Quote from MRBRETTONWOODS:
In your opinion satellite data is less accurate as it does not fit your agenda, so you reference land data.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The models predicting record years in 2006 and 2007 have proven to be wrong.
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?)
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 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?
