Why would a denier quote material that refutes his position?

It''s pretty plain to see the he is just here to troll. I mean he regularly copies and pastes other peoples work, he misquotes and lies about data and scientific evidence, and so on even when shown he is wrong. And a few day later he brings up exactly the same point that he had already been called out on. Even though you did correct your original error he ill probably take that error and use it as your meaning and arguing against it, a perfect example of which is in this very thread.

Cognitive dissonance indeed. The difference between 20 and 21.3cm/century is too small to be a legitimate basis for criticism against that earlier claim. Of course, we all know how the RS's report is Richie's favorite document.

>>>The "denier" was making the point that the end point of the century is an outlier do to the strong elnino effect at the end of the century.

The RS report does not say anything about the end-of-year sea level rise. This question is not about the 2010 level, it is about the centennial trend and how the RS report corroborates the rate given by NOAA.

As to the Inconvenient Skeptic article, try looking at the actual data yourself. The author specifically cherry-picked the set that helped him the most, and without even using all of the data (he's missing about half). Take a look at the set with the inverted barometer applied (to remove the atmospheric pressure signal), with or without the seasonal signal removed. The "drop" that occurred within 2010 is virtually indistinguishable from any other year. Unless, of course, you think it's legitimate to compare an El Nino December with a La Nina one. The article is crap.

(I also think it is much to your credit, Eric, that you admitted your mistake.)

Stand by for this one: AL GORE, through his secret society of 'climate change' so called 'scientists has managed to make the accepted length of the 'inch' longer. It 'looks' like the oceans are thermally expanding', when measured by the GORE INCH, but it's all smoke and mirrors. There's no proof that there is such a thing as 'thermal expansion' anyway and the terms 'melting' and 'warming' are a part of the 'far lefts' playbook as we all know. The GOP/Teabag/Fox 'News' Axis will soon be investigating this attempt to promote this communistic 'science and reason' based on these so called 'proven' physics and this so called scientifically collected data. Thermal expansion is bogus....real scientists like the folks that work for Exxon/Mobile and Shell have proven that...at least to the management of Fox 'News'...and that's the gold standard of scientific truth in America...unless 'yer some kind of commie socialist. Either the continents are sinking or the ocean beds are rising....as reported by a series of right wing radio dummies who pimp for the oil and coal mafias. (Oops..I meant the conservative radio hosts who work closely with the scientists who in a truly non-partisan manner monitor the increasingly green oil and coal industries.) If you really want to know the truth join your local branch of the CO2 Liberation Front, and keep on SUV-ing!

Sorry but your question shows a definite disconnect with math and science. The "denier" was making the point that the end point of the century is an outlier do to the strong elnino effect at the end of the century. If you picked different points of reference or did some statistical analysis I would think you might find a smaller increase. Regardless the oceans levels Are increasing (as might be expected coming out of the "Little Ice Age"), but only a few millimeters per year on average.

My best guess is that either the person in question genuinely doesn't understand the topic, or they are being purposefully deceitful. In the past, two separate people here (who happen to deny AGW) admitted to being purposefully deceitful in their answers, so I'd tend to lean that way.

_

That's just how stupid they are, they don't understand science and hope no one else does either

I see you deleted your old question where you said 8 feet instead of 8 inches.

Aren't you glad you did? It looks really stupid if you are trying to mock someone else and you make that kind of mistake yourself.

HaHaHa... That's funny but typical alarmist rubbish... 8ft indeed!

This denier certainly doesn't seem to be denying sea level rise!!!

<<The Royal Society actually say that....>>

Say no more....

Do you WANT people laughing at you? That WOULD explain a lot.