes in the global climate have outstripped the most alarmist
computer models by a large margin (sea level rise at 180% of
predictions, for example).

If that is a fact, then it proves that the anthropogenic global
warming, predicted by the models is not what is going on.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

Something
else is happening that is quite unrelated.

What evidence do you have for this lie?

Don't be an idiot. I was drawing an inevitable conclusion from the
previous post.

I'm an idiot because I require opinion to be served with evidence?
Laughable.


The evidence was the post I was analysing. Nothing more was required.
Did you not see that I began my post "If that is a fact"?

Your reasoning is just as retarded as creationists who find gods
wedged into each incomplete gap in the fossil record.

Occams razor.

Exactly. When I am extrapolating reasoning from a claim in one post,
why would I needlessly multiply entities by introducing further
complications?

Try reading what is actually written, rather than what you would like
to have been written so you can argue against it.

d