Svente Arrhenius calculated global warming potential due to CO2 in 1896 and its put effect between 4-5.7 degrees Celsius.
How about we hear from a moderhn scientist - like Marcel Leroux, professor of climatology at the University J. Moulin and director of the Laboratoire de Climatologie, Risques, Environnement.
"In his treatment of the relative contributions of various greenhouse gases, including the most important one, water vapor, which represents 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect, he calculates that human activities account for only 0.28 percent, which is less than exciting. Consequently, he argues that we must shake off our unfounded obsession with the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, and reconsider the problem of climate change in a different way, re-establishing the proper hierarchy of phenomena and giving the "water effect" the major climatic importance it deserves."
James Hansen release his model which correctly predicted have a dozen events in 1988.
Evin a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while - how does his model, when "tuned" to predict events in 1988, do now? How many events has it "predicted" in 2006? 2007? Must not be many, or you would be crowing about them...
Keeling was worried about CO2 all the way back in 1954.
Yes - climatology blows hot and cold, doesn't it? Pardon the pun....
The AGW argument predates the UN by half a century.
If by that you mean they couldn't predict the climate back then either, as evidenced by the alternating "ice age"/"harrowing heat up" theories, you are correct.
The UN is a sham but the IPCC is a completely different entity.
Oh, yes, lets do talk about the IPCC, shall we? From Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute (Washington). In his letter to the Wall Street Journal, on June 12, 1996, he wrote:
"[But] this [IPCC] report is not what it appears to be --
it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more
disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that
key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. ... Few of these changes were merely cosmetic;
nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
- 'None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.'
- 'No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.'
- 'Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." Instead, the following text was inserted: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate." In spite of the way this view was imposed, and all the subsequent controversy, the idea was never retracted.
The third report brought a second scientific coup. It increased the value of the predicted rise in temperature, and clinched the argument with the hockey stick diagram -- more recently exposed as a hoax -- stating that temperatures in recent times are higher than they have been for a thousand years. Moreover, the spectrum of the consequences of the greenhouse effect was considerably broadened, to the extent that it included every meteorological phenomenon. "
Your argument relies on the assumption that every scientist that endorsed the report...
Which report? The one the scientists wrote, or the edited version the politicians released over their signatures without telling them?
... is an American hating communist. It also relies on the assumption that every major scientific society in America is ran by American hating communists.
Since you brouth it up - from Leroux again...
"The Fourth Report of the IPCC might just as well decree the suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our schools with press communiqués. ... Day after day, the same mantra -- that 'the Earth is warming up' -- is churned out in all its forms. As 'the ice melts' and 'sea level rises' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized' lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"
Leroux also draws attention to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which article 6 on education and training, obliges participants to sensitize the public, at a national level, to climate change and its effects. States signatories to the Convention are thus bound to adopt the concept of "global warming" at the highest institutional level, to impose it as an incontrovertible dogma (i.e., a sort of state religion impervious to debate). In France, Leroux adds, the "servants" of the state -- and in their name, both audio-visual media and institutes -- feel bound to propagate the official dogma, just like a certain press agency in the East in its heyday; echoing the triumph of Lysenkoism, they shape public opinion in favor of the official theses.
Besides it really doesn't take much work to realize that the fraudulent work almost always comes from the skeptic AGW side. When someone like the industry funded skeptic Pat Michaels IPCC darling and data hoaxer Dr. Micheal Mann is forging graphs to "debunk" Hansen remove from the historical record the Midieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age then alarm bells should be ringing in your head.
I fixed it for you....
BTW, how do you explain the Holocene Climate Optimum that occured before 500 B.C., when temperatures where 4 degrees higher than they are NOW, well before any signifigant anthropogenic greenhouse gas generation? Or the Midieval Warm Period?
