[Publius6961]

There is an interesting connection between the opening sentences where the author was warned and the closing ones where he now obligingly stands in line.

There is something unsettling about a person so ignorant and naive as to make this statement, specially with a subject that no one can make any certain statements about...

In the last ice age, CO2 levels were 180 parts per million (ppm)--too cold. Between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, levels rose to 280 ppm--just right. Today levels are at 380 ppm and are projected to reach 450 to 550 by the end of the century--too warm.

He lost me right there. Anyone who expects a static climate after a 6-billion year history of constant changes, is too stupid to take seriously.

[cogitator]

Anyone who expects a static climate after a 6-billion year history of constant changes, is too stupid to take seriously.

Anybody who doesn't understand that the last 10,000 years have been an unusually stable global climate (as underscored by Fagan's book) isn't really taking the issue seriously.

[Minus_The_Bear]

Global warming advocates expect us to believe that the earth is young? Why else would they use such a small window of data? The earth is millions of years old but these lunatics are are using a small data set in purposely get the results they want. This is hardly science. Anyone who ever took a statistics or QA class can see the error in this methodology

And people wonder why scientists aren't taken seriously. If this type of numerical slight-of-hand happens in the business world people end up in jail (Enron). Scientists are quickly becoming prostitutes to whichever interest will fund them.