It's the study I'm doing on you, Dave. It's pretty easy, actually. Just let you talk and talk, and eventually you'll debunk your own arguments. 1- I asked you about the IPCC temp graph, and you said it was accurate. Then the discussion turned to Huang's 1998 and 2008 borehole study, which you used to prove that it was hotter now than the MWP. But it also showed that there was a LIA, which proves the IPCC graph to be wrong. But you continue to lie and say that it's accurate. 2- you said that his data was local, from a few cities in the US. But he clearly said it was from global sat data, and the examples he gave were clearly anecdotal. So you lied about what he said at first, and then your lie got called out, so you and then changed your argument to it being from one month. Face it bbd, just like the folks at Digg discovered, you're nothing but an idealogical driven, no facts necessary, any means to an end, any lie works as long as it backs your point, waste of a human life. Is it true that they banned you at Digg?
Except that he's not the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA. In fact, he hasn't worked for NASA since 2001. I would if I was arguing with an appeal to authority, but I'm not. I've given you a link detailing how the satellite measurements were incorrect.
I'm not familiar with your third-party post, but why would it prove anything at all since I'm arguing from facts?
Huang revised his study with additional data in 2008. I don't know how many more times I can say that. Can you explain how anything you've written proves the IPCC graph (as if there's only one graph) to be wrong? And then explain why it would matter? I'll repeat what I've said all the way along -- sample sizes less than 30 are not meaningful, so if you want to predict months you need at minimum 30 months. If you wanted to predict years, you'd need a minimum of 30 years. I have also stated, repeatedly, that regional data is not useful when discussing global averages. Accusing me of lying in every post does not help your claims. You seem very, very angry. You do understand that the name "Bigdavediode" is a fairly common name, and comes from a Bloom County comic strip, right?
Actually he didn't say that it was from global satellite data, (although he tries to imply it in the next sentence) and furthermore he didn't even specify which satellite data. Worse yet, he cites "There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998, and global cooling for the past few years," Even though he cherry picks the warm el nino year (notice how they keep doing that?) -- Here's what the graphs show (this is the anomaly, and notice how every single year has a positive temperature anomaly.) <img src="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif"> </img> And then the article goes on to quote: "The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveal yet another drop in Earth's temperature ... Despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled 0.74 degrees F since former Vice President Al Gore released 'An Inconvenient Truth' in 2006." Ummm... no. The movie was released in May, 2006 (and yes, cherry picking months like that as this guy continues to do is also invalid) but he couldn't even get that right. The global temperature index was 42 in May 2006 and is now 55 in May, 2009. Once again, here's all the monthly data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
No, that would be you for whom running into a post would be a meeting of the minds. The left has squat to do with the science. Every country on the planet signed Kyoto besides us. (We withheld for good reason, but I won't even attempt to argue why that reason was good here, since to make that argument I'd have to know I was dealing with people capable of logical thought, which is not the case with the nutjobs trying to deny the actual fact of warming around here, or anywhere else, for that matter.) None of you soaring intellects has managed, for instance, to pick up on a neat little giftie I left you morons way back when in this thread: the ozone hole reached its largest size in 2006. This was on a site I used as a reference all the way back when I gave a flying fuck what you knuckledraggers thought. BUT, and pay attention now, since after all your attention span is somewhat to the south of a flea in heat, this is because the gasses involved are very long lasting and have been declining at a very slow rate as a result, even though most of them were banned in 1990. And, one more time, and I'm hoping I get this in before you fools lose all hope of comprehending, since it would mean paying attention for two whole minutes in a row, CO2, as I showed by my own independent research (try it some time) rises six years before it has its full effect on the temperature. So, it would be expected that if we ever got to the point where CO2 emissions merely stabilized, we'd have to wait six whole years before this had any effect on the climate. You can now resume making asses of yourselves. You do that well, at least.
It is kind of hard to ignore the pile of data that would suggest that the earth is warming up. Better to b safe than dead. Quite surprise u guys r still debating this. Diode is quite the fellow for continuing to argue with flat earthers.
Thanks for the kind words. When presented with specific efficiency improvements, everybody seems to get behind them (such as the new efficient incandescent bulbs brought on via legislation of bulb efficiency). Somehow many people have lost focus on energy efficiency and how it means more money all around (seemingly due to blind opposition to everything governmental.)
The US signed the Kyoto. So you are wrong again. They not only signed Kyoto, just this last week Obama and a bunch of other leaders got together and said the global temperature was not allowed to increase by more than 2 degrees C. This is not official but I have heard rumors that Obama is planning stiff economic sanctions on the weather and has not ruled out military action if the weather rises more than 2 degrees C. It could turn out to be a major showdown. What does Kyoto have to do anything anyway? A good deal of the countries who signed Kyoto are not living up to their obligations so whats the difference. Signing protocols and taking symbolic actions does not amount to squat.
You don't want to give your credentials because you don't have any. You are stooge, anti-American, Canadian left-wing nut job. Instead of lecturing the Americans on how they should run their country, why don't you focus on why Canada is failing to meet its Kyoto obligations.