There is no independently verifiable evidence that CO2 is the cause of the slight warming that has occurred since the Little Ice Age in the real atmosphere. There is a slight Linear+Cyclic Warming since at least the 1880, 132, years ago and significantly despite CO2 being pumped out in vastly increased quantities since the 1940s/50s the temperature has not deviated from the slight Linear+Cyclic Warming. CO2 has not caused Temperature to deviate!

To show warming is not to show the cause of the warning. That is the mistake you alarmists make. You think that the warming is the whole ball of wax. It isn't since you've not shown causation in the REAL ACTUAL ATMOSPHERE.

Girma Orssengo's analyses using the standard observational temperature and CO2 data sets shows that Mother Nature has falsified the alleged CAGW Hypothesis. It's well worth your time to comprehend this elegant and clear analysis.

" *Effect Of CO2 Emission On Global Mean Temperature*

Examination of Figure 3 shows that the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) for 1940 of 0.13 deg C is greater than that for 1880 of –0.22 deg C. Also, the GMTA for 2000 of 0.48 deg C is greater than that for 1940 of 0.13 deg C. This means that the GMTA value, when the oscillating anomaly is at its maximum, increases in every new cycle. Is this global warming caused by human emission of CO2?

The data required to establish the effect of CO2 emission on global mean temperature already exist. The global mean temperature data are available from the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre shown in Figure 3, and the CO2 emission data are available from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre [8]. *For the period from 1880 to 1940, the average emission of CO2 was about 0.8 G-ton, and the increase in the GMTA was 0.13+0.22=0.35 deg C. For the period from 1940 to 2000, the average emission of CO2 was about 4 G-ton, but the increase in GMTA was the same 0.48-0.13=0.35 deg C. This means that an increase in CO2 emission by 4/0.8=5-fold has no effect in the increase in the GMTA. This conclusively proves that the effect of 20th century human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil.*

*Note that the increase in GMTA of 0.35 deg C from 1880 to 1940 (or from 1940 to 2000) in a 60 year period has a warming rate of 0.35/60=0.0058 deg per year, which is the slope of the linear anomaly given by Equation 1. As a result, the linear anomaly is not affected by CO2 emission. Obviously, as the oscillating anomaly is cyclic, it is not related to the 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2.

Figure 4, with high correlation coefficient of 0.88, shows the important result that the observed GMTA can be modeled by a combination of a linear and sinusoidal pattern given by Equation 3. This single GMTA pattern that was valid in the period from 1880 to 1940 was also valid in the period from 1940 to 2000 after about 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2. As a result, the effect of human emission of CO2 on GMTA is nil.* "
http://pathstoknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/predictions-of-gmt.pdf

Furthermore the conclusive counter evidence analysis based upon *observational data* by Girma Orrsenago puts a nail in the coffin of the AGW Hypothesis as promoted by the CO2 Climate Doomsday AGW Rapture proponents. *Orrsenago shows that Nature falsified the CAGW hypothesis*.

Hole in Man Made Global Warming.

a) Global Mean temperature (GMT) => http://bit.ly/zISeEo
For the period from 1880 to 1940, GMT increased by about 0.35.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, GMT increased by about nearly the same 0.35.

b) Human CO2 emission => http://bit.ly/wD1SZj
For the period from 1880 to 1940, CO2 emission increased by about 150 G-ton.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, CO2 emission increased by about 840 G-ton.

How come the increase in CO2 emission by 460% has not caused any change in the GMT?

It took years of sleuthing to find the "hidden decline", and it wasn't found by official peer review.

Peer review isn't magical saint hood for a paper people, it just means that a few peers (the number varies) looked at it and couldn't find anything wrong with it. Papers and the ideas in them are tossed into the dust bin of science all the time. That is the way science works.

It's you AC who doesn't get it. The number of references means nothing about the accuracy of the paper and it's concepts. Nature rules as the final judge not how many frigging references to the paper you fool. In the case of Mann's frauds he has been caught lying in a scientific paper and plotting to subvert the scientific process.

As a scientist myself I find that repugnant. Heck even Professor Muller, a noted Co2 Climate Doomsday Rapturist, says that he'll never read another paper from Mann et al. again since they can't do what they did in science, it's not acceptable.

So get your brain out of your politicized hole in the ground and wake up.

It's not a witch hunt when Mann fabricated scientific data and with it committed financial frauds. Being honest in science is a must and Mann violated that basic scientific principle. He has received millions of dollars in funding subsequently, all based upon that successful hide the decline fraud. So by supporting Mann you're supporting a criminal scientist who'll lie and cheat at science, heck he can't even produce the means to have other scientists reproduce his work. How much more pounding on your politicized brain do we have to do in order for you to get that fraud in science is not acceptable?

Nonsense. Your take away is only for people - like you - who side with political parties rather than thinking for themselves.

Also it's clearly evident that you're putting politics above the facts of the Mannian Statistical Lies and Scientific and Financial Frauds.

You're doing the despicable anti-science politics dude.

You do know how easy it is to lie with statistics don't you? Oh right scientists can do no wrong in your world view and we should dispense with reproducibility of their claims and take them on faith. Right.

Mann is a master at lying with statistics.

As is Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS, fabricating many temperature readings using 1,200 km and 250 km radius circles for a temperature station as if it's temperature represents accurately all the area in those circles. Then he passes off these graphs as if they are accurate representations of his alleged Arctic CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture aka CAGW. It's not just he arctic either. Where ever there are no temperature stations they commit these frauds rather than working to put in more actual temperature stations. They have disqualified themselves as scientists by their scientific and financial frauds.

No, political whitewash investigations did not even get into the actual frauds committed by Mann et al.. In fact they went out of their way to ignore and avoid the facts. The very questions asked in the inquiries showed that.

Obviously you've not followed the case beyond the fluff political whitewash.

If a scientist at CERN fabricates data to support their claim then yes he/she/they would be committing scientific fraud and if that fraud gets them more grant monies, as in the case of Dr. Michael Mann, then it graduates to financial fraud.

Most scientists actually show their work. Mann did not. Heck he can't even reproduce it. He can't even show others his work. It took years of sleuthing by many to uncover the details and depths of Mann's frauds in his Hockey Stick Statistical Lies.

If as a scientist you fabricate data to support your claims then you're not qualified to be a scientist, a con artist maybe, but not a scientist.

"Interesting-- so corporations are persons, according to the Supreme court, but universities aren't, according to the Virginia court."

The realty is that Corporations and Universities are abstract concepts that represent a group of people. Are they people? As much as Soylent Green is people.

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Ernest Rutherford

And that is if you're using statistics without hiding the decline and thus distorting the alleged science claims.

What else is there to say? He and Harper are being in the Big Brother Fascist State. It's time to say NO to their kind of evil State Totalitarianism.

Building a prototype by the seat of your hacking pants is one thing, working in start ups and corporate IT departments does require you to get serious and drop the hackery and adopt a professional attitude towards software development. Become an engineer committed to the design of the system that works for your client's needs.

You'll of course, at any company where work has been done, discover that hackers have already been at the company likely creating a mess. One thing that successful software engineers do is clean up the hackery messes by organizing the systems they left behind. When creating new systems that are to last a long time then organize it the best that can be done with a sane and clear design to get the job done and make it easy to maintain and grow.

It's not that you'll never use hacks along the way but it's best to never put those into production code. It will likely come back and bite you and the client more often than not.

Testing Suites help a lot. Create them. Use them.

Oh, get really good at debugging the systems. Listen to other people. Ask them questions. Be humble when you don't know and thank people for assisting you. It pays off and makes you indispensable.

without their permission, toss the judge in the Thames along with his ruling.

In fact a documentary series was made about this that reveals all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR90P1GhZA4.

If it was that easy to build an atom smasher every kid would be doing it! Oh wait they are, every time they throw something!!! Must crush, mush destroy, must obliterate! Must!!! Muh ha ha!

It's clear now.