http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/06-14-2004/science.htm

" A consensus comprised of nearly all scientists agrees that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Not only is there no such "consensus," but, if anything, the situation is opposite from what the global warming alarmists claim. When one of the authors of this essay (Dr. Arthur Robinson) briefly circulated a petition opposing the Kyoto treaty among American scientists, he received, by first class mail, about 17,000 signatures. The petition stated:

    We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

With more resources for printing and mailing, probably 50,000 signatures could have been obtained from American scientists. The signatories included Dr. Frederick Seitz (past president of the National Academy of Sciences), who wrote a cover letter for the petition, and a long list of America's most accomplished scientists. (For a complete list of the signatories, two-thirds of whom hold advanced degrees, go to www.oism.org/pproject.)"

"The solar energy reaching the Earth from the sun has absolutely nothing to do with the Earth's temperature! Of course, the global warming alarmists would not say anything so transparently silly. What they do instead is simply pretend the sun does not exist — at least so far as the Earth's temperature is concerned.

But there really is a relationship between the solar activity of the sun and the Earth's temperature, and historical measurements bear this out. Figure 3 shows that, from 1750 to the present, the Earth's temperature oscillations have closely tracked the changes in the intensity of the sun. In short, the data makes quite clear that the ordinary warming and cooling cycle of the sun is the primary controller of global temperatures and that this cycle is currently in an upward trend."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Try=No&Page=\Commentary\archive\200412\COM20041202d.html

"What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming.

Today, that figure has grown to more than 4,000 scientists. Americans aren't being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:

1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ... man-made causes."



http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-03s.html

"The conclusion of the two scientists is, therefore, that celestial processes seem to be the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces which are beyond our control."


http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/198.htm
"# Professor Mike Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory studied solar radiation intensity at the Earth's upper atmosphere over a period of tens of years and found that at least half of the observed temperature change this century (total 0.6 degree Celsius) is due to changes in the output of the Sun.

# The scientific journal 'Nature' published the findings of a team of researchers which studied ice core samples to gain a picture of climate change over a period of 400,000 years. This team found that naturally occurring greenhouse gases contribute about 3 degrees Celsius to the glacial-interglacial temperature variation of 6 degrees Celsius."

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

"Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

"    Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

    Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists, this is common knowledge, but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

    Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!

"

"Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect."

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

"Qpinions critical of the IPCC reports have been expressed by many prominent, competent scien-tists. For example, Or. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the U.S. National Acaderny of Scien-ces and the American Physical Society, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, former Chairman of the Defense Science Board, and former Science Adviser to NATO, stated: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." 10 Dr. Keith Shine, one of the leading authors of the IPCC reports, described the editing process of the IPCC reports as follows:

    "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it's presented .... They don't change the data, but the way it's presented. It is peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report." 11

About half of the scientists who took part in preparing the IPCC report of 1996 do not agree with its conclusions' – hardly a consensus. Even the leading establishment science journals, Science and Nature, have exposed the IPCC's lack of consensus and its wrong methodology. Nature devoted two editorials to the subject,13, 14 and an editorial in Science stated that: "If one examines some of the scientific articles on the subject [climate warming modeling], one finds virtually unanimous agreement that the models are deficient."15 The incompati-bility of IPCC procedures with the usual standards of scientific research led Science to write that "IPCC's reputation for procedural correctness and consensus-building around scien-tific accuracy will be permanently compromised.""

"Recently, it was found that there is an inverse relationship between atmospheric CO2 concen-tration and stomatal frequency in tree leaves, and that this phenomenon provides an accurate method for detecting and quantifying century-scale CO2 fluctuations. Birch leaves recovered from Holocene-era lake deposits in Denmark by a team of Dutch scientists, for example, demon-strate that 9,600 years before the present (YBP), the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 348 ppmv – the same as the CO2 concentration in 1987. From 9,600 YBP until about 9,400 YBP, the CO2 levels remained between 333 and 347 ppmv. So, in contrast to the much touted ice core estimates, the stomatal frequency signal shows that early Holocene CO2 concentrations were similar to those at the end of 20th century.

The authors of the Dutch study stated: "Our results contradict the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO, concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revo!ution."35 The tree leaf studies corroborate the criticism of ice core studies and destroy the very foundation of the global warming hypothesis. "

"For the past 100 million years, the average surface temperature of the Earth and the atmosphe-ric CO2 level have been decreasing systematically.37 About 50 million years ago, the CO2 con-centration (2,000 ppmv) was almost six-fold higher than now, but air temperature was higher by only 1.5°C. In the Ordovician, when the CO2 content in air was 16 times higher than it is now, the air temperature in the tropics was not increased, and in the high latitudes, there was the glaciation of Gondwanaland.36

The reason for the lack of relationship between the temperature changes and CO2 concentra-tion in past epochs is that it is not CO2, but water, H2O, that is the main greenhouse gas."



I think this is enough but if required I will post more links.

In regards to Amos' three posts, the first was a claim based on a model that was developed. During the same time period one could find at 2 std that the hemlines on womens dresses and whether the nfc or afc wins is a good predictor of where the stock market will go.

The second says : "small changes in Earth's orbit can initiate or terminate ice ages. But for time periods of years, decades, or centuries, these processes are irrelevant. Volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and the concentration of greenhouse gases, as well as internal oscillations of the climate system, are crucial on this scale."

Which is exactly my point. You can not prove that man is the cause of warming in the past 100 years.

And in regards to the first post, the amount co2 and temperature is not clear cut. There have been times where there has been cooling while there were high amounts of co2.

I reiterate, It is has not been proven that warming is the result of man released co2.