Eeyore wrote in
:



altheim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote:

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see
in the flimsy IPCC case.

Post some.

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please
some one who also might forget about it in a trice.

However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC
case is that CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global
warming.

So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their
case, no ?

Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
temperature numbers are based on data manipulation that is
fundamentally flawed.

I also particularly love the way they use tree rings to look at
temperature, when it's well known that atmospheric CO2 affects plant
growth. Hey, they say, the temperature (tree rings) follows CO2.
Err.... right. What did they expect ?



Oh brother, netkkkop finds yet another way to embarrass hisself.


Bertie















Graham