They myth that is man made global warming.

[Final-Fan]

mrstickball said:

Final-Fan said:

TheRealMafoo said:

Sardauk said:

So many biased-conservatism-republican-christians-in-denial comments.... it makes me sick...

I started this thread, and I am not conservative, not a republican, and am an atheist.

So, could you please step away from your political box and just look at the science.

Oh, and Final-Fan,

Get a world map, a sharpie, and put 3000 dots on the ocean areas and get back to me. It's a huge amount of data points for collecting data.

I am sure when you are done, there would be no place on the globe that a hurricane could pass without encountering dozens of data points.

Assuming maximum spread, are we? 

You assume that if your going to do a survey, your going to put the bouys in the worst possible spread to render the results of your study inconclusive, right?

Unless I misremember I have no way of knowing from this thread where that data is coming from.  Instead of bitching, why didn't any of you actually try to defend your data?  It didn't take me that long once I got around to it: 

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

As we can see, coverage is extensive but irregular.  The Pacific near Japan seems to have especially heavy coverage, while other areas are covered more sparsely or not at all.  I for one would like to know if this was accounted for in ... DiPuccio's ... study. 
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/

But even if he did not account for that, it seems unlikely that that alone would eradicate his negative finding.  I would be very interested in seeing what experts have to say who have waded through his findings.  A brief search only turned up a guy pointing out that 2003-2008 was the only 6 year period in the last 15 years to show a decline, and that DiPuccio is "not a climatologist, but rather the director of the Institute for Classic Christian Studies". 

(Five minutes later ...)

A CHALLENGER APPEARS!



http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=67

It would seem that not only is the 6-year sample curiously well-chosen to show decline, but it is hamstrung by its short timeframe AND suspect in its early years (due to early incompleteness in sample size/distribution), which means it might actually have been warming even for that 6-year sample.