Ok, let's go with what he says. He identifies a MWP and the LIA. The IPCC doesn't in their hockey stick graph. Therefore, Huang has debunked the IPCC. End of story.
You're clearly insane. The MA at 1880 is about 40. The MA at 2000 is about 70. That's a 75% increase.
I wouldn't be surprised if one of the questions on Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader is to debunk the IPCC.
Humans account for one part per 700 of CO2 in the atmosphere per year, nowadays. They didn't do a tiny fraction of that amount at the START of the industrial revolution. If you live in a panic stricken and math free environment [wow, that would be the moronic left would it not?] then Billions of tons sounds horrible... it's tiny even at today's levels and it was absolutely trivial at the beginning of the industrial revolution... Al Gore is going to cash in on this new taxation bigtime. Who is this Dave guy anyhow? Before the elections he posted his irrational stuff constantly, somebody must pay these guys, they aren't in it for the truth, and they never quit... obsessed or paid, which is it? Actually I don't care, I'm hitting the ignore button... Trade well or die folks, the inmates are running the asylum......
I am not expert in this topic, but I remember learning in my 6th grade science class something along the lines that throughout its history earth went through temperature changes at certain intervals of time. Not sure how that can explain global warming. Maybe the sunspot activity is causing it? It did increase in the past century and I've read that it will still increase going deeper into the 21st century. One thing I do know, is that this winter in NYC was one of the warmest, and this summer is one of the coolest, I've ever seen in my 10 years here.
To Dave that probably is proof of Global Warming and reason to set his hair on fire and run in circles yelling......
Three or four percent of what? Temperature? You keep saying "Percent of the greenhouse effect." First you'll have to define what you mean in concrete terms. Percent of heat retention? Percent of temperature? Then once you have explained where you're starting from, we can deconstruct your error(s).
The proof is in laser absorption spectroscopy of the CO2 molecule. Huh. So CO2 molecules absorb heat therefore... what?
Just a few posts back I posted the corresponding graphs of IR absorption by H20 versus CO2, where a person could easily see that H2O is an excellent absorber of IR, but not at the peak IR spectrum like CO2 is. Additionally, although H2O is a greenhouse gas, it is not a "forcing" gas. Here's a graph -- show us what you mean: <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/300px-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png">
You're not reading the report, your reading a short, few page summary for policy makers which tries to summarize the main message of the report. Please consult the actual report.