Incredible Book--The Weather Makers

[Bill51]

Or, for that matter, can you provide even one single article, published in a scientific journal, which explicitly states that global warming is either not occurring, or is not a product of CO2.

Bryan

I can no more debate by being forced to prove a negative than any of the manmade global warming advocates can or will prove that the NRC 2005 reports showing CO2 actually tracks temperature rises more than it causes it or that during 2/3rd of the past 400,000 years CO2 concentrations have been considerably higher than today. Similarly I have yet to see anyone prove Professor Jaworowski wrong in his presentation demonstrating that CO2 levels in the 1800s were closer to 328 ppm rather than the 290 ppm needed to make the IPCC models valid.

 

[Warthaug]

I can no more debate by being forced to prove a negative

Not asking you to prove a negative - simply asking for you to provide a scientific reference for any of the rather wild claims you made.

than any of the manmade global warming advocates can or will prove that the NRC 2005 reports showing CO2 actually tracks temperature rises more than it causes it or that during 2/3rd of the past 400,000 years CO2 concentrations have been considerably higher than today.

Wrong, on both accounts. Both the Vostoc & EPICA measures (the only accurate CO2 measures we have that go back ~400,000 years) lack the resolution to say whether or not one precedes the other in all but a few places where the separation is large enough to see a difference (200-ish years, less as you approach the present). And as you can see (link below) in nearly every place where there is sufficient difference between CO2 and temperature to make out a difference, changes in CO2 precede warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Of course, there is always an exception; specifically the ends of ice ages, but even then, CO2 is important:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

As for "higher than today", that is 100% wrong. The present CO2 level sits at ~380ppm; the highest recorded concentration since then was ~300,000 years ago, at that peaked at ~300ppm. Last time I checked 380 was greater than 300.

Similarly I have yet to see anyone prove Professor Jaworowski wrong in his presentation demonstrating that CO2 levels in the 1800s were closer to 328 ppm rather than the 290 ppm needed to make the IPCC models valid.

Then you haven’t been looking very hard:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.smooth20.gif

That's one study of dozens, all of which refute your claim.

As for Jaworowski, his paper about CO2 has been shown, again and again, to be full of lies. He lied about the contents of papers he referenced, he lied about who he wrote it for (it never was presented to the US senate, even though his paper says it was), he even lied about the content of papers he had published previously. But to make things even worse, his assumption that CO2 was higher in the 1880's then science says it is based on nothing more then his belief that there are errors in the way ice cores are processed.

That's right - no experimental data to back it up, no evidence that the methods are faulty. Even the degree of error (and hence his prediction of the "true" values) was nothing more than a guess on his part – no factual, experimental, or even hypothetical basis to the “correction” he made.

This guy goes into the whole issue in very, very great detail:
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

Bryan