.

Virtually all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed a small amount since the year 1000 or, if you
choose, since 1850, when instrumented temperature records became reasonably accurate and distributed
in key areas of the world. An increasing number believe that any warming is so small it is indistinguishable
from the noise in the environmenal data sets, and that the data have not been properly adjusted for such
things as urban heat island effects (are the city temps warmer than the suburbs where you live? Has the
city grown since 1850? Have the runways increased near the temp gage at your airport since 1920?), and
instrument calibration. This is particularly true of the global data set, even though "urbanization has caused
regional increases in temperature that exceed those measured on a global scale, leading to urban heat
islands as much as 12°C hotter than their surroundings". Most scientists agree that warming is better than
cooling and many believe CO2 provides important enhancements for forests and agriculture, even while
also believing we should not be fouling our nest.

Our site makes every effort to present the true science of climate change. When the news broke of the
Arctic ice being at its 30 year low in 2007, the same source (U. of Illinois) reported the Antarctic at its
record high, but this was not reported in the media. To show the imbalance, as one reads in the popular
press, we have created a companion site that presents the evidence for global cooling, just as most
newspapers and alarmists present only the science that supports warming. There are many reasons to be
cautious about accepting CO2 as the causative agent if there really is warming. This is highlighted by 2
papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from
the sun and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. They
claim both factors are underappreciated by IPCC. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are
more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. The soot
may well explain much of the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers.

It is generally accepted that the Earth has been much warmer than today, for example, in the time of the
dinosaurs (the mid-cretaceous period) when the CO2 was 2 to 4 times greater than today (NOAA). More
recently, in the prior period between ice ages, just 125,000 years ago, the Earth also was much warmer
than today and the sea level much higher - by about 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) (IPCC). The primary
driver of the past climate shifts is believed to be orbital mechanics and solar variability, with some
contribution from Earth geophysical processes, such as volcanic eruptions. It is also known that mankind's
contribution to CO2 is just a small percent (3%) of the total amount and that the total is very small - there is
23.6 times more argon (0.00934) in the atmosphere than CO2 (0.000407. The Earth's ability to absorb CO2
has apparently been underestimated and the climate models need revision per the 31 December 2009
publication of work by Wolfgang Knorr that shows "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past
160 Years" (a seminal study). Lastly, we know that the Earth's temperature and the level of CO2 rise and
fall roughly together, but it is not clear (not proven) whether this is cause and effect by either variable. In a
first attempt (Hadley-chart) to use a CO2 - based model to predict temperatures, the results are not
impressive at all and are exactly opposite observations.

The cause of the temperature rise, and therefore the future course, is settled only within the consensus
group of scientists. This is based on work of computer modelers, believing their increasingly complex
models show the cause is due to man's activities and that there will be increasing temperatures according
to how much additional greenhouse gases are emitted. There are many other scientists who are non-
modelers, many with backgrounds as atmospheric physicists, climatologists, engineers, meteorologists,
and paleo-climatologists, who do not believe the primary cause is mankind, although this could be part of it.
These scientists and the people who follow them are often called climate change skeptics. Most of these
scientists believe that the sun is at the root of the warming (if any), but that other factors are also at work.
Among scientists and concerned citizens are thse who believe that the link between CO2 and warming is
the last great hope to decrease the pollution inherent in the burning of fossile fuels. This leads them to
rebel at any science, or any statements, that diminishes their ability to foster a reduction in fossil fuel
usage. To help separate fact from fiction, an explanation of these thoughts is included here, along with links
to these materials.