Have you ever wondered why graphs showing directly measured CO2 concentrations, always spans the years from the late 1970′s to the present ?
Like this (look at page 21):
http://nzclimatescience.net/images//the%20global%20warming%20scam.3.ppt

Now look at page 20 in the same document. Turns out, chemists has been measuring CO2 prior to 1978.

You can also learn a lot from this:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/co2scandal.pdf

Quote:
Galactic Cosmic Ray Volleys: A Coming Global Disaster

Galactic core outbursts are the most energetic phenomenon taking place in the universe. The active, quasar-like core of spiral galaxy PG 0052+251 (Figure 1-a), for example, is seen to radiate 7 times as much energy as comes from all of the galaxy’s stars. Most of this is emitted in the form of high energy cosmic ray electrons accompanied by electromagnetic radiation ranging from radio wave frequencies on up to X ray and gamma ray frequencies.

A study of astronomical and geological data reveals that cosmic ray electrons and electromagnetic radiation from a similar outburst of our own Galactic core (Figure 1-b), impacted our Solar System near the end of the last ice age. This cosmic ray event spanned a period of several thousand years and climaxed around 14,200 years ago. Although far less intense than the PG 0052+251 quasar outburst, it was, nevertheless, able to substantially affect the Earth’s climate and trigger a solar-terrestrial conflagration the initiated the worst animal extinction episode of the Tertiary period.

End quote.
Point is, the chances are much greater that factors outside our control to change will affect Earth’s climate. Whether we’re in for a period of warmer climate or colder, there are two things I think we need to address.

1. Should there be drastic climate change, energy conservation in a bid to forestall the need for vast amounts of power is simply kidding ourselves. Saving a MW or two of electricity isn’t going to solve our energy needs, which are growing exponentially even without climate change factored in.

2. By far the worst aspect of the entire debate is that people feel free to lobby government to impose the views of some on everyone, thereby choking off independent investment in nuclear energy, intelligent recycling, and who knows what other inventions that would enable us to deal with whatever comes our way.

Being able to withstand dramatic climate change 10, 100 or 100 years from now is entirely within our reach, simply by allowing laissez-faire capitalism to operate, and preventing the fear-mongerers from getting at the controls to compel everyone to fall into their fear-motivated line. I realize that already that process is well underway, with the Great Lightbulb Scandal drawing closer every day. Is there no way to turn back this human-hating tide?

Conviction is an axe too, perhaps the biggest, and one far more common among those who believe than disbelieve. The idea advocacy is driven by concern while opposition is driven by greed is ludicrous. I’ve already shown how phony it is to insist the relatively few contrarians are ‘exploiting for profit’, while the many adherents are supposedly ‘toiling in the field of revealed truth at substantial wages’. Europe, Russia and Asia would like nothing better than we should shackle our economy to stopping global-warming, giving them a trade advantage. The Sierra Club and other environmentalists reap many times more in contributions (tax free and low overhead) than oil companies can possibly save by its campaign to soften the AGW drumbeat. Moreover, oil companies have hedged their bets by making large investments in ‘planet-saving’ technologies; thus, compromising their supposed ‘environmental obstructionism’. The ‘big oil conspiracy’ argument, therefore, is a red-herring with which to distract from the ones doing the real exploiting: the many environmentalists, socialists, academics, media, government, enterprises and individuals devoted to apocalypse, and those signing up to capitalize on the bonanza that creates. The rest of us are just trying to keep from being robbed. So, if there is anything ‘silly’ here, it is insisting on getting fleeced in blind faith to career scientists; some of whom are seriously compromised by ideology, some who are caught up in the excitement, and some who are just amoral enough to trade integrity for position, fame and cash.

If you only meant your MYBIGFILE to ‘bring us up to speed’ on the AGW debate, you could have spared us the insult as it is clear our sources of information and analysis are at least as good and a good deal more inclusive; as was clear to you before you posted it. I don’t need to reread it “slower” because there’s nothing in it the least bit challenging and have had little difficulty following the debate at this and higher levels. I not only read it, I gave you a full breakdown of its substance (or lack); which is more than you gleaned from reading it and more than your unwillingness to give our sources a similar reading. You cannot have meant it, therefore, to inform us better than you already know us to be. When the pro-AGW side has something new to offer, I will be among the first to take note. For your information, I have digested substantial amounts of all four IPCC reports, NASA’s very considerable presentation of the theory, NOAA analyses, Columbia University’s EdGCM climate models, U.S. Senate, British, and U.N. whitepapers, RealScience.com, WorldClimateReport.com, UNEP/GRIDA, GlobalWarming.org, and NRDC.org websites, countless pro-AGW scientific presentations, peer-reviewed papers, economic counter-arguments, Al Gore’s presentation-for-profit, and similar drivel (to name just a few). About the only thing I haven’t done is accepted or rejected AGW on the ridiculous basis of standing on some picturesque glacier in the middle of the Arctic listening to environmental lunatics droning on about rape of the planet and taking their word for it glaciers melt because we fart.

If 50% is the best you could expect from me, perhaps that is because you have been unwilling to traverse the half it takes two minds to find common ground.

As for my position on the Holocaust: I’m against it.

Non sequiturs have now replaced anecdotes as the basis for forming religious positions on Man made Global Warming.

Again, ‘just silly.” I was trying to make available a recent, popularized compendium of argument and data that a non-specialist could follow written by several respected scientists who have no financial axe to grind.

I guess 50% success is the best I could expect.

To quote the article.

The authors were participants in Working Group I of the 2007 IPCC assessment.

William Collins is a professor in residence in the department of earth and planetary science at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Robert Colman is a senior research scientist in the Climate Dynamics Group at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Research Center in Melbourne.

James Haywood is the manager of aerosol research in the Observational Based Research Group and the Chemistry, Climate and Ecosystem Group at the Met Office in Exeter, England.

Martin R. Manning is director of the IPCC WG I Support Unit at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

Philip Mote is the Washington State climatologist, a research scientist in the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington, and an affiliate professor in the department of atmospheric sciences.

Read it again, slowly.

And Phil, what is your position on the Holocaust?

But for those of us who appreciate the difference between the two, keep up the good work.

Phil

Corollary to Murphy’s Law: A dozen experts will exhaust themselves devising the perfect solution, only to have the village idiot point out its obvious flaws.

Philip Mote, one of the scientists referenced in your MYBIGFILE, tells us the Kilimanjaro glacier (poster-child for the AGW movement) is not a victim of global warming at all, but rather of decreased precipitation. This suggests, at least in the area around Kilimanjaro, sunlight has increased significantly over what it was in the past (i.e., it is not melting faster, it is simply not getting replenished). Moreover, the fact Kilimanjaro has seen less precipitation anecdotally supports a different theory for why we’ve been warming; that we’ve had less cloud formation where formation is strongly influenced by ionization. Ionization, in turn, is linked to solar incidence and sunspot activity (see http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html). Solar warming advocates argue our temperature has risen recently and dramatically, in large part, due to an extended period of increased solar incidence that is damping cosmic particle bombardment and, thereby, reducing cloud formation. As the weight of ice above decreases, the movement of ice downward slows and we get a dramatic recession having nothing to do with ice melting any faster. It melts normally with nothing replenishing it.

I don’t bring this up to disprove AGW conclusively. I bring it up to illustrate how all of us jump to conclusions and then defend an untenable. For many months after glacial retreat was made a key feature of AGW, its advocates (including a good many climatologists) accepted uncritically the Kilimanjaro inclusion in the body of supporting evidence, and used it to sway public opinion. Many still argue for its retention. If this is true of Kilimanjaro, might it not also be true of other glaciers still defended as AGW proof. The Junk Science link I gave you regarding sea-level rise seriously undermines the global-warming-glacier-retreat argument, and even Dr. Mote is out on that limb (of his own making) in defending it.

Your article does nothing to prove AGW, it merely regurgitates the same logic proponents have been making for years:
a) GHGs trap heat (yes, but sensitivity unknown)
b) human-activities increase the amount of atmospheric GHG (does not account sufficiently for non-human GHG variations, including solar/cloud, plant growth acceleration, ocean, water-vapor, convection; all of which are improperly assumed unvarying)
c) a significant globally and temporally averaged temperature increase over the last half century (disregards temperature dropped for a good part of that time and did not increase in the first half of the century, neither of which fits the AGW assumptions and none of it backed by sufficient data)
d) net feedbacks enhance GHG effect (unproven)
e) extent of sea ice shrunk substantially (yes, but open to alternative explanations)
There are a number of things the article does not address or unjustifiably downplays, among them convection, aerosols, and albedo. The rest of the article breaks down into praise for the models, defense of theoretical weaknesses and assumptions, and the usual unsupported claims of calamity with unflinching certainty. The article admits a significant number of weaknesses, yet confidently predicts none of them (or all of them combined) will be capable of altering the picture; a contention that is far from obvious. If this is supposed to be a ‘scientific’ treatment of the subject by genuine scientist, it is a poor showing; one even an amateur like me can refute.