Re: Simple questions

Bill Ward wrote:


Good stuff, Kevin.

I'd like to see an explanation for omitting the CO2 measurements that
didn't agree with their AGW hypothesis. If you haven't already seen
Figure 3 in the following paper, it's worth a look. It shows 19th century
CO2 levels, reconstructed from 90,000 data points. They were derived by
chemical analysis, well documented, considered to be +-3% accurate.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski

I expect to hear the usual "No, it's not!"'s from the alarmists now.

Strawman.

Bill Ward

Don't you see? The whole GW thing is anybody's pick and chose. I prefer not to 'believe'. Do you get that?

And it is a total bull*** diversion of attention to our real challenges. But then, do you think quality of debt and peak oil are in the same, "No, it's not!", bag????????

What do the numbers tell you?

Best, Dan.

.