• "Most scientist agree" - but they never reference a study to prove that
• "It is well known that" - all religious beliefs are well known, so what
• The temperature data covers a period of less than 1,000 years
• Bad Graphs - mixing averaged and raw data is just another way to lie
• "Even if it can not be proved, we must ..." - this is the boogie man card

This started out as

All scientists agree ...

Most scientists agree ...

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm ...

So, in my opinion, as soon as you see a line like this, you know that the article is highly biased and you should not expect any useful data.

Remember, in science, facts are never decided by a vote - only experiments and data collection decide facts.

• The Earth is flat
• The Earth is center of universe
• The Earth is the only planet with life (still waiting to be disproved ... pending future discovery)
• Rocks don't fall from the sky because there are no rocks in the sky

Yet, Global Warming articles and videos are full of this crap.

On the other hand, perhaps these claims indicate that Global Warming is more religion than science (after all, most religious beliefs are also well known).

There are many graphs showing average temperatures over the past 500 million years ... but those are probably not relevant.

The current climate cycle (the Ice Ages - plural) started over one million years ago. Each glaciation (ice age) lasted for about 100 to 125 thousand years. Between these cold periods were warm periods of about 10 thousand years (and it is currently about 10 thousand years since the beginning of the current warming period).

Thus, in order to see what the real patterns are, you must examine at least 3 of these cold/warm cycles - about 450 thousand years.

However, I am willing to cut the writers some slack ... as long as they show enough data so that the audience knows that the climate is normally variable. I have selected a minimum period of 1,000 years since that covers a major cooling known as The Little Ice Age. (Actually, there are many temperature charts covering this period ... and they do not agree.)

At any rate, I claim that any reports that present graphs of temperature data that covers a period of less than 1,000 years should be considered worthless simply because they are trying to lie to the audience by omitting data that does not support their position.

By the way, the first link above shows that the Earth is in a 500 million year cooling trend and that, if humans don't do something very significant to warm up the planet, the Earth may soon be too cold to support life ... maybe, that's why the Global Warming crowd don't want you to see that data.

The report shows ice core (or some other) data that has been smoothed with a moving filter. Then, at one end of the graph, raw data is added. Then this graph is used as "proof" that the Earth is heating more rapidly than at any time in history.

Let me be clear, these "scientists" (NOT) are mixing averaged data with actual data, not saying so, and then drawing conclusions.

This is nothing but fraud.

To be specific

• Due to how ice freezes, the temperature and CO2 data extracted from ice cores is filtered (averaged) with a variable length 1,000 to 7,000 year moving average. Not only is the filter period variable, but we have no way to determine it year by year.
• Because thermometers were not used, all data before about 1850 AD was determined by looking at historical documents. As a result, one conservative value is that the data should be considered as being filtered with a 50 year moving average. (I'll admit, I am making this value up based on the apparent smoothness of the graphs that I have seen. I do NOT have a reference for this 50 year value.)

As a specific example, NOVA provides 4 graphs.

• The second graph from the top shows 1,000 years of data with what looks like a 50 year moving average. Then current data is added at the right without any averaging. Not only does the graph NOT SHOW the Little Ice Age, but the recent data is more than twice as high as it would be if the same filter was applied.
• The bottom graph shows 400,000 years of CO2 data smoothed with a moving average of unknown length. Again, the current data is added at the right without any averaging. In this case, properly averaging the data could place the first 3 peaks above today's averaged CO2 concentration. A more correct interpretation is that even if the real peaks in the past were more than 100 times today's value, they would not be visible because they were averaged out to the rather low peaks shown.

"Even if it can not be proved, we must ..."

I know the science is weak ... but I mean well

These are some additional examples

What if you're wrong
It could happen
By the time the science is done, it may be too late
There may be a trigger that we can't predict, therefore, all change must stop

So, the boogie man card is another indicator that the "Science Report" is just another bogus political ad.

URL: http:// questionable-science.com / Global_Warming / Bad_Arguments.html