Search results

Well, that certainly exposes your level of maturity. :roll:

Oops, a slight oversight on your part. I'll just correct it for you. After all, you wouldn't want people to think you were selective in your criticisms, would you?

Yes, I know you've come up with an idea that you believe will support your ideological stance, but there's a problem with it. The effect of CO2 on temps is an initially rapidly decreasing exponential curve, and once we get to current concentrations, any increased effect is minimal. The...

Lots of misrepresentation of Moncton in that article, all you need to do is read it and follow links. And how does that disqualify anything said in the interview, since you seem to think it does.

Well let's see what it says. That's the opening line. What's the myth? Can't see it in there. Maybe you meant another line. Let's see if the next one qualifys. Well that can't be it. The "deniers" don't claim there's no global warming, just that we aren't causing enough of it to be a...

You should have read more than the thread title. It refers to the socialist panic over climategate, so the posts are pretty well on topic.

Realclimate is your source????:lol: The propaganda arm of the climate fraudsters is a trustworthy source??? LOL:lol:

And that myth would be?

You, who else? You pretended to misunderstand my points so I gave you the benefit of the doubt, which then means I need to simplify it for you so you can't pretend that again. If you look at the graph you'll notice that the temp baseline (the one that says 0) is at the same point as the...

Except with the logarithmic increase in temps from additional CO2, the amount of warming is so miniscule as to be unmeasurable.

Good interview with Chris Moncton YouTube - Climate-Gate - Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton - part 1 of 5 YouTube - Climategate with Lord Christopher Monckton - Part 2 of 5. YouTube - Climate-Gate - Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton part 3 of 5 YouTube -...

I wouldn't want to embarrass you Av, but since you brought it up and reminded me, well I'll remind you that you were to tell us how humans are causing dangerous global warming. After all, since you've seen it yourself in person (you said so yourself, not my words) it shouldn't be difficult to...

Ha ha! :lol: Depends on how you plot the averaging/smoothing. and where your start and end points are. Only thing for certain is the warming trend of the last century has ended......for now.

El Nino year again. Remember the last one? 1998.

I can't believe you actually misunderstood me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. As you should know, that graph is actually two graphs, one showing temperature changes and the other showing CO2 concentrations. In order to demonstrate a relationship (or lack thereof) between two...

:lol: LOL

Trying to determine climate trends without taking into consideration the numerous ongoing cycles would be an exercise in futility. No, a 30 year trend could also be noise. 30 years duration is far too short to be considered significant. In and of themselves they are not significant. Only...

I rather think you realize that you're wrong and are dropping it like a hot potato.

I missed this post earlier. Seems you entered it when I was replying to Anna's posts. Oh well, better late than never. 1000 years (or more) is desirable because significant cyclical changes take long periods of time. A 10 year trend tells you little in isolation because it could be a small...

Wrong. It isn't a value of change, it's as if the actual temperatures had been used at the left axis. If (for example) the temperature for 2007 was 15.8C and the temp for 2008 was 15.3C, that's an actual drop in temperature. Yes it is, and that's what it says it is. Change in temperature is...