In the IPCC you areyour own editor and decides what is relevant to review. This led to publicationof conclusions, at least exaggerated ("hockey stick" graph) and thefleeing of several scientists from fields such as geology, geophysics,astrophysics, epidemiology and others because their views contradict thosedesired. Nevertheless their names still appear in the reports. Today the IPCCis basically composed of meteorologists and environmentalists makingconclusions very limited if not erroneous.One of the scientists who left the IPCC isProf. Paul Reiter from Pasteur Institute in Paris who only got his name removed from thereport after threatening it with legal action. He says the idea that furtherwarming will increase the incidence of diseases like malaria is false. Thepremise of the IPCC is that as malaria is transmitted by mosquitoes andmosquitoes do not survive in the cold, warming will increase the amount ofmosquitoes. Reiter says that this is not true, that mosquitoes are extremelyabundant in the Arctic and that one of the largest epidemics of malariaoccurred in the Soviet Union (now Russia) in the 1920s, with 13million cases and 600,000 deaths. His findings never got to the report, but hisname was listed as a contributor.As we all like Al Gore and we were shocked whenthe 2000 presidential election was stolen from him, lets talk about his biggest"misunderstanding" not to say manipulation.In the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" heshows the relationship between temperature and CO2, only with thegraph of the variation of the two (below) and explained that the relationshipis very complicated concluding that the increase in atmospheric CO2causes an increase in temperature on the planet. We have a serious problem herebecause without knowing what is the relationship between temperature and CO2we have to believe, take as faith, in the word of Mr. Gore, a person who is nota scientist but a politician (what was the last time you believed in apolitician?).The relationship that is supposed verydifficult for Mr. Gore is not that much to someone with a little patience tounderstand it. The first interesting fact is that if we look closely at thegraph we see that there is a time delay between the change in temperature andCO2. First we see the temperature increase and then we finally seethe increase in CO2, as is clear from the graph below that shows adelay of approximately 800 years. Just this fact leads us to suppose that thetemperature is not a consequence of CO2 but the opposite, first thetemperature needs to increase and then the CO2 level increase. Butback to the relationship between the two. Today oceanographers as ProfessorCarl Wunsch of MIT know that a temperature rise in the oceans causes the dissolvedCO2 in the sea to be release into the atmosphere and when thetemperature decrease the CO2is absorbed by the sea. The oceanography also tells us that any effect we areseeing in the ocean today is because they happening 800 years ago simply becausethe oceans are very big and takes about 800 years to warm up or cool down.We know also that sunspots are closely linkedto cloud formation on Earth. When the sun's activity increases, increasing thenumber of sunspots, the sun's magnetic