Search results

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.

1- Liar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars 95% CO2, BTW. 2- pure stupid, since Saturn is a gas giant

For the last 300 yrs Dave. It's in the part you edited out. Again, very dishonest to ask a question when the part you edit out contains the info you then ask.

Richard Mueller, Gordon MacDonald (1977) Glacial Cycles and Astronomical Forcing

Since you're dodging, I'll quote the parts I want you to address. Mann et al. called their method a “multiproxy” technique, since it combined a variety of proxies. The most numerous, and influential, proxies in their data set are tree ring chronologies. Mann arranged provision of a...

Thought I'd add this part, where the IPCC cherry picks borehole info from 1500 on. Which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, avoids the MWP yet again. Huang and coauthors published their findings in Geophysical Research Letters6 in 1997. The next year, Nature published the first Mann...

I, among others, already have. Very dishonest Dave. Look, it even shows your 11 year cycles. http://www.americanthinker.com/X.jpg NASA data indicate that the climate on Mars is the warmest in decades, (NOT FOR THE LAST 3 YEARS DAVE) the planet's polar ice cap is shrinking, the ice in...

This Huang? http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf a group led by Shaopeng Huang of the University of Michigan completed a major analysis of over 6,000 borehole records from every continent around the world. Their study went back 20,000 years. The portion...

1- this only deals with the NH. Therefore it's invalid to use. 2- I just proved that I'm right.

How can an 11 yr cycle be both relevant and not? You contradict yourself when it suits you Dave. And yet you see some logic to your answer? Very dishonest.

1- I linked to a paper. You misrepresented yet again, Dave. Wotta surprise. 2- you skipped over the bulk of the paper where he explains how it is statistically invalid, and explains why. Respond to that.

An 11 yr solar cycle is irrelevant to long term warming/cooling that stretches into the 100's of years.

When asked about temps today vs temps during the MWP, you say "it's been warming up" and use graphs that don't include that time period to make your point. That's cherry picking. Which makes you dishonest about your cherry picking.

Then you violated your own rule by quoting how many US troops are in UN assignments, rather than reflecting what they've done since the UN's inception. Dishonest representation. Wotta surprise

You are.

If you would have actually read the article, you would have read that the only way that they could get the "hockey stick" graph was by heavily weighting anomolies. When correct methodology was used, the hockey stick disappeared. The guy that did the original work refuses to this day to...

Why are only climatologists allowed to comment? If someone is schooled in say, economics, and uses statistics every day in their field, and sees where the statistics given isn't good methodology, why are they NOT allowed to comment on the statistical relavence of a study? What you're doing...

Another example: The MWP and the tropics/Tasmania warming were at the same time. Dave says that the MWP is northern hemisphere only and means nothing. And that the tropics/Taz aren't either. True, but a rational person would look at the time line and notice that they're happening at...

It's temp dependent Dave. At higher air temps - from increased solar activity - water vapor concentrations will be higher. Only by artificially increasing RH%, as in the experiment, does this hold true. Your assertion means nothing.

Another example: Dave again responds to a previous line of questioning about comparing temps from the MWP and now with 3 graphs that don't include the MWP for comparison.