Is global warming an Environmental Concern?

Re: Insight into the mentality of a junk science junkie

Undisputed theories? Creating a body of technicians (not scientists) that get into a closed sanctuary, close the door and refuse to hear real life facts from real scientists - and claim there is a consensus? You really made me laugh!

Well, I would say the following paper by Monnin et al., <font color=#aa0000>(fully peer-reviewed by Science)</font> says what you don't like to hear: CO2 is not an important factor in warming. Worse, its <font color=#aa0000>increases lag behind the warming.</font> So, the conclusion is: <font color=red>Natural warming cause CO2 increase, and not the opposite.</font> (Thanks to Monin et al.)

<center><FONT color=#ff0000 size=5>Temperature-to-CO2 Proved</FONT>
<FONT size=1>(19 April 2001)</FONT></P></center>
Some studies get the full media treatment because they support global warming claims. The others just get ignored.

A recent paper titled <FONT color=#aa0000>`Atmospheric CO<FONT size=1>2</FONT></font> Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination' by Monnin et al. appeared without fanfare in Science, vol.291, p.112, 5 Jan 2001, and addressed a long-standing point of contention between promoters and sceptics of global warming.

During the transition from the last Ice Age to our present Interglacial <FONT color=#aa0000>(or warm period)</FONT>, did rising CO<FONT face=Arial size=1>2</FONT> cause temperatures to rise, or did rising temperatures cause CO<FONT size=1>2 </FONT> to rise? Global warming promoters frequently claimed or implied the former as a means to `prove' that CO<FONT size=1>2</FONT> really can warm the planet.

Although it has been known for a long time that CO<FONT size=1>2</FONT> changes were correlated with temperature changes, the question as to which causes which has been a controversial issue. No more. We now know for sure.

<IMG height=474 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/lag-time.gif" width=436 border=1>

The authors examined samples from a recent ice core extracted from the Concordia Dome in Antarctica <FONT color=#aa0000>(75°06'S 123°24'E)</FONT> in 1999, and which has provided a better dating resolution than previous Antarctic or Greenland cores. According to the authors,
<dir><FONT color=#ff0000>"We found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the <FONT face=Symbol>d</FONT>D <FONT color=#aa0000>(temperature)</FONT><FONT color=#ff0000> increase by 800 ± 600 years, taking the uncertainties of the gas-ice age difference and the determination of the increases into account." </FONT> Even allowing for error factors in the time resolution, the temperature-to-CO<FONT size=1>2</FONT> sequence was quite clear.</dir><font color=#000000>The above graph <FONT color=#aa0000>(colour indicators added for clarity)</FONT> shows the relationship between temperature, CO<FONT size=1>2</FONT> and methane during the Glacial-Interglacial transition, the temperature clearly leading CO<FONT size=1>2</FONT> <FONT color=#aa0000>(three matched transitions shown by blue arrows)</FONT>. The `YD' refers to the `Younger Dryas' cooling episode and `BA' refers to the `Bølling/Allerød' warming episode, both in the North Atlantic and mainly affecting methane. Since temperature clearly leads CO<FONT size=1>2</FONT>, that means the rise in temperature caused the rise in CO<FONT size=1>2</FONT>.

Notice also that at the start point of the Holocene period 10,600 years ago, CO<FONT size=1>2</FONT> had risen sharply during the immediate previous centuries, with no apparent effect on temperature which had already levelled out a thousand years earlier. <font color=#ff0000>That suggests that CO2 has only a very weak effect on climate</font>.

If you first learned about these new findings here, thank the media - <font color=#ff0000>they only run stories that promote warming.</font></FONT>

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Edufer

IPCC formed in 1988, they've released 3 or 4 major assessments, these assessments where made after reviewing in excess of 20 000 research papers and IPCC has been backed by NAS+ other scientific academies and a variety of climatic instituitions in the world including the US itself.

Co2 science is considered a junk site, I don't rely on their interpretations ahead of the IPCC and NAS.
Australia's CSIRO has also endorsed the IPCC and the need for sustainable living.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Edufer

You and the IPCC supporters consider it a junk site. No doubt. It is quite clear you consider junk anything contraficting your views. But Monnin et al., paper was <b>peer-reviewd in Science magazine</b>, a devoted journal of IPCC followers - and the IPCC could say nothing about it. And it was not published by CO2 science site!

Your religious belief in the IPCC mantra cannot be harmed by any scientific fact or peer-reviewd paper. Science and religion do not make good partners. Too bad for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One paper can't overcome the 20 000+ that the IPCC have reviewed, the credibility of that mega-peer-review process via endorsement from the NAS and various other scientific academies.

Time to face facts boy: the worlds elite have spoken and more and more evidence is being compiled, more and more AGW fingerprints are being found and the world continues to heat as per the heating trend as predicted by the altering of the internal climate mechanism, the atmospheric composition.

Science =explain and predict, GHG theory has done this for you and 1000's of experts agree including the the prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences.

 

The IPCC has reviewd +20,000 papers that have been saying what they want to hear. But has not reviewd +100,000 papers that say the opposite.

And ONE well done and accurate paper will throw to the garbage can +1 million biased and flawed papers.

The world elite is divided in two. One says the IPCC hypothesis is correct. The other one says the IPCC is wrong. Both elites have spoken and have not reached a consensus - there is no such thing as consensus in science, there only opinions based on hypothesis, and you should know better. Hypothesis must be proved, and IPCC's hypothesis has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

Heating trend predicted by flawed models? The IPCC based its 2001 Technical Report and Summary for Policymakers on the infamous paper by Mann et al., known today as the "Hockey Stick", to say:

1) World's climate for the last 1000 years was steady, with no significant uprise or decrease in temperatures, dismissing this way the existence of two tremendous climatic periods: the Medieval Warm Period (also known as the "Climatic Optimum) that started about 800 AD and finished about 1350 AD, and the following cold period known as "The Little Ice Age", roughly from 1350 AD to 1650 AD.

This paper has been recently reviewed and audited by professors Stepehen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, and have shown Mann's paper to be flawed and totally WRONG. See the details of this sordid issue of corrupt peer-reivew in here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html "Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series", paper published in Energy and Environment (England) that can be reached at: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm.

Energy and Environment says in the opening page: "This paper has the power to radically change the debate over man-made global warming. Because of its potential importance we are posting it separately from the rest of the issue of Energy and Environment (volume 14 number 6) in which it appears, and giving open access to it, so that everyone who has an interest in these matters is able to read it and assess it for themselves."

So this paper has the potential to throw to the garbage can all IPCC's +20,000 mamooth peer-reviewed studies. How nice!

2) IPCC used this paper to claim the 20th century was the warmest in 1000 years. According to thousands of peer-reviewd studies on proxies from all over the world, it has been proved that IPCC's claim is a blatant LIE.

It seems you all well versed on global warming politics, as you have only referred to press releses and claims by the IPCC. As for your previous posts, it seems to me that your trainging and knowledge on climatology amounts to nil.

But even so, your knowledge about the way the IPCC is formed and conducts its behaviour is quite vague. The IPCC is not a scientific organization: it is a political one, formed by delegates from governments all over the world. This makes it entirely political.

The IPCC gathers information from several thousands scientists all over the world, that made researches and a special group of scientists prepare the Final Draft for the IPCC to evaluate. Then, the political bureaucrats in the IPCC takes that DRAFT and makes the FINAL REPORT, erasing everything that opposes their hypothesis of a catastrophic warming, and the Old Litany. They change what the scientists say in their Draft and adds what it is convenient to their goals.

This same procedure was performed by the National Academy of Sciences, when referring to the infamous claim: ."a discernible human influence", and Dr. Richard Lindzen , a former president of the NAS, and one of the scientists that made the DRAFT report to the NAS, came out shouthing: "That is not what we said in our report!". As the IPCC, the NAS political officials had completely changed the DRAFT and said what suited their interests. Shameful!

See what Dr. Lindzen said about the IPCC Final Report of 2001, (he was one of the chief contributors to the DRAFT report to the IPCC) in this link: Richard Lindzen It will shake your beliefs

 

An opening remark by Prof. Lindzen in the link given above:

"I hope it will become clear that the designation, 'skeptic,' simply confuses an issue where popular perceptions are based in significant measure on misuse of language as well as misunderstanding of science. Indeed, the identification of some scientists as 'skeptics' permits others to appear 'mainstream' while denying views held by the so-called 'skeptics' even when these views represent the predominant views of the field."

 

The Greenhouse Delusion

The Greenhouse Delusion
A Critique of "Climate Change 2001"
by Vincent Gray
published August 2002 • ISBN 0 906522 14 5 • pp. 95 • £11.50

Dr Gray's stimulating monograph sets out to challenge the consensus over global warming. As the title suggests, his particular target is the 2001 reports of IPCC Working Groups I, II, and III. Dr Gray argues that while the IPCC has provided a wealth of scientific information on climate, it has not convincingly made its case that increases in carbon dioxide levels are occurring and that increase will have harmful effects. Among his several lines of attack are reflections on the quality and reliability of measurements; views on what weight should be given to different influences on the earth's temperature; the validity of computer modelling in this context.

It is that the 'IPCC consensus' can be so challenged that makes Gray's monograph important, and essential reading for all seriously interested in the issues surrounding climate change and their consequences. If he is right, or even only half-right, that the IPCC consensus relies on poor science and inadequate reasoning, then the policy decisions beginning to flow from that consensus are themselves flawed too. Has gray identified a 'Black Hole' into which millions of public money and future research is being poured?

Dr VINCENT GRAY is a research scientist with a wide experience in five countries (UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China), in laboratories studying petroleum, plastics, coal, timber, building, and forensic science. He has published widely and for the past 12 years he has specialized in climate science. He is an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

 

Fallacies

From Table of Fallacies (your link, buddy) ALL of the FALLACIES there applies to the IPCC hypothesis. Just see.

Tainted Simple
Description: This is the fallacy that occurs when an experiment is conducted in a manner that causes the phenomenon to be observed to be changed by the observation. This includes, asking "loaded" questions on a survey, giving other visual or auditory clues that indicate a preferred answer, or even trying to make observations of people who know they are being observed.

Experimenter Bias
Description: The argument draws a conclusion from data that has been influenced by the expectations and hopes of the person collecting the data. In most cases this influence is unconscious and unintentional, but there have also been cases of outright fraud. Bad data may be due to such mistakes as rounding up or rounding down to favor a certain result, or treating ambiguous results as favoring the preferred result.

Arcane Explanation
Description: The argument proposes an explanation that appeals to causal mechanisms that are not currently or generally accepted. Often the explanation appeals to the activity of entities or beings not generally thought to exist, such as aliens, angels, ghosts, or other spirits, or to mystical forces whose operation is not understood or recognized.

This one is what defines IPCC’s Global Warming Hypothesis:

Non Causa Pro Causa
Description: The argument offers an explanation by citing one event as the cause of another, but the required connection between the two events would need laws of nature that are not generally accepted. There may actually be a causal connection between the two events, but the hypothesis mis-locates it, either getting it backwards, or treating as cause-and-effect two events that are really independent results of a common cause.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Description: The argument offers an explanation by citing one event as the cause of another, but the required connection between the two events would need laws of nature that are not generally accepted. The argument turns on the temporal ordering of the events: A comes before B, so A causes B. In fact, the temporal ordering of the two events is likely to have been merely coincidental, or the result of some further causal factor.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact
Description: From a statement of fact, the argument draws a counter-factual claim (i.e. a claim about what would have been true if the stated fact were not true). The argument falsely assumes that any state of affairs can have only one possible cause.

Gambler's Fallacy
Description: The argument attributes the occurrence of an event to causal factors (often of an arcane or vacuous nature) when in fact the event is best described as merely accidental. Based on these presumed causal factors, the reasoner may even attempt to make a prediction or projection about future events.

Over-reporting the Facts
Description: The argument proposes an explanation for a "fact" whose existence is doubtful. The arguer uncritically accepts as true the occurrence of events that are legendary or mythological, mere rumors or exaggerations, and, in any case, uncorroborated and unrepeatable.

Under-reporting the Facts
Description: The argument proposes an arcane explanation for a fact that appears surprising or mysterious only because not all of the relevant accompanying facts have been reported. Usually the additional facts suggest a perfectly ordinary explanation, or that the "surprising" event was due to fraud or trickery, or that it was the predictable result of ordinary statistical frequencies.

These ones relate to your arguments trying to refute my arguments:

Invincible Ignorante
Description: The argument defends a position by simply refusing to acknowledge the force of the arguments used against it. In effect, the argument says, "If your arguments are sound, then my position is false. But my position isn't false, so your arguments can't be sound." This is a fallacy of circularity because it assumes what is in question, namely the truth of the position being defended.

Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
Description: The words and phrases used to express the premisses are synonymous with the words and phrases used to express the conclusion. That is, the conclusion merely restates the premisses, with minor changes.

Vicious Circle
Description: The conclusion of the argument is appealed to as one of the truths or principles upon which the argument itself rests.

Example: "Everything the IPCC says is great science. By great science I mean, of course, whatever is done by a great scientific organization; and the IPCC is a great scientific organization. It is a great scientific organization because everything it does is great science."

If you need more, I can bring here all the Fallacies page – with the explanation that applies to you or the IPCC’s hypothesis and kind of work. Don’t try me.

You might get an answer as the one you got in another thread:

 

Your HERO LINDZEN is incompetent

Btw Edufer, The MWP was a regional event, GLOBAL warming is about the average Global temperature, this is important as it GHG theory explains and predicts that the GLOBAL ENERGY BUDGET will increase and this will result in more heat....as is observed.

Now if you aren't even aware of this extremely important distinction, I'm hardly surprised your anti with such zealotry.

I REPEAT, don't confuse regional events with GLOBAL averages, these averages reflecting the amount of radiation in the global energy budget.

Also, members of the IPCC have mentioned the 20 000 research papers that were mega-peer-reviewed....who other than YOU is backing up these mysterious 100 000+ papers that have been ignored??????????

Give it up.
1..You're rude and have relied on ad hominen's.
2..You rely on incompetent scientists ahead of 1000's, 1000's who have the backing of the NAS and other international scientific academies.
3...You have a limited understanding of the necessary details of climatology.
4..You accuse the IPCC of a political bias whilst being ignorant of the basic details of climatology, allowing you to make basic errors, such as thinking the MWP is of global significance.

 

Re: Re: It's a fraud. But if not, let "global warming" occur.

Didn't they say that rises in sea level would be minor? A few inches or a few feet? When ice melts, it contracts, not expands. A glass filled to the brim with water with ice floating in it, won't spill as the ice melts. So where is the "millions of people being crowded out?" Besides, how many more BILLIONS of people might be able to live instead, supposedly leading to the "global warming" to begin with? Isn't the "greater good" to benefit the billions, rather than a few million rich people with beachfront property awaiting the next hurricane to fall into the ocean anyways?

Not quite. There is much of the time, that I run no heat or air conditioning at all. Simply having shelter helps equalize the extremes between the heat of day, and the cold of night. And air conditioning is often to reduce the discomfort of the outside temperature being merely 10 or 15 degrees F above the human comfort temperature. People often run air conditioning when fans might do. While heat often is more necessary, because the outside temperature may be 40 or 50 degrees F below what is comfortable.

And air conditioning costs are variable, depending on the technology used. Ever hear of swamp coolers? They use much less electricity than air conditioners, as they cool by blowing air through water to cause cooling evaporation. They seem to be more popular in regions where humidity levels are lower, as swamp coolers do add some humidity to the air. Air conditioners are also more efficient if they burn gas rather than use electricity, or the condenser heat is discharged through buried pipes in the yard, where the temperature is lower, rather than by a fan into the hot air outside.

And what about the poor people of the world, who don't have heat and air conditioning? Do you think they will spend any more to stay cool? No, they would nap during the heat of the day, and do their work when it is cooler or at night, wouldn't they?

While that could be a concern, don't most people cluster near the equator, and away from the poles of the planet? So that wouldn't affect most people, as they already deal with parasites. And modernization also reduces parasites. Do you really suggest that people move to Antartica, to escape parasites? I still say warmer is likely better.

Um, wouldn't the rather "scientific" looking graphs and such, that other people are posting on this thread, disprove that statement? Talking about bad data, changes in recording instrumentation, urban heat island effects, lack of auditing of data, etc.

And "gradual" to me, suggests "time to adapt" or "minor." If you crowd a lot of people into a room, perhaps their body heat would cause a "gradual" warming in the room. But so what? That is hardly life threatening or detrimental to quality of life. Especially if one can open the windows or adjust the air conditioner thermostat. I wouldn't leave a "stuffy" room full of my friends and food.

What is causing it? Well if it occurred only during the 20th century, then of course humans are a likely suspect. After all, technology has changed a lot, and human population is much larger than it was at the beginning of the century, a century later. But it is great for the population to be so large, lest you and I didn't get to be born. So many people rather like living and having children. But a novel from a century ago, talked about how the weather was strange. People always think the weather is strange. That's why we live in houses rather than sleep on the ground. I suspect that climate may fluctuate and vary anyhow, even without human interference. And if humans cause it somehow, so what? Where is it written that climate must forever remain constant, or undisturbed by humans?

That sounds more like the view of a pessimist, than anything logical or "scientific."

And how do we know that the "cure" is any better than the "disease?" I think it far more likely that infringing on people's freedom and trying to ban the burning of fossil fuels prematurely, before better technologies take over, would be "disastrous" for the economy. Something we should not want while human populations around the world continue to burgeon. The world needs to modernize to better accomodate them.

No, I was thinking it was more like the tree huggers leader the supposedly "environmental" movement are the ones making it up. There is a huge political agenda with "environmentalists" and a lot of "religious" and pantheist overtones that have little to do with "science." "Global warming" on some flawed computer model based on who-knows-how-many false assumptions, is hardly compelling evidence. Nor minor temperature variations that so easily disappear into the "noise" of daily and seasonal temperature changes. I can discern no significant trend at all, but rather a bunch of disagreement, over both the measurements, and how they should be interpreted. I argue both ways. No "global warming," and that "global warming" should there be any, likely isn't harmful anyways.

Yes, I am a Creationist and Christian. But what's your point? That only evolutionists can think? Did you just call us all "stupid" or something? Did you know that much of what we call "science" or the "scientific method" came from Christians? Do you have any idea how many of the famous scientific discoveries of the world, came from people who believed in God?

 

Pronatalist

Creationism isn't science and your Christian ideology is deeply flawed and needs updating, its update needs to be of an ecological kind, but not surprisingly, you're anti the tree huggers and consider baseless accusations of political bias as worthy of rational consideration on this occasion.

NEVER forget, Revelation=hallucination or lucid propaganda.

 

Pronatalist, those who deny evolution have no more credibility with me than those who insist that the Earth is flat.

As Bertrand Russell once said (and I think I quoted this to you once before) "If someone maintains that the Moon is made of green Cheese you don't argue with them; you feel sorry for them." I don't expect you to take this to heart. You seem quite content contemplating a world where the entire globe is transformed into a human version of an ant colony, all for the greater glory of some invisible cloud being.

Once again for others: Many of those who feel that the warming climate is caused by humans (anthropogenic) have an agenda that damages their credibility. But in my opinion this is a distinct minority, especially when you are talking about the scientists in the various fields that actually generate the data that is cause for concern.

In our day to day lives, we cannot possibly confirm first hand the many claims that we hear put forth by researchers. Do you go on a crash course to confirm that high cholesterol diets actually are bad for you when leading medical researchers have decided that their evidence leads them to the conclusion that they are? No, you accept that they probably know what they are talking about, and act accordingly. If later evidence concludes that they (high cholesterol diets) in fact are not as bad for you as previously thought, what have you lost if you lowered your intake? What if later evidence in fact proved that it was worse than previously believed?

"The purpose of crying doom is to avert it"- Isaac Asimov

Acting in ignorance usually leads to unintended consequences, and with nature Vs. humans, they are usually negative (for humans - nature is utterly indifferent to our concerns) . To cite a small example from here in the Northwest.

The logging industry cranked up a rape of the forests in the late 19th century. Clear cutting thousands and thousands of acres of trees that were centuries old.
Leaving the soil bare caused erosion that completely disrupted the ability of the "forest" (can't really call bare ground a forest) to regenerate. Selective cuts, replanting, not cutting trees on steep hillsides would have helped in the rapid recovery.
These things are done now by some loggers voluntarily, but mostly because of government regulations.

The silt runoff and the buildup of slash in small streams contributed to the sharp decline of Salmon fisheries. Overfishing did the rest.

Fast forward to the 1980's. Virtually all of the old growth gone, and Salmon numbers just a shadow of what they once were, the Pacific Northwest went into a sharp decline, with two of the three legs that supported the economy gone.

With the knowledge that science now has of forests and fisheries, it is plain to see that the outcome was inevitible. The sad part is that even if the facts had been known many years ago, greed would probably still have won out over prudence, and the Goose that lay the Golden Eggs would probably have been slaughtered anyway.

Edufer, why would so many scientists try to mislead the public? Or do you feel they are being misled themselves?

It seems to me that their agenda is wide open. The fossil fuels industry are the ones who have to hide theirs. You can't get very far telling people, "doing anything about global warming will cut into our massive profits, therefore it doesn't exist, or if it does it isn't caused by humans."
I mean, they have theirs, why should they give a rats ass about the teeming millions who live just above sea level, and who regularly die by the thousands during monsoon season as it is, much less in an uncertain future with higher sea levels, and more violent weather?

 

An autopsy of your post

David: your immediate answer to my post about Richard Lindzen is a corpse in the guise of a post, because it was dead from the beginning. So it deserves an autopsy, in order to determine the causes of its death. Let us go by parts – as Jack the Ripper used to say.

It is amazing how incompetence can take a person to be accepted as a member of the American National Academy of Sciences, be nominated as scientific advisor to US presidents, be a chief scientist writing important scientific chapters for the IPCC and draft reports for the NAS in the subject of climate change, and reach to high levels of respectability and credibility in the scientific community – of course, not among the body of global warmers. But this lack of credibility coming from the “warmers” is not based on his scientific work, but on his alleged ties and funding by the “oil industry”.

If funding is an evidence for proving or disproving an hypothesis, then what could we say about the supporters of the global warming hoax? One of most outspoken organization at COP-9 in Milan was the <b>Pew Center on Climate Change</b> which I must remind everyone <b>is an industry-front group</b> funded by the Pew family's fortune derived from owning the <b>Sun Oil Company.</b>

It's too bad that <b>Enron</b> is no longer <b>the leading business member of the Pew Center</b> because conjuring grand appearances out of thin (or perhaps I should say hot) air was Enron's specialty. So it seems the battle among Oil companies dominates the global warming scenario. Which oil company do you believe in? Exxon, Sun Oil Co., Atlantic Richfield, ConoCo, Shell, BP, ELF, Agip, ------- (fill empty spaces with your own names). All of them fund heavily BOTH sides of the issue.

Remember that the ozone hoax was heavily promoted and funded by many chemical companies as DuPont, Imperial Chemical Industries, Hoescht, and others that wanted to introduce their Freon replacements as Suva CFC-134A and many others, and nobody wanted to buy them because they were 20 times more expensive than the harmless and beneficial Freons, it had half the heat transport and releasing capacity, required expensive new equipment, special lubricants, and because <b>Freon's patents had expired</b> and it could be produced without paying royalties to DuPont – as it is being done in India and China, and many counties in Asia. They funded Rowland and Molina, and Crutzen and the rest of “scientists” that were in the ozone bandwagon, so the <b>Mother of Hoaxes</b> paved the way for the <b>Global Warming Hoax</b>.

So your allegations for dismissing 'skeptic' scientists because some of them (not all!) are funded by the industry, is quite a biased stance: <i><b><font color=#804040>"This one, yes, this one, no." "This one says what I want to hear so he's doing good science." "This one I dislike because he goes against my beliefs, so he's a paid liar."</font></b></i> You don't care about the scientific validity of research; you care about the political implications of research.

And now comes a quote from the link you provided under the <a href="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3814&method=full">Your HERO LINDZEN is incompetent</a>

Let us see how truthfull are graphs from the IPCC: This chart of global temperature as determined from surface thermometers was published in the latest <b>"Summary for Policymakers"</b> by the IPCC, <b>with blue and purple labelling added later</b> by 'skeptics' pointing to parts that have been proved wrong, and this flawed data is the one used by "scientists" publishing in Science magazine and the mainstream media.

<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/surface.gif">

It illustrates one of the key points of contention between the advocates of global warming and the 'skeptics'. The surface chart was mostly compiled by <b><font color=#804040>Tom Wigley</font></b> and Phillip Jones, and it shows a +0.6°C warming from 1860 to 2000.

In a <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/wigley.html"><b>recent interview</b></a> he gave to the PBS TV network in the U.S., <b><font color=#804040>Wigley</font></b> said this about the above temperature history –

<font color=#aa0000><b>"If I go back now and look at that record of global warming, it's true that over the period from about 1910 to 1940, there was very substantial warming, so much so <font color=#ff0000>that it cannot have been due only to human activities.</font>_ But there are two other possibilities. It could be due to <font color=#ff0000>changes in the output of the sun</font>._ And, in fact, we believe that <font color=#ff0000>this is the primary reason for that warming.</font>"</b></font>

Wigley's admission is based on the fact that the increase in atmospheric CO2 <b>was not significant up to around 1940.</b> He_ referred to 'human activities' rather than CO2 specifically during this period, since that could include such human activities as land clearing and agriculture.

The IPCC claims a <b><font color=#804040>+0.6°C warming over the last 140 years</font></b>, but they present that claim as if it could <b><font color=#804040>all be blamed on fossil fuels._</font></b> However, it is clear from Wigley's remarks and from CO2 data on public record that anything pre-1940 <b><font color=#804040>could in no way be blamed on fossil fuels.</font></b>_ This means that <font color=#ff0000><b>fully half of that +0.6°C</b></font> warming was due to pre-1940 forcings, most probably the sun, <font color=#800000><b>as is now generally agreed by everyone.</b></font>

<b><font color=#ff0000 size=4>But was there really a warming of +0.6°C?</font></b>

The final 21 years of the above surface record shows a strong warming._ However, it overlaps with the satellite data (<b><font color=#0000ff>thick blue line</font></b>), which shows <b><font color=#804040>no such warming</font></b>, leading to the obvious question as to whether the pre-1940 warming was as big as claimed._ If the statistical processing of the surface record post-1979 could lead to an error of that magnitude in the surface record, the same processing procedures applied to pre-1979 data would in all probability over-estimate previous trends also._ By contrast, NASA's <b>satellite record</b> for the stratosphere:

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/NASA_strato_temp.jpg"></center>

and NASA's satellite record for the troposhere:

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/NASA_tropo_temp.jpg"></center>

has been validated against independent radio-sonde data and is accurate to one hundredth of a degree. <b>The surface record pales in comparison.</b>

Your great knowledge of climatology lets you see that the big spikes in the graphs (1983-84, 1992-93, and 1998) were due to the strong El Niños of those years, especially the biggest of the all, 1997-98 - something that is totally unrelated to CO2 increases or fossil fuel burinig, as the El Niño/ENSO and La Niña are absolutely governed by the solar sunspots cycles as brilliantly demonstrated by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, from the Schroetter Institute of Solar Research, in Germany:

<A href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/NinoLand.html"><B>SOLAR FORCING OF EL NIÑO AND LA NIÑA</b></A>

<A href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html"><B>New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?</b></A>.

Once the El Niño was gone, temperatures went down again, something that your models does not predict at all. Models predict steady warming, and do not allow for decreasing temperatures.

<a href="http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/new-enso.htm"><b>The Next El Niño</b></a> – July, 2006 - Dr. Theodor Landscheidt has now extended his solar analysis to forecast the next occurrences of <b>El Niño and La Niña</b>. He is the only scientist in the whole world that <b>predicted accurately the last three El Niños occurrences - <font color=#ff0000>with three years in advance</font></b>, something that the best known "climate" model available <b>cannot predict with more than three months in advance.</b>

Of course, you will dismiss Dr. Landscheidt's research because he is a 'skeptic'.

For the time being try to digest this. I have not finished my autopsy. I am not finished with you - yet.

 

Edufer

Digest what, distortions?
Have you figured out YET that the MWP was a regional event?

I hold the view that within 8-12yrs there will be no such thing as GW denial...as it KEEPS getting hotter GLOBALLY averaged, as explained and predicted by GHG theory, a theory that is UNDISPUTED baby....if you have a competing theory that explains and predicts better, let s hear it.

Stop wasting your time with all these farcical denials.

What you can never escape from is that in 1988 the IPCC formed, this body consists of 2500 scientists who have reviewed in excess of 20 000 research papers, this actually happened and was mentioned by Steve Sneider I believe, possibily the largest mega peer-review in modern history, all backed by the most prestigious scientific academies in the world including NAS.

Where is the proof that they ignored the 100 000's of papers, other than your absurd proclamation?
What other conspiracy theories are you in favour of?

More and more fingerprint papers are emerging...
There is a undisputed 20-25yr heating trend....
The worlds elite scientists have spoken....
GHG theory is undisputed...{note, that there's a difference between a theory being disputed scientifically and being disputed by a crank}.

Give it up for Godsakes.

 

Your Medieval Warm Period

Michael E. Mann is simply a fool educated beyond his capabilities. He and colleagues produced the famous (by now infamous) study know as the “Hockey Stick”. This piece of junk science was taken by the IPCC and converted in the mantra of global warming, as it purported that the 20th century was the warmest in the millennium, and 1998 the warmest in history.

Of course, the “warmest in history” claim was based on the average of readings by surface stations, all of them suffering the “urban heat island effect”, shown to be about 4º C – 6º C higher than open country areas, depending on locations. But the claim about the warmest century in 1000 years was much worse. The Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) paper passed peer-review (and that should give everybody a hint of the incompetence or corruption of this thing of peer-review in climatology) basing their research and conclusion on “evidence” from proxy data obtained from tree rings.

Their conclusion was that there had not been significant cold or warm period since 1000 AD, there was no <b>Little Ice Age</b>, and much less a <b>Medieval Warm Period</b>. Climatologists had known for many decades that the period from ca. 800-1350 was much warmer, and because conditions found then on the world, they named it “The Climatic Optimum” – because those 2º C higher than present temperatures were considered the best for all kinds of lives.

Of course, Mann et al. assertion made climatologists wild, and the study has been proven wrong since the beginning, but was not until last August 2003, that the hoax was exposed. Stephen McIntyre, a mathematician from Ontario, and Ross McKitrick, from the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario, published study in <a href=http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm><b>Energy and Environment</b></a> on 28-OCT-2003, with the following abstract:
<dir>
<a href=http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html><b>Abstract:</b></a>
The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 <b>contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.</b> We detail these errors and defects. We then <b>apply MBH98 methodology</b> to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, <b>using corrected and updated source data</b>. The major finding is that <b>the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century</b>. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 -- <b>is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.</b>

THE PAPER IS AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT <a href="http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm">ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT.</a>
</dir>
The paper has been online since Octobre 28, 2003 for review by whoever wanted to “peer-review” it, but no one has dared to do such a review. Regarding this, the latest update of the <a href=http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html><b>Abstract “Corrections to MBH98”</b></a> website, McKitrick and McIntyre say this:

<dir><b>UPDATE:</b> December 1 We are continuing to work on Part II of our response, which has required a detailed examination of Professor Mann's ftp site, hence the delay. We also traveled to Washington DC on November 18, to present a briefing on Capitol Hill, sponsored by the Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, on our work to date. A transcript will be published in a few days, we're told.

Some interested experts at a European climate lab had privately criticized us for what they regarded as an <b>insufficiently wide circle of reviewers for the E&E paper</b>. We offered to them that they could review Part II before its release, on the condition that <b>if they found errors they could hold us to public account</b> to rectify them, but <b>if the document checks out they would have to issue a statement saying so.</b> After considering it for a week <b>they declined the offer</b>, saying they don't have time to do the review, and would prefer to follow the debate's progress in journals.</dir>
Of course they declined to review the study. They rather don't get burned. Enough of Mann et al. the Hockey Stick has entered the Science Hall of Infamy.

This is the owner of the website that have that slander against Dr. Richard Lindzen. He seems to have his work published in Scientific American, once a nice magazine of general interest, in a level between Science, Nature, The New England Journal of Medicine, Geophysical Letters, etc, - and Popular Mechanics or Railroad Modeler. I started to become suspicious about their scientific accuracy when they started to publish many articles on the climate change and ozone issues, that I could then see were quite faulty.

But they really put the cherry on their cake when started a witch hunt on Bjorn Lomborg, with a series of five articles (17 pages) criticizing his book “The Skeptic Environmentalist”, and then allowing him only one and a half page to refute the criticisms. Then threatened Lomborg with copyright infringement when he published the articles in his own website and answered the critics one by one. As you and everybody know, the accusations levied at Lomborg by these Scientific American warming scientists (among them Stephen Schneider) were taken by a medieval Inquisition court in Denmark (the DSCD, Danish Scientific Committee on Dishonesty) that condemned Lombrog of “scientific dishonesty”, basing its decision on the Scientific American articles!

It takes time, but the truth always raises its ugly head (for liars) and three days ago, the The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (which is responsible for the DSCD) has just repudiated the DSCD `findings' that Bjørn Lomborg's book_ was <b>"objectively dishonest", "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice"</b> etc. etc._ The Ministry gave a critical assessment of the Committee's January 6 ruling, finding that the DCSD judgment <b>was not backed up by documentation</b>, and was <b>"completely void of argumentation"</b> for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice._ According to the Ministry statement, the DCSD's treatment of the case was <b>"unsatisfactory", "deserving of criticism" and "emotional"</b> and pointed out a number of significant errors of judgement and procedure. The DSCD's verdict has therefore been repudiated and declared void.<dir>
<b>December 17, 2003
Skeptical Environmentalist Vindicated</b>
According to a <a href="http://www.imv.dk/Default.asp?ID=233"><b>press release</b></a> just in, Bjorn Lomborg, author of the controversial The Skeptical Environmentalist, has been vindicated by the Danish Ministry of Science. Earlier this year, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, as part of a sustained <a href="http://www.techcentralstation.com/010803F.html"><b>smear campaign</b></a> by committed ideological environmentalists, issued an infamous decision that Lomborg's book "objectively speaking" fell "within the concept of scientific dishonesty." Now the Danish Science Ministry has issued a ruling which repudiates the DCSD decision and remits the matter back to them.</dir>
And Daniel Grossman, the slanderer of Richard Lindzen, member of the Scientific American gang, is one of your sources of information.

 

In your own backyard

It had to come, sooner or later, but finally you made a fool of yourself. Not only McKitrick and McIntyre study have shown there was a Medieval Warm period, and a Little Ice Age, but this has been even acknowledged by James Hansen of NASA, one of your dears. If the MWP was a “regional” event, then it must have occurred in ALL regions of the world. Climatic science rely not only on proxies, and geological studies, etc, but take into account historical documentation, as chronicles and writings kept in libraries and museums. The data coming from those sources have provided an enormous amount of information about the weather and the climate during ancient times.

As the Little Ice Age, I have personally seen the original chronicle by the founders of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia (1591) – a city I have lived in for three consecutive years – kept at the Santa Cruz Historical Archives, saying this (free translation from Spanish, making it short): <b>“Summers in the region are mild and agreeable, the land is fertile and good crops are obtained. Corn, cotton, potatoes, manioc and other plants provide for the welfare of the people. On the other hand, winters are harsh and so cold, that tree trunks sometimes get split in half by those terrible frosts.”</b>

Take a map, and find Santa Cruz: in the Bolivian plains, at 400 meter altitude, 15º South, 64ºW, is today in the warmest part of Bolivia – <b>right in the hot tropic.</b> Have you ever heard of frosts in the tropic, at 400 m altitude? And those temperatures kept steady up to the 1700s, if we are to believe original chronicles. There are no other chronicles for the Southern Hemisphere, as it was occupied by people that didn't know writing, or didn't keep records as in Africa. But Japanese and Chinese did keep records of the onset of springs and winters, the time of blooming of cherry trees, the start of early snows and so on, dating back some three or four thousand years!

And those ancient accounts, chronicles, and documents provide enough and overwhelming evidence that those times of 800-1350 were much warmer than today, and 1350-1650 were terrible cold - much more than today. And of course, there is enough proxy data (not sloppily treated as Mann's et al., of course) that demonstrates beyond any doubt, that there was a Warm Period followed by a Cold Period.

What is the amount of “more heat” observed. The IPCC says it is 0,6º C since 1880, that is, <b>122 years.</b> According to many “rural” weather stations in the world that is not the case. The data in the <b>Hohenpeissenberg</b> station in the German Bavarian Alps, with records dating back to 1781, the increase is 0,6º C – <b>but in 222 years!</b> That equates to <b>0,3º C by century</b>.<center>

<IMG height=340 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/Hohen1781A.gif" width=550 border=0></center>


As you see, the 1880 date is the coldest date that would render a steep warming trend if you started from there. And that is what the IPCC has done. As I said before, <B>there is a lot of dishonest people out there...</B>

But let us take <b>an urban</b> weather station in your own country, Australia: <b>Adelaide.</b> and see what we get:


<center><IMG height=340 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/adelaide3.gif" width=550 border=0></center>

There is <b>COOLING</b> trend, in a <b>URBAN</b> station, in your <b>OWN </b>country. You can ask for the temperature records in Adelaide, take them to an Excell spreadsheet file, make your own graph, ask the program to draw a trend, either linear or logarithmic, and see for yourself.

As a highly experienced climatologist and mathematician, this is a piece of cake for you.

Even with the great warming in 1913, part of the global warming in that part of the century (human induced?) the cooling trend is severe. We have many more cooling trends since the 1830, and 1780s, so there is a very good reason to say, <b><font color=#ff0000>"IPCC, go back to your drawing board."</font></b>

This is part of a study we are making at Cordoba University, analyzing and plotting trends from stations all over the world (those with records long enough to give significant trends). Adelaide happens to be the first in our list of weather stations (we ordered them alphabetically). <b>It was just your bad luck.</b> Any comments on this specific case?

Napoleon once said: <b>“Never try to stop your enemy from making mistakes”</b>. But I am not as pitiless as Napoleon, and I will give some little pieces of information, so you can set your brain working before setting your tongue in motion.

I am 66 (Jan. 3rd is my birthday, that's why I have been away from the board) and have been the president of the <b>Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology</b> for ten years. In 1994 I wrote a book (in Spanish) named <b>“Ecology: Myths and Frauds”</b>, that you can get online (for free) at our website at <a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INDICE.html<b>Ecología: Mitos y Fraudes</b></a>

The first chapter is “Global Warming”, chapter 2 is “The Ozone Hoax”, chapter 3 is “Lead in Fuels”, chapter 4 is “DDT: a Criminal Myth”; chapter 5 is “Asbestos and other Myths”; chapter 6 is: “Pesticides and Cancer”; chapter 7 is “Nuclear Energy”; chapter 8 is “Nuclear Waste”; chapter 9 is “The Amazon: Earth's Green Lung?”; chapter 10 is “Political Analysis”; chapter 11 is “WWW: World Wide Fraud?”; chapter 12 is “Gr$$npeace”; chapter 13 is “The Truth About Chernobyl”; chapter 14 is “Natural or Synthetic?”; chapter 15 is “Sustainable Development and Animal Rights”; chapter 16 is “Environmentalism: Analysis of Insanity”; chapter 17 is “Epilogue and Last News”, and has a Prologue by Dr. C.E. Lerena de la Serna, ethologist, Doctor Honoris Causa at the Max Plank Institute in Germany, with two Appendix by him, masterpieces of ethology, literature, and philosophy.

Our English version will make you see red. Have a terrific (horrendous?) experience in "<a href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html"><b>Ecology: Myths and Frauds</b></a>"

I have a Master in Anthropology –- a founding member in 1982 of the <b>Anthropological Society of Cordoba</b>, making the discovery (along with another member of our foundation, Prof. C. Miranda) that the Jivaro Indian from the Ecuadorian Amazon are original from Okinawa -- and many years of study and training in Linguistics, Electronics and Computer sciences, Physics, Chemistry, Meteorology, Climatology.

I have been involved in scientific research – in one way or another – since I have memory. My family founded a medical research institute in 1948, where I was raised, playing with microscopes, oscilloscopes and all kind of scientific instruments. In that institute (<b>"Instituto de Investigaciones Médicas Mercedes y Martín Ferreyra</b>” – look for it in Google if you want), worked Dr. Inés de Allende and <b>Dr. Papanicolao</b>, and they discovered the world famous method <b>for detection of early cancer of the matrix</b> – that has saved millions of women lives in the world. My elder brother, retired professor at Cordoba National University, made there research in neurophysiology for 30 years, (I helped him with scientific instrumentation, computing, photography, and editing of his scientific papers for the Journal of Neurophysiology) and was a guest medical researcher at Columbia University, New York, USA.

<b>I know what science is</b>, I know what scientific methodology is, I know what proper scientific behavior is (or should be), and <b>I know what scientific misconduct, dishonesty and fraud is.</b>

And for clearing out any suspicion you might have about who's funding our foundation work, I can prove beyond doubt that it is <b>ME alone</b>. I have never got a cent from anyone for doing my job of debunking environmental hoaxes. I have no relationship with any kind of industry whatsoever. My hobby is running an Adventure Travel lodge in the Bolivian Amazon. You will see pictures of it in our website. I was simply lucky to be born in a wealthy family, and receive a humanistic education that I have improved on, and am trying to pass it along to my sons and grandsons.

And the first rule I have taught them is:

<b><font color=#ff0000>“Never believe anyone, based only on his authority”</font></b>.

Rule 2: <b><font color=#ff0000>“Demand factual evidence, analyze it, compare it with the evidence you have, contrast both against basic laws of science, and make your own judgments”</font></b>.

<b><font color=#ff0000>That is the basis of science.</font></b> The rest is propaganda and business.

 

The purpose of crying Doom, is to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy? Say what?

Noah Webster (of dictionary fame) said that the things around us could not have created themselves.

Well which people should we get rid of then? How many people should there be? Who should decide?

I would much rather live in some human version of "an ant colony," than to not live at all because there were fewer births, or for people to be told how many children they may have.

Should humans populate only for God's glory, who commanded us to multiply? Well why would God have commanded it? To prevent the planet from being empty? Well that's hardly the best reason. For human benefit. Population growth benefits at least all the people who could not exist otherwise. Too many people benefit from population growth, for humans to have any practical reason to limit it. So for human population to be great, benefits humans too. Not just "God's glory." And to welcome our neighbors to live and have their children, is the sort of goodwill condusive to people getting along and living in harmony. It is much more important that people behave like civilized people should, than that our numbers be less than some arbitrary population quota that wouldn't even benefit people to begin with. We won't ever be some "ant colony." But I would at least let somebody open their mouth and say something stupid, before judging them and declaring that some people shouldn't be born, due to some arbitrary intepretation of some population statistics. I would rather humans populate themselves into some global "ant colony," than that we diss our neighbors based on arbitrary anti-population quotas, and judge our neighbors, without even a fair or open-minded hearing into the worth of each and every individual. I think that parents are far more qualified to decide how many children they should have, than some far away, corrupt, and uncaring politician. And God is more qualified to decide than anybody. Population is what it is. It is up to God how numerous we wants to make us. It's not even man's place to decide.

Isaac Asimov doesn't impress me. Isaace Asimov is credited with some anti-population quote, and yet he is a hypocrite in thinking the world has plenty of room for him to keep living? That erodes his credibility with me. Just another rebel against God, lacking faith and vision. So what is the purpose of crying "Fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire? What is the purpose of crying "Wolf" when there is no wolf stalking the sheep? When somebody sounds the alarm, I expect that there should be some real cause for alarm, and not just somebody trying to get attention for some perverse political agenda, or trying to get attention. Just because one may be scared of the dark, or bored, or think themselves smarter than they are, is no excuse to sound false alarms. It is irresponsible to plunge forward into foolishness and make policy, based on unproven and speculative theories. If you know the children's fable about "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," then you should know that when the wolf came, nobody believed him, because he had previously sounded too many false alarms. Is this what the "environmental" extremists are setting us up for? When the real alarm comes, it will sound just like all the false alarm, after false alarm, and whining of the "environmentalists" of the past, and not be believed?

Didn't Chicken Little cry that the sky was falling? What good did it do? The sky wasn't falling, and if it was, how could Henny Penny, Chicken Little, or whoever else, do anything to stop it?

The people crying "Doom" aren't suggesting anything better, so what is the point of their scare tactics?

In other words, nature isn't "opposed" to human actions, nor could care less how populated people get, as long as they do whatever they need to do to accomodate increased numbers?

 

Edufer

Despite your self-promotion, I'm going to be foolish enough to rely on the evidence and conclusions of the IPCC, WMO and NAS+numerous other Sci Academies.

Also, what has Adelaide got to do with GW?
LOL, I keep telling you that GW is the global average, as it's measuring heat in the global energy budget/balance, and therefore, EVERY regional/local event is meaningless if the global averages are on the up.

Australia can record a cooling trend, it makes no difference as long as the measure of globally averaged temps reflect an increase in global energy budget/balance, something you fail to understand, and this is critical to understanding the issue of GLOBAL warming.

So please stop giving me irrelevant data and charts that reflect regional/local changes, and please, use your yrs of scientific training to begin your study of the global energy balance.

We have a UNDISPUTED theory called GHG theory{btw, if you have a superior competing theory, lets see it}, this coupled with the basics of climatology and specifically the knowledge of how the global energy balance relates to global averages and that the internal climate mechanism known as the atmospheric composition has increased its ppmv of co2 and that we have empirical evidence in the form of an isotopic signature confirming fossil fuels, is the basic starting point for anyone undertaking critical review of this issue.

So your yrs of activity and self-promotion aside, YOU or anyone considering this issue must first understand the basics.
Your repeated local/regional charts proves your ignorance of the basics, and renders your opinion on GW's veracity as virtually worthless.

EDIT:

Btw your criticisms of Mann aren't just unfounded, their actual lies as I posted this previously.....or didn't you see it?

This guy sounds like a Fossil Fool and Energy and Environment don't sound biased either...LOL.


PR watch message board

This forum exposes the techniques of manipulation used by big business and also that there is a $35 BILLION propaganda industry in existence, this is why it's important to rely on the elite scientists and the peer-review process so as financial influence can be minimized if not eliminated.

 

You are hammering on the wrong nail. Move a little to the side. Adelaide (and thousands of other places in the world) contribute with their regional climatic conditions to global climatic conditions, and to your global energy budget/balance. When you see those thousands of locations (that add to the “global energy budget/balance”) contradict IPCC's contention, then you can safely assume that IPCC's figures are somehow “fishy”, and have a high probability of being an artifact from managed statistics (GIGO, remember? Garbage In, Garbage Out, computer science's Golden Axiom), picking selected data, dismissing the contradictory data (Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, among other), as shown by the now demonstrated flawed Mann's et al. “Hockey Stick” study.

Perhaps I have better understanding of the issue than you have, as your understanding is based on the kind of <b><font color=#804040>manipulated data and statistics </font></b>you have been mentioning here. In the late 50s I was lucky enough to read Paul Tabori's <b><font color=#804040>The Natural Science of Stupidity</font></b>, — a superficial if entertaining collection of anecdotes culled from history, that made me highly skeptical about everything related with <b><font color=#804040>bureaucratic organizations.</font></b> I guess you have read it, as it is a classic in the field of “human stupidity”. As one discussion on the issue of stupidity states:<dir>
“When considering "Stupidity", it is important to distinguish between the term and the phenomenon. The term may be used to designate a mentality which is considered <b><font color=#ff0000>to be informed, deliberate and maladaptive.</font></b> However, because of the existing taboo, this is seldom done. Usually, the term is used like an extreme swear word—a put-down for those deemed intellectually inferior, although this tactic normally reveals more about the attitude of the user than the cognitive abilities of the designate(s).</dir>We know, by multiple personal experiences, that most people in bureaucratic institutions (as governmental organizations and offices) are absolute <b><font color=#804040>functional oligophrenics</font></b>, tied up to regulations in the book, unable to use their brains. The IPCC <b>is not a scientific organization</b>, but <b>a political one</b>, as I have stated before, so its scientific credibility derives from the intellectual capabilities of their members, and their presumed honesty. <b><font color=#ff0000>In both accounts, the IPCC has zero credibility among serious and honest climate scientists.</font></b>

The IPCC collects extremely good scientific works on climatology (and very sloppy and wrong ones, for that matter), takes the <b>Technical Report</b> by those different groups (they make an excellent work), but then the political officials modify the report's conclusions to suit IPCC's political agenda. <b>And this cannot be denied.</b>

Undisputed <b><font color=#ff0000>within the IPCC's Temple of Doom</font></b>, of course. But is <b><font color=#ff0000>DISPUTED and challenged</font></b> by the vast majority of serious scientists. The GHG theory is far from being scientifically sound and accepted by the scientific community. If it were a <b>worldwide consensus</b> about it, why is there a tremendous battle going on between <b>“skeptical scientists”</b> and <b>“IPCC's scientists”?</b> You are among those several thousands siding with the IPCC views, and I am one of several thousands, siding with the opposite side. We are never going to convince each other about how wrong our theories are. The battle rages in the ground of <b><font color=#ff0000>convincing all those ignorant politicians</font></b> that, by an unfortunate twist of fate, have the law in their hands, along with our fortunes, wellbeing and lives, that there is no serious scientific basis for the IPCC's claims. This was supported by the US, Australia's and Russian's scientific advisors to their governments.

So yours is not an UNDISPUTED theory.

GHG theory gives an <b><font color=#804040>exaggerated value to CO2 levels</font></b>, and dismiss completely the <b><font color=#804040>Sun's influence on Earth's climate</font></b>. Some very brief examples will clear things out, that I would like you to elaborate on each of them:
<dir>1) CO2 levels during the Cretaceous (some 60-90 millions before present days - bpd) were between 2600-6000 ppm, some <b><font color=#804040>20 times higher</font></b> than today's levels. Temps then were only 1.5º C – 2.0º C higher than today. According to your GHG theory, temperatures <b><font color=#ff0000>would have to be then about 150º C.</font></b>

2) The close correlation between solar sunspots cycles and Earth's temperatures, going back to geological times scales, are too consistent as to dismiss it as a fundamental cause of climatic variations.

3) Recent studies by <b>Monning et al,</b> and <a href=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1072929480033_6267&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&journalcode=sci><b>Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III</b></a> by Nicolas Caillon, et al., have shown that CO2 increases <b><font color=#ff0000>lags temperature increases by 600-800 years</font></b>, something that had been claimed by many scientists but was not fully demonstrated. Now it has been demonstrated by these two studies published in Science, back in 2001. Of course, these papers went unnoticed by the mainstream GHG media and proponents of global warming, because it shows that <b><font color=#ff0000>temperature increase is the cause</font></b> and <b><font color=#ff0000>CO2 increase is the consequence</font></b>.</dir>

My local/regional charts are part of <b><font color=#804040>thousands of those that make the global picture.</font></b> You keep hammering on the wrong nail. I have full knowledge of not only the basics (something you have not shown, yet) but on the intricacies of meteorology, climatology and other science that conform the global warming issue.

Read an article I published in the web about the recent heat wave in Europe, and comment it here.

<a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen2/jet.html><b>Heat Waves In Europe: The Mystery Unveiled</b></a>

I will not convince you about anything, I am sure, but the information and arguments I provide may give solid ground for other people to make their own analysis and arrive to different conclusions than those of the IPCC. And that is my sole purpose for being here and other discussion forums on global warming.

About those highly respected scientists in the IPCC payroll, scientific titles and degrees mean not too much to me. It just points to the institution where many people smoke pot while trying to learn something that will earn them a professional degree. It is, by no means, a signal of <b>the quality and quantity of knowledge acquired</b> by the recipient of a degree, <b>nor a signal of his skill in the matter</b> and much more important, <b><font color=#ff0000>his scientific honesty.</font></b> Scientific literature is plagued by fraudulent studies and papers, whose errors and frauds were not detected by peer-review – until a serious peer-review by independent sources is made, (remember Dr. Benveniste's fiasco?) generally caused because some "insider" spoke too much and gave information away, resulting in the fraud's exposè.

For those readers of this forum, interested in learning some basic facts about the validity of IPCC's global waming hypothesis, here is and excellent link to an article by Gerald Marsh, a physicist at Argonne National Laboratory. Enjoy it!

<a href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/GW%2DPrimer.html"><b>Global Warming Primer</b></a>

David, don't read it. It is another article by someone that ignores the basics of climatology and GHG theory...

 

You know, I would have thought it obvious that all the paper mentioned above:
"Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination' by Monnin et al. appeared without fanfare in Science, vol.291, p.112, 5 Jan 2001, and addressed a long-standing point of contention between promoters and sceptics of global warming."

really can say, is that Co2 rises did not cause the end of the last glaciation period.