Global Warming Insanity Pt. I

Another day passes by and another bill is drafted. This new bill lovingly called the Leiberman-Warner bill or the climate security act of 2007 is once again trying to impose the carbon cap and trade idea on the american people. This bill is likely to take a year of so before it is finally passed; you know, when libs (sorry "progressives") control both houses and the presidents office. Of course I am just insane. None of this will harm us and we need to save the environment or else we will all die.

Everyone knows the prediction of twenty meters of ocean increase that will flood everyone else out of their homes and the mass droughts that will cause world wide deserts. Toxic air was another I have heard and mass extinctions of all species including our own. Also, how could I forget how our planet will become like Venus, a planet that I would vote for being the planet that most closely resembles hell. Of course most people who even buy into Anthropogenic Global Warming still don't buy all of this but I have met a few.

How can I doubt something that is a "closed" discussion in science? Well, first of all there is no such thing as closed in science. If closed discussions were ever honored then we would still beleive the solar system revolved around us. I thought conservatives were supposed to fear science? Maybe they all mean that science is pretty sure it is right, i.e. AGW is a theory. Sure, except that a petition is being circled around right now that has no less than nine-thousand signitures from scientists includeing something like fifty PH.Ds. I havent seen this myself so I cannot comment on this petition, but I didn't expect that to be proof, just a sort of "Ain't it interesting?" kind of comment.

There are lots of proof I am told, so where is this proof?





source: http://www.ourworldfoundation.org.uk/plight-nof.htm

That is a picture of the vostok cores. This mostly is used to show that there is a correlation between CO2 and Temperature. Anyone who did not fall asleep in statistics could tell you that correlation does not prove causation but that is what this is used for. One major problem with this is that when I looked at this grap I came to the conclution that something is wrong with this graph. Look at the CO2 at the end of the graph that rises massively. That is supposed to represent our effect on the environment, but here is the problem. In the raw data of the Vostok cores I found on the internet does not show any such spike. The spike in the graph above reaches up to about 380 ppmv the actual data from Petit et. al. only goes to 280 ppmv.(source ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt) Where does this spike come from? I have no clue. Petit's own mesurements in 2001 only go to 2342 YBP. The rest is either made up or grabbed from someone else. (The website I grabbed this from only sources Petit et. al. for the graph so I cannot tell who they could have grabbed this from. They also source the much allauded IPCC report so maybe they just forgot to mention this.)

Assuming these are actual mesurements then what we have is a composite graph. Major problem with composite graphs is that the mesurements can come from two very different sources. Sure, the data could have come from the same or similar places or we could have a situation where one mesurement came from the antarctic and the other a busy metropolis. Why not just show you a good graph in the first place? Because this graph, along with another graph, is used in Al Gore's movie. This is the kind of thing that makes it so hard for anyone to speak of AGW. If I say anything then someone will pull up a bogus graph.

I am running long so I will finish my proof of AGW's flaws another time. Then tell you what it all means.