I’ve told this story before but it requires repeating because of awareness of climate science corruption. Even skeptics realize claims of incompetence are inadequate.
Official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate science was completely orchestrated for a premeditated result. T.R.Wigley’s 1983 paper “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level” was pivotal in the evolution of climate science corruption. It was a flawed paper that cherry-picked data to claim pre-industrial CO2 level was 270 ppm. G.S. Callendar did the same thing (diagram), as Zbigniew Jaworowski illustrated in a paper to a 2004 US Senate Committee.
There are 90,000 samples from which Callendar selected a few. Notice they also change the slope of the trend, to show a steady rise from 1750.
Fiddling the numbers is the most consistently overlooked, and possibly the most egregious, part of the CAGW scam.
What accounts for such wide scatter in the data? Were different methods used to measure CO2? If so, shouldn’t the different methods be depicted with different marks on the graph?
It’s worse than we thought. We don’t know what the CO2 concentration was since 1800 to any better than plus or minus the currently reported level. Hence, there is no actual evidence backing CAGW that has any validity or reliability whatsoever. Not even the reported increasing CO2 levels! It was unscientific and non objective from the get go.
WHY DON,T WE PUT THESE FRAUDS IN PRISON. THE EARTH IS A
SELF HEALING SYSTEM, LEAVE IT ALONE. WE HAVE OVER 3 THOUSANDS VOLCANOES EMMITTING CO 2. TELL ME, HOW IN THE HELL
ARE YOU CORRUPT SCIENTISTS GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT?
GIVE THE MONEY TO POOR NATIONS INSTEAD TO BUILD DAMS AND
HOMES, AND ELECTRICITY….
I will have to disagree with the consensus here.
1: We do not know concretely how much the CO2 level has risen in recent years.
2: There is no logical or consistent reason to expect the CO2 level to have not increased over the past two centuries. How much is certainly up for argument, but it certainly should have increased given the mass fossil fuel combustion since the invention of the steam engine..
3: Showing all measurements is disingenuous. Of what quality were the measurements? It seems likely that the huge discrepancies are due to some techniques being wildly inaccurate or grossly misunderstood in the early 19th century.
Add to that where were the measurements taken? Downwind exhaust plume of industrializing cities, on country estates during times stubble, heather and gorse were being burned, in rooms heated by wood/coal/peat fires… ?
A very good point, Editor. Also, as has been pointed out, perturbances such as volcanos could greatly affect short-term values while not affecting long-term trends.
Hats Off to Tim Ball !!!
He has had more sh*t thrown at him than I have (which is a lot), and he still keeps on going. He’s an inspiration.
I never accuse these lying frauds of incompetence. They know exactly what they are doing and so does the MSM.
That would require believing they are smart. I don’t.