dennis@home wrote:

1."The temperature anomaly for 2008 was not statistically
significantly different from 1987."

Conveniently ignoring the fact that all the other years from 2000
onwards including 2009 are.

That would be the one that the MET office doesn't think was as warm as
NASA does.

I am not sure what you mean. There are after all 10 years in the period
2000 - 2009. If you meant to refer to 2005, the year that NASA ranks
highest and the Met Office second highest, that is of course one of the
years that is significantly warmer than 1987. Lindzen incidentally,
despite being a Merkin, chose to ignore 2005 and to refer to 1998 as "a
relative maximum".


2 "And still the conclusion is that no one knows because the changes
argued about would take thousands of years to raise sea levels
discernibly."

Funny that those on the other side are predicting sea level rises of
noticeable size by the end of the century and, depending on what
exactly he was on about, are already reporting significant rises in
sea level due to expansion as the seas warm.

Facts? not from wiki though.

Again I am not sure what you mean. It appears to me that Lindzen is
saying that even if the warmers get the rate of ice melt they predict
there will not be a discernible rise in sea level even in a thousand
years. Seeing the source on this occasion was the Times Online it
obviously wasn't from Wikipedia. I wouldn't consider the Times a
particularly trustworthy source but as the quotation is direct from the
horse's mouth it is at least an accurate repetition of what Lindzen wrote.