Search results

Did you get the pm about BDD like I did? http://m.digg.com/politics/Presidential_hopeful_has_way_to_solve_gun_violence_more_guns?offset=15 bigdavediode supports consolidating more power in fewer hands, everyone has a right to an opinion even bigdavediode who wishes to eliminate such things...

Ah, good to see that you admit that you lied about the study being regional then. Why am I not surprised?

Ahem. "The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveal yet another drop in Earth's temperature"

Regional data, eh? You knew that it's generally accepted that CO2 is pretty much evenly distributed around the globe, right? Hence the arguments about CO2 emissions in one country vs another if those guys don't reduce, etc etc.... I can't believe you're squeaking about regional data again...

How about just one then?

LMAO. Ice core data is used by the IPCC for determining CO2 levels from long ago. And now, Dave questions its validity.

IOW, after Dave said that meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, etc could explain the decrease in temps, he doesn't have the concrete evidence to show that this is the case. Dodge noted.

3 choices: 1- cognitive dissonance 2- insanity 3- liar Take your pick about what accounts for Dave's response.

1- you're not very good at doing research, are you Dave? Not that very many parrots are. The source comes from the EPA and DOE. 2- and you just comfirmed that you're an idiot. "Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring...

LMAO. I love it when you debunk your own statements. Didn't you say that there was no cooling during this period?

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html Another issue that people are confused about is the rate of increase of carbon dioxide. Some people think that CO2 is rising dramatically. This is probably because of graphs like the one below. http://brneurosci.org/global-co2-levels-exaggerated.gif...

You're an idiot. Huang called it a GLOBAL temp increase/decrease around the times of the MWP/LIA. So again, Huang debunks your buddies at IPCC.

Dave didn't read it, or understand it if he did. To the left of the graph, it is clearly marked that these are from human activities. So naturally occuring water vapor is ignored.

I did. I love this part under your graph: " The only increase in natural forcing of any significance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance. " Oops, IPCC says that SI has been increasing.

1-I'm sure you do. Your cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing otherwise. 2- your cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing the truth yet again. Ignoring the MM, the MA is flat around your 1880 mark, then goes up. 3- it's 75%. Your lies are catching up to you now. A little...

Exactly right. Dave is trying to use sun spot activity in attempt to deceive. Personally I like something else. Go to pg 8/40 of the pdf. http://media.kusi.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming02.pdf Temp is in perfect accordance with solar output. No unity whatsoever with...

It WAS global. You've tried to deny the data from the SH and tropics from the same time periods. That kind of cognitive dissonance doesn't work when you try to convince the rational. They see right through the lies.

It did, when you compare your 2 graphs side by side on the proper scale. Note the slight decrease in the SS MA around 1945-1980, and the temp decrease - that you also deny is there - at the same time. Also, good to know that you admit that you're a liar, since you didn't even try to defend...

No, idiot. Cuz the IPCC graph shows no increase during the MWP and the LIA. Face it troll, Huang's work debunks the IPCC graph.

You're clearly insane. The MA at 1880 is about 40. The MA at 2000 is about 70. That's a 75% increase.