No one can deny that average global temperatures have risen about 1.2 degrees/F during two periods: 1910-1940 and 1975-2000, or, 55 years of the past 150 years of recorded weather. The other 95 years the average temps have either remained stable or dropped, including from 1940-1975. Those prolonged periods of temperature stabilization, alone, poke rather large holes in the entire hypothesis of AGW. If AGW had real substance, we would not see prolonged periods of cooling during periods of massive human C02 output. It doesn't mean it's not possible, it simply means it isn't corroborated in this most fundamental of scientific observations:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/hockeystick2006.gif
Furthermore, there is not one, single scientific peer-reviewed paper that states, categorically, that human-produced C02 increasing the greenhouse effect is causing the earth to warm, or the climate to change. Studies that claim the oceans are absorbing C02 from the atmosphere make no mention of the hundreds of undersea volcanoes that spew millions of tons of hydrocarbons and C02 into the oceans...why?...because the scientific community has NO IDEA how much C02 active undersea volcanoes add to the oceans. So...how do scientists now human-produced C02 is being absorbed into the oceans? They don't...more bad science.
One does not have to be a scientist to understand the fundamental principles of common sense, one merely has to be open to the information revealed as a result of scientific method.
The primary reason AGW proponents focus on the last 150 has nothing to do with C02, it has to do, primarily, with keeping long-term climate cycles out of the discussion. Both the Greenland and Vostok ice core samples clearly indicate the earth has seen dramatically higher average global temperatures than we have now, and on numerous occasions during the last 10,000, when the current warming period actually began after the last ice age, and long before human C02 was an issue:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/images/data3-gisp2-icecore.gif
I do not deny the POSSIBILITY that human C02 could POSSIBLY increase the greenhouse effect, however, that it is causing global warming simply hasn't been proven. On the contrary, the scientific community knows little or nothing about atmospheric water vapour, the largest component of the greenhouse effect. Without understand how ALL the greenhouse gases interact, how is it even possible to know what effects those gases might have combined. It isn't.
Besides, anyone that nows anything about this subject knows the VAST majority of C02 is not produced by humans, it is produced naturally, and that C02 comprises a minute fraction of the total atmosphere compared to air and nitrogen. Again, more common sense not requiring a science degree, just the ability to read.
AGW is bad science, the so-called 'scientific consensus' (not part of the scientific method) supporting AGW knows it's bad science, and that is precisely why a non-scientific body like the IPCC has been created to propagate this nonsense because no real scientist wants to present a paper for peer-review that states, categorically, C02 is increasing the greenhouse effect and increasing global temperatures. Why? Because the evidence just isn't there.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/hockeystick2006.gif
Furthermore, there is not one, single scientific peer-reviewed paper that states, categorically, that human-produced C02 increasing the greenhouse effect is causing the earth to warm, or the climate to change. Studies that claim the oceans are absorbing C02 from the atmosphere make no mention of the hundreds of undersea volcanoes that spew millions of tons of hydrocarbons and C02 into the oceans...why?...because the scientific community has NO IDEA how much C02 active undersea volcanoes add to the oceans. So...how do scientists now human-produced C02 is being absorbed into the oceans? They don't...more bad science.
One does not have to be a scientist to understand the fundamental principles of common sense, one merely has to be open to the information revealed as a result of scientific method.
The primary reason AGW proponents focus on the last 150 has nothing to do with C02, it has to do, primarily, with keeping long-term climate cycles out of the discussion. Both the Greenland and Vostok ice core samples clearly indicate the earth has seen dramatically higher average global temperatures than we have now, and on numerous occasions during the last 10,000, when the current warming period actually began after the last ice age, and long before human C02 was an issue:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/images/data3-gisp2-icecore.gif
I do not deny the POSSIBILITY that human C02 could POSSIBLY increase the greenhouse effect, however, that it is causing global warming simply hasn't been proven. On the contrary, the scientific community knows little or nothing about atmospheric water vapour, the largest component of the greenhouse effect. Without understand how ALL the greenhouse gases interact, how is it even possible to know what effects those gases might have combined. It isn't.
Besides, anyone that nows anything about this subject knows the VAST majority of C02 is not produced by humans, it is produced naturally, and that C02 comprises a minute fraction of the total atmosphere compared to air and nitrogen. Again, more common sense not requiring a science degree, just the ability to read.
AGW is bad science, the so-called 'scientific consensus' (not part of the scientific method) supporting AGW knows it's bad science, and that is precisely why a non-scientific body like the IPCC has been created to propagate this nonsense because no real scientist wants to present a paper for peer-review that states, categorically, C02 is increasing the greenhouse effect and increasing global temperatures. Why? Because the evidence just isn't there.