> Humanity has increased the CO2 content
in the atmosphere by 50%. Within 200
years, most in the last 50. Which already
has caused a significant warming, which is
very well documented. There is plenty of
rock solid science behind this.

Apparently humans have increased the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Sure. Okay. Fine. That data is easy to
find and is credible.

Problem is, as I argued, with current
science that change in CO2 does not
necessarily mean a change in temperature.
Apparently the warming effect of CO2 is
just too small to detect.

Again, yet again, over again, once again,
one more time, (A) as I explained in
detail, Al Gore badly misread the data in
his graph and showed no evidence that CO2
had any effect, warming or cooling on the
climate, (B) in the Medieval warm period
and the Little Ice Age, we had significant
warming/cooling without a role for CO2,
(C) the warming early in the 1900s was
likely from the end of the Little Ice Age
and not from human sources of CO2, another
case of temperature changes not caused by
human CO2, (D) with the CO2 from WWII and
the postwar boom, we had significant
cooling from 1945 to 1970, a tough problem
for the alarmists' arguments, (E) as in
the famous reference I gave there were
many studies, models, calculations
evaluating the effects of CO2, and ALL the
studies that predicted significant
warming, including the "hockey stick",
were badly wrong, a real shot in the gut
of all modeling of the effects of CO2
that predict warming from human sources of
CO2, (F) from the failed predictions of
the modeling efforts, the science of
global warming has lost its credibility,
(G) similarly, from the failed
predictions, the UN and IPCC have no
credibility.

The alarmists are stuck: (i) the
empirical evidence from the 800,000 years
of ice core data, the Medieval Warm
period, the Little Ice Age, and the the
last 120 years do not support any claims
of human sources of CO2 causing
significant warming. (ii) As in the
famous reference I gave, the modeling
efforts lack all credibility. (iii) As I
explained, the UN and its IPCC are not
credible sources of science.

Since ALL the modeling efforts that
predicted significant warming failed,
predictions of temperature increases in
2050, 2100, etc. are just silly talk.

Actually, the significant increase in CO2
concentration with NO credible evidence of
significant warming is good evidence that
the warming effect of CO2 is just tiny,
too small to observe.

Lots of alarmists say there is lots of
data showing the significant warming
effects of CO2, but I've never seen a
credible reference, graph, data set, etc.
showing that. Instead I see a lot of
stories like the snow in Scotland.

But long ago I carefully studied the
highly credible

Committee on Surface Temperature
Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,
National Research Council ISBN:
0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, 7 x 10, (2006)

then and still now (I just checked)
available at

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html

Sorry, the solid, objective science that
human CO2 has caused, is causing, or will
cause significant warming just is not easy
enough to find or not there.

Again, net, so far, as best as I can tell
from years of paying attention, there is
no credible evidence that CO2 from human
sources has caused, is causing, or will
cause significant global warming.

The credible evidence just is NOT there.
Politics, stories, worries, claims -- lots
of those. Credible evidence -- no.

If you have some credible evidence, then
trot it out. Your just saying I can find
the evidence is not good enough. If the
alarmists want to make their case, then
they need to make public and easy to find,
as easy to find as the story about the
snows in Scotland, credible evidence of
warming.

That's why in my first post I begged for
evidence from THERMOMETERS and not just
some story about Scotland.

The alarmists have to hurry because there
are some cycles in the weather, e.g., from
the 11 year cycles of sun spots, El Nino
episodes, etc. that complicate the
analysis.

Meanwhile, to me the alarmism is a hoax
and a scam to get money and power. It's
clear that a lot of money and power are
involved. And the pursuit of money and
power are MUCH better explanations for the
alarmism than any credible science about
CO2.