noahbody

I did make a comment. I've also asked for a link to an updated graph in AR5 because I couldn't find it. If you could provide me a link I would be happy to look at it. I have better things to do with my time than to lead you through every article I read. That was the first one that cited Christy as the author. After that I googled his name and looked at several articles. Yeah, I provided it the first time you asked for it. Then I told you to click on the link and read the bloody question. I have no reason to discount his temperature readings. Do you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy Maybe because he's given that presentation before? Has his temperature readings been proven false? Is his satellite data not accurate? Or you can't click a link. Ignoring satellite data or not including up to date readings that make predictions look less impressive is similar, IMO, to them omitting tree ring data for temperature readings. This is only my opinion. I wouldn't buy a used car from the IPCC. Maybe you're just not listening. Did you get that part about clicking the link? P.S. Click the link.

Anyone who supported Kyoto without the participation of the US, China and India doesn't understand basic problem solving. Kyoto was about reaching an objective and not solving a problem. I would hope Harper is still skeptical of the magnitude/consequences of AGW. And you did misquote him.

Yes you did. And I'd already looked into it. Are you slow? Here's the site that cited Christy as the author of the chart: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTYwMjRiZjJhMmUxYWE2MmQ0NDZhOGM0M2Q3ZWUzMmE= Anything else? I guess you didn't click on that link and read the bolded question did you? Maybe try that. I can't help you if you can't understand a graph so simple or click on a link. Yes I've read about that too. They actually have the reviewer's comment who objected to them excluding the tree ring data as well as the other two objections and the reasons given for dismissing the comments. That was before the data correction wasn't it?

He said that about kyoto, not climate change. What should make you roll your eyes is that people thought kyoto was a solution - even when the problem countries weren't involved. Sure. How about adding a clause that states "if global temperatures begin to decline, all environmentalists have to start driving inefficient SUVs." ?

If you would like to make a wager that I didn't know of Christy before you mentioned his name, I'd gladly take your money. I looked into it because I knew some clown would try to dismiss the data because it was was on a 'denier's site.' It says that there is a great deal of uncertainty in regard to modeling climate. Any actual reference to what Christy might presume to suggest it says. Anything? Anything, at all? http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm I first visited that site on Friday, if you'd like to double my money. I don't think I misinterpreted it at all. The current data from all the various compilations are readily available from the respective 'owners'... regular, monthly updates are provided, on queue... to the masses that await the monthly updates. Full archives are also available - knock yourself out. I've never disputed that the models adhered to projections before 2006. It's after that that I dispute. That's what the Christy graph shows. Can you show that the plotted temperatures are incorrect? LOL! You're discounting Christy's data because of that? I think his findings should be debated. That's science.

I did look into its origin. Sorry to disappoint you. Are you able to dispute the data? Show me a link that states global temperatures for the years 2006 to present. Thanks. Not at the rate that the models predicted. That's what I'm saying. Show me a citation that says temperature is rising at the rate the models predicted. Thanks. And his claims can't be right, because he doesn't agree with you. I see your point. Try debating his findings. That's science. You're attacking like a politician. Which is the problem with the entire debate.

The first graph is the latest information available on the IPCC site. They have failed to update it, but we can assume from recent comments, to paraphrase we might have to wait 10 or 15 years for warming to continue," that the Christy satellite graph is correct. If you want to provide a citation that can disprove it go ahead. Something better than "one of the 'king' deniers." He was a lead author for the 2001 IPCC report and he does believe man impacts climate. He just believes the consequences are grossly exaggerated. So if you don't believe in doom, you're a king denier? Please. Are you saying model projects are accurate? If you're making a report to policy-makers who could be investing a trillion dollars, you'd better report any relevant new discoveries. Turing a blind eye is incredibly deceitful. As I've said, they still haven't updated the information on their site, years later.

It's from the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). I think you're missing the point. By not including the 2006 data, the IPCC graph was hiding the decline.

Looking for a citation for you, I came across this. The first is a graph from the IPCC on model predictions. Note that it was published in 2007, but the actual temperature on the graph ends at 2005; temperature data from 2006 was not included. A reporter should ask them why it wasn't. http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts26.jpg This link includes an updated graph showing how inaccurate the models' predictions have been since then: http://www.paulmacrae.com/

. Of course they have. Has temperature increased at the predicted rate? No. That makes the predictions of the model false. Yeah, it doesn't work. As I said, either variables are missing or the data is incorrect or both. In consensus of what? That the models are accurate? Are you kidding me? The consensus at this time would have to be that the models have been wrong.

You really don't need a lot of intelligence to question the models at this point. Their predictions have shown to be false. So either the models are faulty (due to unknown variables), the data is faulty or both are faulty.

http://www.backyardnature.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content=423 There is a difference between a news story and commentary. A reporter should never give commentary within a news story. A news story should only be about fact; not speculation or opinion. Rex Murphy is a journalist, but he isn't a reporter. His segment is commentary.

According to your friend's Facebook page, he was a presenter for Al Gore's Climate Project. Go figure. You can tell him this is one 'climate warrior' who won't be making a donation on his website. Thanks

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/12/08/ipcc.climategate.emails/index.htmlThat's astounding.

And all they need is more funding.

Much ado about nothing.

That would be the strategy.

They're asking for hardworking responsible people who are able to work independently. They're trying to weed out people who think an apple tree is a water cooler, take unnecessary bathroom breaks and need supervision. That's called trying to attract the best candidates for the job. If you think that's abuse, you're the type they don't want.

That's the stupidest post I've ever read.

Omar Khadr isn't a member of our society. He's Al Qaeda. Why we're failing is that we have not adapted our laws to get "Canadians" who not only support, but participate in terrorism, out of the country. He might not be found guilty of murder, but there's no doubt he is guilty of other charges against him. After he serves time, should he be allowed to reenter society? Sure. But the society that he came from; not Canadian society.

Ignatieff is just a puppet for those who appointed him.

Gee, i wonder if that line was fed to him. He probably asks to be sleep deprived every night.

I always had it as a statutory holiday and we still did all the poster and essay contests, so there's really no school issue. The malls should be respecting the day too.

Some people are ignorant to the meaning of "Lest we forget" then. So many were willing to sacrifice 50 years of their life. Surely, you can sacrifice two minutes of every year to remember their sacrifice. Why are you singling out the Conservatives with that accusation? How many is many? Got any poll numbers to back that up?

Confiscate the gold he tried to smuggle across and put it towards the cost of prosecution.