Global warming hoax fools millions

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

You're confused again. First, there's nothing wrong with multiple y-axis labels if they're STACKED. This OTOH is an example of how not to put more than one y-axis scale on the same chart: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/fun-with-the-y-axis/

As for your remaining four points:
1) Actually the chart shows just the opposite. Try again.

Since you think it shows the exact opposite of what everyone can see that it shows, I think I understand where you're going wrong. The chart that you posted runs with the most recent period at the left hand side. In other words, the most recent time period is at the left, with the oldest time period at the right. Now can you see that for temperature increases they follow CO2 increases? (Ie. temperature increases are on the left of CO2 increases?)

2) It doesn't appear to be cyclical? See an eye doctor (or a psychiatrist). That's as ridiculous as your claim that you're extremely fiscally conservative.

Again, the most recent time period is at the left -- notice the extreme spike which has no gradual rise predating it.

3) Who said it did?

Anyone who tries to argue that the extra man-made atmospheric CO2 will not raise the temperature.

4) There absolutely are "other factors at play" than man or past cycles wouldn't have happened. If you can't even admit this you have an even bigger problem than I'd thought. The question is, how much are we influencing those other factors?

Well, we've made ground level heat retention worse by covering the ground in black pavement and houses with black roofs.

 

[bigdavediode]

Trader666:

Oh please... those dispute absolutely nothing.

Did you even read this?
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Here's more supporting evidence:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18343

Here's a biography on your second article's author, Dr. Tim Ball:

"Dr. Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former [retired] professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball has served on many local and national committees etc. etc."

Only one problem -- The University of Winnipeg never had a climatology department.

 

[Trader666]

Oh please... those dispute absolutely nothing. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Did you even read this?
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Here's more supporting evidence:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18343

Quote from dcraig:

Bullshit.

The ice core CO2 levels at Taylor Dome match up remarkably well with direct atmospheric CO2 measurements:

Atmospheric and ice core measurements are directly comparable, and you are yet again taking nonsense.

 

[Trader666]

It was geography. Whoever wrote that got it wrong. So what? It doesn't negate anything else.

Quote from bigdavediode:

Trader666:

Here's a biography on your second article's author, Dr. Tim Ball:

"Dr. Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former [retired] professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball has served on many local and national committees etc. etc."

Only one problem -- The University of Winnipeg never had a climatology department.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

It was geography. Whoever wrote that got it wrong. So what? It doesn't negate anything else.

"Whoever wrote it?" It was written by Tim Ball. You may have heard of him. He's the Tim Ball you just cited as an expert. It's from a September 26, 2006 letter to the Royal Society, Dr. Tim Ball, the leading signatory, identifies himself as "Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg."

There is no Department of Climatology in the University of Winnipeg and never has been.

There are two options:

1) He is a crank who is lying about his credentials, or

2) He has forgotten what he did at the University of Winnipeg.

Plus he's not a climatologist.

 

[Trader666]

Wrong again littledaviedumbass! You already showed you don't understand graphs with your moronic comment about y-axes... so now you want to deepen your humiliation?

Obviously the most recent period is to the left and even knowing that you still can't read it. This is yet another example of you calling "white" "black" and vice versa. But it's not just me ... Al Gore's global warming expert, Professor Richard Alley, reads it as I do:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

Quote from bigdavediode:

Since you think it shows the exact opposite of what everyone can see that it shows, I think I understand where you're going wrong. The chart that you posted runs with the most recent period at the left hand side. In other words, the most recent time period is at the left, with the oldest time period at the right. Now can you see that for temperature increases they follow CO2 increases? (Ie. temperature increases are on the left of CO2 increases?)

 

[Trader666]

Oh please... let's see the letter and if it exists, prove it was not an honest mistake or fabricated smear. Of course you can't debate the content so you go after the character. If you're as wrong about this as you are about everything else, it either didn't happen, was an honest mistake or a smear. And given what I've seen from you and other climate nuts, I wouldn't put it past any of you to make up shit to "discredit" people who provide evidence contrary to your agenda.

Quote from bigdavediode:

"Whoever wrote it?" It was written by Tim Ball. You may have heard of him. He's the Tim Ball you just cited as an expert. It's from a September 26, 2006 letter to the Royal Society, Dr. Tim Ball, the leading signatory, identifies himself as "Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg."

There is no Department of Climatology in the University of Winnipeg and never has been.

There are two options:

1) He is a crank who is lying about his credentials, or

2) He has forgotten what he did at the University of Winnipeg.

Plus he's not a climatologist.

 

[jem]

Quote from dcraig:

Bullshit.

The ice core CO2 levels at Taylor Dome match up remarkably well with direct atmospheric CO2 measurements:

Atmospheric and ice core measurements are directly comparable, and you are yet again taking nonsense.

10,000 years is nothing when we are talking about warming and cooling cycles. That is a fricken joke. A warming cycle takes 5000 years or more.

secondly - your major source of CO2 tracking (that red line) comes from a station on a Volcano. And I would not be suprised if one of those other ice cores is not a good sample as well... Is that the one that does not go back very far because its glacier melted about 10,000 years ago?


3. The ice core studies on this thread show... that historically warming preceded CO2 buildup by 800 years.

4. Long term studies cited on this thread, indicate we are warming up off a temperature low, but we are still in the cool part of the range.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

Wrong again littledaviedumbass!

Obviously the most recent period is to the left and even knowing that you still can't read it. This is yet another example of you calling "white" "black" and vice versa. But it's not just me ... Al Gore's global warming expert, Professor Richard Alley, reads it as I do:

Great presentation -- I loved the part when the audience is actually laughing at the email of a climate denier.

His quotes from your video "CO2 keeps being the only explanation for a lot of what happened which is validated -- which works."

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

10,000 years is nothing when we are talking about warming and cooling cycles. That is a fricken joke. A warming cycle takes 5000 years or more.

secondly - your major source of CO2 tracking (that red line) comes from a station on a Volcano.

Any thoughts as to how the scientists dodge all that lava as they take their measurements?