The case against CO2 - IPCC must be wrong. Posted by Geoff Brown on January 23, 2012 Get link Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google+ Email Other Apps No explanation needed. CO2 is innocent. IPCC guilty of deception.From C3 Headlines (LINK) h/t Jim H atmospheric CO2 IPCC Temperature Get link Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google+ Email Other Apps Comments Anonymous27 January 2012 at 14:01Would it be possible to get a reference for the graph, thanks, markReplyDeleteGeoff Brown28 January 2012 at 10:57Link added above - CheersReplyDeleteAnonymous4 August 2012 at 02:30This graph doesn't give any andication about the source of the data, it's not even clear what exactly has been depicted here.ReplyDeleteC3 Editor4 August 2012 at 04:07Actually, the data sources are listed vertically along the right side of the graph. If it is not clear what the graph represents, go to the link provided for an explanation.C3 EditorReplyDeleteGeoff Brown4 August 2012 at 06:20Thanks, C3, for both the original post and the reply comment!ReplyDeleteAnonymous9 August 2012 at 04:34The source of the data ist well hidden, and there is no source given for the CO2 data from 1912-1957. In addition it's not clear, how the temperature increases were calculated.ReplyDeleteGeoff Brown9 August 2012 at 07:05As mentioned by C3 Editor in the comment above the source of the data can be found st the link provided:http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/noaas-2011-global-temperature-dataset-released-confirms-that-ipccs-global-warming-is-doa.htmlReplyDeleteRepliesAnonymous11 August 2012 at 03:13Once again: there is no source for all the CO2 data used, and it is not indicated how the temperature increases have been calculated. It seems that this graph is not based on existing data. Please remove it.DeleteReplyGeoff Brown11 August 2012 at 04:53Once again, the link to the data iis at the bottom of the C3 post.If you can't follow that, please remove yourself.ReplyDeleteAnonymous12 August 2012 at 16:11Without supporting data and explanations, this figure is meaningless.ReplyDeleteGeoff Brown12 August 2012 at 17:55This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDeleteGeoff Brown12 August 2012 at 17:57It is good that there is supporting data and explanations at the link provided.ReplyDeleteAnonymous13 August 2012 at 03:02There is some supporting data, but not complete, and no explanation about the calculation has been provided.ReplyDeleteAnonymous26 August 2012 at 03:47No explanations, this figure is just a fraud.ReplyDeleteAdd commentLoad more... Post a Comment All serious comments published after moderation.Comments should be polite, and respect all views.No bad language. Spam never makes it!