The climate has been changing forever. From around 900 to around 1400
we had a warming period that was warmer than todays temperatures. Then
we went thru the Little Ice Age from around 1400 to around 1750 when
the global temperatures were significantly lower than today.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/1000-yrs.gif

This temperature record has been compiled from many different datasets
of data from different sources. Most climate related scientists agree
that that chart accurately represents the temperature record.

1) Global warming is real.

It is well known that global temps are going up at about .6 degrees
celsius per 100 years since the end of the Little Ice Age, and nothing
has happened to show that this is increasing or decreasing. There is
no real evidence that this has accelerated in the 30 years or the last
10 years.

2) Does CO2 cause global warming?

The argument is that greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect that
causes global warming.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas,
accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

TABLE 1.

The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations
expressed in parts per billion)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Pre-industrial baseline        288,000
Natural additions                68,520
Man-made additions           11,880
Total (ppb) Concentration     368,400
Percent of Total                  99.438%

So of the 5% of the total hreenhouse gases that is not ascribable to
water vapor, most of the 5% is from CO2. Of that total CO2, 368,400
ppb, the man-made component is only 0.04125% (11,880 ppb). In fact the
naturally occurring fluctuation is 6 times the amount of the man-made
CO2.

So, even if CO2 did drive climate warming, the amounts being
contributed by man are miniscule compared to naturally occurring
fluctuation and is minute compared to the impact of water vapor.

3) There is no science that definitively shows that CO2 in fact causes
global warming. Most science points to CO2 as actually increasing as a
recult of global warming and not the other way around.

4) Computer models can't even predict weather a week down the road,
how can we rely on them to predict climate 10 or 20 years down the
road.

-------

It is claimed that (a) CO2 causes global warming and (b) CO2 levels
are at their highest in recorded history therefore temperatures will
skyrocket as many as 7 degrees in the next decade or two.

If that is the case that (a) CO2 cause global warming and (b) CO2 is
at an all time high, why are todays temperatures not the highest in
recorded history? Looking at the fudged and cherry-picked hockey stick
graph that, indeed, *appears* to be the case but if you look at the
actual real data, you will see that the Medieval Warming period was in
fact much warmer than todays temperatures. And that was just 500 years
ago.

-------

The IPCC is a committee of politicians from the UN. In 1997, they
showed the above reakl temperature graph in their report. But that was
an inconvenient truth so in 1998, they omitted that graph. They showed
this graph, the infamous hockey stick graph:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/hockey_stick/hockeystick01.html

This is what the IPCC hangs it hat on with regards to global warming.
Complete scientific revisionism at its worse.

Suddenly, the temperature record omits the Medieval Warm Spell and the
Little Ice Age. Michael Mann, a "scientist", on behalf of the UNs
IPCC, took two different sets of cherry picked data that would give
him the results he wanted and tacked them together. He also shifted
some of the data and arbitrarily shifted it by 87 years. This chart is
a complete fraud. No climateologist worth his salt would agree that
the hocky stick graph is an accurate representation of global
temperatures in the past 2000 years.

The IPCC created its latest reports by drafting the statement first,
then they call on "scientists" to provide data to support it. That is
not how science works. Many real scientists have walked away from the
process because of this. Some are still listed as contributors to the
report even after they have walked away.

The IPCC gathers this cherry picked data to support their politics,
then they publish it and announces a consensus. The consensus only
exists amongst themselves, the politicians on the IPCC. Few of the
scientists tapped by the IPCC agree that:

CO2 is the main force behind accelerated global warming. Sunspot
activity nas a stronger correlation that CO2. Water vapor is 95% of
the greenhouse effect.

There is no wide consensus that supports the IPCCs report. Fewer than
a few hundred scientists took part in writing the report. The final
content was determined by politicians. Many scientists who took part
in the report process strongly objected to the methodology and the
final content. Few real scientists agree with its temperature
forecasts. Over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition against the
IPCCs report, its position and its forecasts.

http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm

The pro-global warming advocates attempt to stifle discussion and
debate on the topic, not by presenting the science, but by political
browbeating. They insist that there is a consensus where there is
none. By insisting that there is a consensus, they then can attack
scientists as being "deniers" and "denialists" as if they had a
consensus and the mainstream is now on the outside looking in. Long
respected climatologists who express doubt about the IPCCs reports
find themselves attacked personally and professionally and sometimes
find themsleves losing funding and status.

There cannot be a consensus because there never was a debate or
discussion. The IPCC said it was so and the world better accept it,
regardless of the science.

So when a scientists expresses doubt about the IPCCs forecasts, they
are not bucking a consensus, they are questioning a politically
imposed "scientific" view.

Global warming is real, at .6 degrees celsius per 100 years. Not at
any grossly exagerated rate as the IPCC would have us believe.

It doesn't matter how loudly or how often the IPCC shouts out its
forecasts, most scientists do not consider global warming to be a
threat to anything.