Yeah, so far he has not uttered a single scientific sentence. It would be impossible to discredit him based on what he did not say. Lord Moncton used facts to discredit Al Gore and him alike. He even challanged Al Gore to have a scientific dispute. As you no doubt have guessed Gore chickened.
You cannot have my position correct for a single reason: temperature has always changed, changes and always will change. I never said ''temperature is not changing now''. Yes, you have, although you lack the courage to admit it after the film was proven a non-scientific fiction.
I've been following his posts for quite some time, they are shockingly accurate. In fact, he sourced the data just now for a guy YOU cited, then explained how the data was non-reflective of the actual research. In response, you posted "Derp derp derp derp derp... durrr... derp." You did not refute his explanation, nor explain how the dataset was complete, nor how it was reflective of the current research. And this, just like your school speech rant, signifies absolutely zero from a scientific point of view.
You wrote, exactly: "In fact recent few thousand years have very low rate of temperature change when compared to previous periods." You also wrote that CO2 lags temperature. Therefore your explanation for current CO2 rises is that it's rising although temperature has a very low rate of change (your words). You haven't explained this, although within two dozen posts you've denied writing it. This is very entertaining and clearly illogical. In my mind, anyway, you have no explanation for this incongruousness in your theory which explains why you are forced to quickly backtrack. Meanwhile, the IPCC has excellent explanations which are consistent with the observed data: CO2 is rising, temperature change is rising due to increased absorption of infra-red energy, and there is a feedback effect which releases additional CO2 from land and ocean sources such as melting tundra. Really, their explanation is quite excellent. Yours, even you can't explain. Once again, since you're having trouble understanding this, I have not viewed this film. I understand it's fairly accurate, but I have not seen it.
Typical misinterpretation by an AGW fanatic. Now, read my lips. Do it slowly (''slowly'' is not synonymous with ''no motion''): low rate of change implies there is a change, although low
Ahh, okay, so the "low rate of (temperature) change" that you referred to caused a very significant increase in CO2 levels (seen below). Therefore, according to you, the temperature has had a low rate of increase before 1958 since (you claim) CO2 only lags temperature change. You can see the CO2 concentrations steadily increasing, from direct measurements. Unfortunately your video posted that temperatures had decreased recently. What is your position? (At this point, I'm guessing "fetal.") <img src="http://sio.ucsd.edu/keeling/images/Keeling_Curve.jpg"></img>
Okay, take even one of his points: that your "Video Perfesser" non-climatologist, non-remote control user cherry picked one out of 92 or so studies. True or false? You don't even have to post more than that -- just pick one of either true or false.
I am NOT surprised by how ignorant assumptions you made. No, therefore according to your misinterpretation of my words and your ignorance of ''some'' correlation between temperature and CO2: The temperature has had a low rate of change during recent few thousand years. What you have been observing since 1958 and a few thousand years before 1958 was a relatively stable temperature ROC over a few tens of thousand years data set. Then you have problems either with your brain or with your eyes if you limit videos you saw to just one graph. There were several graphs explained. If your ''recently'' = last 7 years, then yes, temperatures decreased. If your ''recently'' = last 50 years, then no, temperatures increased. If your ''recently'' = last 20 thousand years years, then yes, temperatures decreased. If your ''recently = ..... you get it now? You must define over what data range you want to measure temperature trend and its ROC.
Bigdavediode is a Moron based on one of his last 92 posts. True or false? - my neighbour's dog can ask similarily shockingly accurate question... Your pen-friend has accuracy of an educated dog.