« How much is that windmill costing you? | Main | As the house of ID cards crumble, a shadowy figure moves onto the stage »

Historic CO2 levels - "The greatest scientific scandal of our time"?

CO2: The Greatest Scientific
Scandal of Our Time

by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.

We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3%), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine,nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time. From among this treasure of excellent data (ranging up to 550 ppmv of measured CO2 levels), the founders of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (Callendar 1949, Callendar 1958, and Keeling 1986) selected only a tiny fraction of the data and doctored it, to select out the low concentraions and reject the high values—all in order to set a falsely low pre-industrial average CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv as in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century. This manipulation has been discussed several times since the 1950s (Fonsel et al. 1956, Jaworowski et al. 1992b, and Slocum 1955), and more recently and in-depth by Beck 2007.

See also here and here for Beck's Data

Comments

How many scientists need to question the anthropogenic warming theory before the global boiling crazies admit that the science isn't "settled"?

What drives the Gorse Fox mad is 1) there is so little publicity for the counter-arguments; b) the pathetic whingeing cry of "but what if we are right? are you willing to take the chance?"

On the other hand, GF does believe that control of senseless pollution is a good thing, but let's not lie about the facts.

This is interesting.

Oh, and I'm with the Fox of Gorse.

"How many scientists need to question the anthropogenic warming theory before the global boiling crazies admit that the science isn't "settled"?"

There are not now, nor will there ever be, enough scientists for this to happen.

Manmade Global Warming is a religious belief, and/or a deeply held emotion; it is NOT a scientific theory or statement.


Uh... that *pdf is hosted on Lynden LaRouche's site.

It doesn't speak to it's authenticity

I am a student at UMUC and am researchng the pros and cons of global warming. Someone, somewhere has to be proclaimed an authority on this, if such a person can exist. I agree whole hertedly that we should limit the amount of polution thorugh every means possible as both individuals and corportations/farmers. It makes me wonder if the global warming crowd does not own shares in energy alternative technologies. It makes me wonder how much technology exists to reduce current pollution levels or are energy alternatives which have been held back by...? The image in Indian Jones, at the end, where they wheel the arc of the covenant into a big warehouse full of such things never to be seen again, comes to mind.

--Uh... that *pdf is hosted on Lynden LaRouche's site.
It doesn't speak to it's authenticity--

You could call it an authentic tabloid.
Thats where it was originally published.


Post a comment