Don't look at me, I didn't create the thread. My wife would say "Who else but a crackpot would waste time on people who write in all caps?" She's probably right. If nothing's done, then there are many including humanitarian crisis affecting (at very least) the coastal areas of certain countries. Well we succeeded.
YOU ARE DUMB ... you are a classic example of why The Onion is the Greatest News Source In History you're a parody ...
bigdavediode is an illustration of how the MMGW cult has grown into a full scale religion. They truly believe the garbage they are putting out and no matter how many times you shoot down their ridiculous claims, they don't yield an inch. Back in the old days people thought they could pray to God and change the climate, now-a-days cultists like BigDave think that if you sacrifice enough, you can appease the Gods and get him to change the climate. Only an idiot would actually believe that man controls the weather, however, BigDave has made a bunch of posts trying to convince people that he can change the climate, if only people would listen to him. According to Dave, all you have to do is abandon all modern convenience and the Gods will reward you by not changing your climate. It is really scary that so many people actually buy this, because the claim is simply bizarre.
Of course I believe the "garbage" that I'm quoting from the NOAA, NASA, the IPCC, the UN, the CRU, and so on. Why shouldn't I? I believe this is known as "projection."
Be gentle. He doesn't know how to bold. It's a miracle his brain can generate enough power to get his sorry ass out of bed.
In your opinion satellite data is less accurate as it does not fit your agenda, so you reference land data. If something does correlate with how YOU see the chart you discount it and find another chart, yet you write off the post 98 cooling. The only source you site for that is realclimate.org which is owned by the Gore associate Arlie, I have showed you the registration. Find an independent source. The IPCC claims that rising temperatures since the mid-20th century have been due to mostly by man, yet if you include the post-98 data. So over 11 years so far of being incorrect, that is over an 18% error rate. The models predicting record years in 2006 and 2007 have proven to be wrong. ENSO Adjustment for HadCrut3v Data the chart is virtually flat. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__VkzVMn3c...k0EU/s1600-h/ENSO+Adjusted+HadCrut3v+Data.bmp All the governments that actively support AGW also support the cap and trade system for industrialized nations. All this will do is shift that industrialization to countries like China and India, which have no plans for such a system. So C02 output stays the same ultimately.
Well which do you think is more accurate, a digital thermometer in someone's mouth, or to stand across the room with an IR thermometer gun? But it doesn't matter anyway, as both disprove your theories -- all show warming. 1998 was an el nino year, of course it "cooled" afterwards. That's as obvious as taking an ice age and saying that it's warmed since then. Actually I've cited monthly temperature data from NASA, the NOAA, plus the graph I presented you didn't even come from realclimate. Furthermore, to impugn realclimate you'd actually have to come up with something other than they host with a provider that you don't like who is in part owned by some other guy who's an associate with Gore. It's as if you're playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon. I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here. No rational, honest person would start with an el nino year. Futhermore, you need to have a sufficient sample size, not a few years (like 11) anyway. From NASA: 2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth_temp.html Here's the problem -- the HadCRUT people, the people who maintain and supply HadCRUT data, say that the temperature graph is not flat. Do I need to repost their graph? So clearly your "adjustment" has wrecked something. Since you've already shown yourself willing to cherry pick the el nino year, I'm very, very suspicious of your "adjustment." (I just noticed that, it too, cherry picks 1998. Huh. What are the odds?) Well China has just announced large target cuts, so if your theory is correct that "industrialization" will suddenly "shift" to China (!?) then perhaps their announcement will reduce their emissions. Naturally you'll quickly shift away from your statement that China has "no plans for such a system" and say that, well, they don't mean it. It's pretty sad when the United States of America, under the direction of people like yourself, needs to wait until China does something. When did the populace become such followers?
There had been 4 nino and 3 nina years since 1998, and the temperature is shown to be flat. You mention the Adjustment for the satellite data, yet when the HADcrut data is adjusted for ENSO you compeletely ignore that point. The data for global temps is flat with no warming at all, the models predicted record overall temps beating all previous records that has not happened. You are the one cherry-picking data. It is not the webhost for realclimate BigBlowHard, the admin/reg is made by EMS, your website would give you as contacts. China has not anounced any such cuts, the G8 agreed on a hypothetical solution without the Chinese premier present. China has been part of that hypothetical solution for many years now, and the government internally has not anounced such plans at all, this is blatently false. China has made no efficiency improvements since they were part of the hypothetical solution at all for all the years that is has been invited to G8 meetings. China wants DEVELOPED nations to make cuts, that is all they have announced. China is not even part of the G8. The point is the C02 output in the atmosphere wll stay the same with or without the US, as developing countries will more than happily make up the difference.