"See you immediately refer to a biased pro AGW site that has no credibility. Just what I said earlier, you only read the sites that print what you want to read."
Ah, did you read it - it referred to a published, peer reviewed paper.
Don't let your biases allow you to jump to conclusions now. You've just called someone biased and having no credibility, for no good reason. And you have accused me of something I did not do and besmirched my character, suggesting I behave that way all the time. So more hyperbole heaped upon hyperbole and falsity. That sort of behaviour tends to make someone look silly. And rude. imho it pays to get those sort of things right before you vent prejudices.
Now perhaps you'd like to apologise and show your good manners?
Here's the paper abstract
"We analyse global temperature and sea-level data for the past few decades and compare them to projections published in the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The results show that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability. The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low.
