arctic ice increases 60%

anything that starts with "you be the judge" is dubious from the outset, because what its usually really saying is -
"I'm going to rely on you not knowing what the full set of facts is so that I an present a slanted view and move towards the viewpoint I'm shilling for."

There's this zinger in it btw

And actually while water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this actually underscores that fairly small changes in other greenhouse gases are amplified by the water vapor effect. Namely if I increase temperature by 0.1 degrees, by 0.7%, the partial pressure of water vapor goes up by 4% http://www.watervaporpressure.com/


The real sign that this guy is a clown is his cherry picking of the temperature time scales - ie looking at only the last decade and not looking at the noise function band.



Again Hoyte you know this. So its clear you are trolling

 

No doubt you are very wise, knowledgable and astute. Perhaps you could explain to poor inumerate me the honesty behind these three examples. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...not going to happen, at least not with the climate change scam.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-get-warmer-then-the-past-must-become-cooler/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/hiding-the-decline-with-the-ncdc-teeter-totter/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/1989-noaa-said-no-evidence-of-us-warming/

And something interesting to peer review, or suppress, as Alinsky advised:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/the-scientific-method-and-climate-science/#more-101812

 

Beware of the *** toot.

 

First one is answered in detail here. (which the blogger links to but hopes you won't read or if you read won't understand http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL)
Second one is a reposting of the first one.
#3 is

• done during the Reagan Admin
• limited to US land surface temps only

QED dubious and not exrtrapolable as a model for the whole world

and the last one is simply wrong. It engages in the logical fallacy of appeal to higher authority by invoking the OED for what "scientific method" is- when in fact in the case of field specific language like "scientific method" OED is at best a generalization And then he engages in this strawman

#1 is not true
#2 is not true
#3 is not true
#4 is what physics tells us has to be the case
#5 is not true
#6 is not true
#7 is not true and is irrelevant
#8 is not true.

So its a bogus argument

 

Thank you! I'm so relieved they caught their faux-pas of 1989 where they claimed no warming, and were honest enough to tell us innnumerate dolts about it in plain Engrish rather than jargon.

Btw, Mr Goddard has an interesting one on, er, peer review:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/understanding-peer-review/

My, I wonder what goodies the NSA has stashed away...but then, they wouldn't tell, since their bosses wouldn't like it. Might be embarassing, can't have the sheeple finding out stuff that could hurt the plan. This free internet must be such a gall...I'm not counting on it being around too much longer. Then we can be like the happy comrades in the envionmentally just People's Republic of China, which has after all the best form of government for dealing with warming. The UN chick said so! Here's how they used to deal with deniers of various stripes, but nowadays they have mobile disposal vans with fridges for recycling organs. Sustainable! Yay! Much more responsible than Katyn, for example, or the Ukraine, or Cuba, or Pyongyang, or Brussels. Oops, jumped the gun on that last one, but it's coming; always does.



Hoytie, don't worry. I've got my kit on (see below!), and have personally chopped down several old growth forest's worth of sticks to sharpen; poking, for the purpose of. Not sure if I should be building boats out of it instead, but seeing as how the Pacific fish population is growing three eyes, glows in the dark, and is ready cooked when caught, I might limit myself to lake boating. Sigh. I wish I'd been born back when Greenland was green, and carbon hadn't been invented yet. Pity it warmed and froze.

 

It will all be sorted out by a higher power.

 

And again, they did tell you in plain English. but you read a conspiracy into it. So the only way to disprove that is to show the math which means jargon. Nothing stops you from educating yourself in maths. that you choose not to is hardly you being lined up against any wall is more like this approach



As for your link to "peer review" which links to a single out of context email by Mann. again this has what to do with what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRpAANsoG8I

 

Watch six decades of global warming in 15 seconds | LOS ANGELES TIMES

 

So? What goes up must come down.

 

Let me know when Voyager returns to planet Earth.....

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/

PDW

 

When you are in weightless space, where is up?

It will come down somewhere at some time when it encounters sufficient gravity. Which sphere provides the gravity I do not know.

 

Let's cut the string and find out

 

Larger Animals Show Greatest Response to Climate Change | NATURE WORLD NEWS

 

That was rather inflammatory. Shall I take that as a personal threat?
I like global warming. I hate crop failures from little ice ages.

 

Calm thyself, Hoyt. In danger, you’re not, except for ideas from yourself…yes. The fear of loss is a path to the dark side…hummm.