Science is
never settled
department:
Berner et al. (1980)
found CO2 rose above
500 ppm in Greenland
during the Early Holocene,
and Antarctica’s CO2
concentration rose
to about 400 ppm
during the same
time period.
In 1982 Dr. Flohn,
a climate scientist,
wrote that
changes in CO2
concentration are
significantly determined
by temperature
“rather independent of”
fossil fuel emissions.
Neftel et al. (1982)
published a paper
in the journal Nature
documenting a CO2 rise
of about 230 ppm
(~190 ppm to 420 ppm)
from roughly
12,000 to 10,000
years ago for a
Greenland ice core.
Wagner et al. (1999)
published a paper
in Science denouncing
the “consensus” claim
that CO2 gently and
steadily rose for millennia,
varying only between
270 to 280 ppm.
Polish physicist
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski (1997)
was a critic of ice core data.
He noted post-1985 tendencies
for fellow scientists to
employ selection bias
in determining what
measurements are “right”
and which ones are “wrong”.
He cites Pearlman et al. (1986),
where the authors collected
74 Antarctic ice core samples.
Of those, 32 of the 74 (43%)
were rejected because
they had values too high,
or too low to match with
pre-determined beliefs.
Discarding measured data
you don't agree with is
science fraud.
G.S. Callendar’s CO2
measurements reached
375 to 550 ppm throughout
the 1800s.
These measurements
were believed to be too high.
So Callendar chose the
measurements that he
agreed with (circled).
Professor Tom Segalstad,
was a University of Oslo geologist.
Segalstad (1998)
concludes:
“It is shown that
carbon cycle
modeling, based on
non-equilibrium models,
remote from
observed reality,
and chemical laws,
made to fit
non-representative
data, through the use
of non-linear correction
‘buffer’ factors,
constructed from a
pre-conceived hypothesis,
constitute a circular argument,
and with no scientific validity.”