Oddly, the link to the abstract in Science, seems to imply the opposite.
"Previously published records of alkenone-based CO2 from high- and
low-latitude ocean localities suggested that CO2 increased during
glaciation, in contradiction to theory. Here, we further investigate
alkenone records and demonstrate that Antarctic and subantarctic data
overestimate atmospheric CO2 levels, biasing long-term trends. Our results
show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation and support a
substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation,
consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds."
Well that of course is the problem. Every single piece of actual climate
data gets siezeded to
1/. Absolutely prove that global warming is all about CO2 and its much
worse than the worsest thing there ever was or
2/. Shows zero or negative correlation between temperature and CO2.
Its very confusing really.
The Register does seen to have an agenda.
But nothing on things like trapped methane that could be released with a
very modest temperate rise.
On another note I came across this.
The Register is extremely unreliable on this topic.
They have practically inverted the interpretation of the data that the
researchers have reported in Science by selective misquoting.
The so called Natural Philosopher fell for it hook line and sinker.
Condemned by his own actions as an AGW denier and a dittohead.
You should always check your sources rather than relying on the garbled
stories that appear in the press or worse in right whinger blogs.
Trouble is that the publishers of scientific journals are mercenary
b*stards and want to make insane profits for online access. ISTR Nature
charges $32 per article which makes this one a snip for only $15.
This one also this weeks journal is about the permafrost thawing:
But most large public libraries and any university library should have
Science and Nature on the periodicals shelves so you can grab the date
and issue number online and then go look it up there.
Oddly enough if you google the author, you will often find the same
article in his own website..
I did that with an earlier article showing how CO2 levels and solar flux
did not vary enough to account for the little ice age or the mediaeval
Flatly contradicting earlier studies which said it did..
Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the
fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose
In short the only thing I am sure of is that there is very little
certainty in the predictions of ANYONE.
Failure to admit this, makes me suspicious at a human level, of those
who want to close all controversy and announce that the science is settled.
That is deeply disturbing,: Irrespective of whether AGW is wrong,
slightly right or a complete and accurate picture, the way its being
handled is an utter disgrace and has put science back years in terms of
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:58:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Remember, for years, it was scientific *fact* that the continents didn't
And that stones did not fall from the sky.
That the earth was the centre of the solar system.
That possession by the devil caused madness.
And while you ponder that, it's worth remembering the fate that befell
some people who might have suggested otherwise.
Fallacious. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (*). Not everyone who rages against the
machine is right. Or wrong.
(* I think. It's Friday afternoon, I'm tired and I've had too much caffeine
and this is, after all, only Usenet.)
Today is Sweetmorn, the 44th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3177
Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived.
It is perfectly reasonable that those challenging the orthodoxy do so
with a compelling case, but it is equally true that those resisting new
evidence beyond the limits of conservatism, are in the end the ones
reviled by history.
You cannot deny there is something in AGW - but I worry a lot, that
great shifts in climate - greater than those we are seeing today - have
taken place with no apparent changes in it, and great changes have taken
place in it with apparently little impact on climate.
That suggests to me we are not anywhere near the full picture.
BUT to say that immediately gets one painted as a 'denier'..that is NOT
good...the very use of the word implies the person saying it is in some
sense a 'Believer' and that is even worse. This is not science, this is
Its worse than that, believers can't think it through.
If they are wrong we are wasting resources on green projects that bring no
If they are right they need to get the entire world to cooperate to fix it.
They wont be able to do this. So it will happen and we are wasting resources
on green projects that will bring no benefits.
We need to spend the resources on stuff that will be of benefit whichever
way it goes.
Nuclear plants will work either way. Wind and solar assume the climate won't
change and may be useless if it does.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.