The miocene era had CO2 levels that were 10 times what we have now and it was one of the coldest era's in earths history. The correlation of global warming and CO2 levels has not been proven.
That's one way to characterize it. Another way would be to negate any relevance to findings going back more than 400 years; to say that the findings between 150 years ago and 400 are shaky but not worthless; and that the claim that recent decades were the warmest in the last millenium is downgraded from "likely" to "plausible" - all while bending over backwards to be polite to Mann et al.
"We roughly agree with the substance of their findings," says Gerald North, the NAS committee's chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M.
...This based upon support from other studies...which the committee didn't review.
North continued, emphasizing that the committee has "a high level of confidence" that the last few decades were substantially warmer than the previous four centuries.
Which is to be expected since four centures ago we were in the Little Ice Age.
Just to clear up this section.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=810
"Many specific findings of the NAS panel show that they did not endorse the work behind the hockey stick. The NAS report stated that the Mann et al decentered principal components methodology should not be used; that temperature reconstructions should avoid the use of strip-bark bristlecones and foxtail proxies; that the Mann et al reconstruction was strongly dependent on these problematic proxies; that their reconstruction failed important verification tests; and that they had incorrectly estimated uncertainties in their reconstruction.
"At the press conference, panel chairman North said that he agreed with the “substance” of the Mann et al reconstruction. However, this language is nowhere used in the report itself, where the panel expressly referred to the reconstruction merely as “plausible” and specifically withheld any attribution of confidence intervals for the period before 1600. "
The above site, is run for Stephen McIntyre of the abovementioned Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre.
If you are against CO2 in the atmosphere you are against the planet being green.
In the late60s to early 70swe were being warned of the coming ice age, now we're worried about global warming!!!!!
I wish the chicken littles would make up thier minds!!
I've known quite a few scientists who debate different theories in a variety of fields, and respect the people who hold opposite viewpoints. When it comes to the climate sciences however, these same scientists will dismiss those in the 'human impact is non existent or trival' camp as lone nuts or zealots. This is what makes me think that, for them, global warming is much more a 'faith based' issue rather than a scientific one.
She earth plenty angry.
No like iron horse SUV. Puffing wheel machine heat earth.
Penguin gods, him heap upset that polar bears melt maybe and big wind god eat many house in big shrimp water where buses float. Must sacrifice virgin or ice spirit tell Nannaboojoo eat white man. Bad, bad white man.
Corn god, him like ethanol. Him need government subsidy. Him go to bad moon god and make heap big war. Corn god, him eat moon maiden, stop heat earth with government subsidy.
Big wind god, him go Hyannis stop hot earth. Kennedy god, him no like wind god. We ride with Kennedy god on short pier and pow-wow...