you may find this book of interest in your crusade against Socialism. Global Warming, Challenged.

Rather than being from the normal purely climate model, it is written by one trained in biology, geology and engineering who worked in endangered species and before that, in engineering work. (Thank our economy for that change…)

The emphasis is in three main areas: 1. how little actual historic data is in the GW/CC phenom, 2. just how badly solar and geologic processes outclass man and 3. how so much is simply “this is the way it MUST be” by the GW/CC crowd.

How many know about our 650,000 seamounts, millions of smaller subsea volcanoes, 500 active land vents, 10-15% of the land’s crust covered with carbonates that erode 1″ per year on average and so on? And the 37,000 mile long MORB? These spew out CO2 on levels that make man look like an ant vs. the continent of America.

The first 24 pages are online here:
http://www.holodiscustechnical.com/excerpts_from_gwc/excerpts_from_gwc.html

It’s been out since 2008, but few outside of Oregon know about it, mainly due to the lack of anything but local media coverage.

I’d love to update it, but NASA and NOAA went from being science-based to “creative data” as have the other agencies I originally drew the base data from. One no longer knows what is real data and what is activism. Even sunspot numbers are now “smoothed.”

Bill Hunt

This is what is the actual facts form scientists that have done much research and also have degrees in meteorology. This is quoted right off the Skeptical Science.com website

“Surveys of weather stations in the USA have indicated that some of them are not sited as well as they could be. This calls into question the quality of their readings.

However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.

More importantly, for the purpose of establishing a temperature trend, the relative level of single readings is less important than whether the pattern of all readings from all stations taken together is increasing, decreasing or staying the same from year to year. Furthermore, since this question was first raised, research has established that any error that can be attributed to poor siting of weather stations is not enough to produce a significant variation in the overall warming trend being observed.

It’s also vital to realise that warnings of a warming trend — and hence Climate Change — are not based simply on ground level temperature records. Other completely independent temperature data compiled from weather balloons, satellite measurements, and from sea and ocean temperature records, also tell a remarkably similar warming story.”

So maybe Mr. Watts, because I cannot call your Doctor Watts, you should weigh all the evidence and realize scientists take all the factors into consideration of where weather stations are all of them weather near cities or exhaust fumes or out in farmlands, they are all coming up with the same trend. The climate is warming. And it is really a shame that this is going to have to get so bad and, that the humans and species on earth will have to suffer the consequences of our lack of action now, in order to decide to do something about it later, when it will be harder and more costly to try to fix

Thanks for this excellent WUWT blog.

Greenhouse Gas Amounts, Weighted contribution
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Greenhouse Effect (By Gas)
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Table 1 in both pages (the verizon one is a mirror site) lists two columns “man-made additions” and “natural additions”. The data is attributed to the DOE in the caption. Footnote 1 gives the alleged source:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to “members”)
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

Neither the current incarnation of that page holds the info to the abovementioned columns
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Nor do the pages archived by Archive.org
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
(I have checked all of the starred pages, which indicate updates).

The second source refers its readers to the IPCC report, which in turn attributes the increase from pre-industrial levels to todays levels in CO2 and other GHGs to human activities.

At the minimum Monte Hieb misattributes the data to the DOE, giving them undeserved credibility. As I do not see any source for these numbers whatsoever, I have to wonder, where these numbers come from; after all they are fundamental to Hieb’s whole argument.

The Monte Hieb page is referenced repeatedly on this blog
http://www.google.com/search?q=WVFossils+greenhouse_data+site%3Awattsupwiththat.com
by multiple users.

I think, for the reasons given above it ought to be removed from the resources list, at the very minimum a warning label is in order.

Reply: Anthony was clear the first time ~ charles the moderator

Watts up with Chemtrails? I would like to know if you have any information.
No one is touching this massive subject – its the biggest Pink Elephant in this area of study…this is happening all aroung the globe everyday!!!!
[snip]

REPLY: That’s because the whole chemtrails as government control “story” is absolute juvenile rubbish of the highest order, and there will not ever be any discussion of it here. No ifs, ands, or buts. No rebuttals, all will be wholesale deleted.- Anthony

It seems like absolutely fanciful garbage to me in that nothing, and I mean NOTHING, seems to have the slightest efect on the faith of the believers.
Anyone who is reasonable could agree (possibly) that somone could possibly reach a conclusion that the probability is towards AGW however the information is so poor and the subject so feebly understood that certainty is at best a mark of foolishness and at worst greed and meglomania.

“Britain may be in the grip of the coldest winter for 30 years and grappling with up to a foot of snow in some places but the extreme weather is entirely consistent with global warming, claim scientists.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 6:41AM GMT 03 Feb 2009

Temperatures for December and January were consistently 1.8 F ( 1 C) lower than the average of 41 F (5 C)and 37 F (3C) respectively and more snow fell in London this week than since the 1960s.

But despite this extreme weather, scientists say that the current cold snap does not mean that climate change is going into reverse. In fact, the surprise with which we have greeted the extreme conditions only reinforces how our climate has changed over the years.

A study by the Met Office which went back 350 years shows that such extreme weather now only occurs every 20 years.

Back in the pre-industrial days of Charles Dickens, it was a much more regular occurrence – hitting the country on average every five years or so.

During that time global temperatures has risen by 1.7 F (0.8 C), studies have shown.

“Even though this is quite a cold winter by recent standards it is still perfectly consistent with predictions for global warming,” said Dr Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at Department of Physics, University of Oxford.

“If it wasn’t for global warming this cold snap would happen much more regularly. What is interesting is that we are now surprised by this kind of weather. I doubt we would have been in the 1950s because it was much more common.

“As for snowfall that could actually increase in the short term because of global warming. We have all heard the expression ‘too cold to snow’ and we have always expected precipitation to increase.

“All the indicators still suggest that we are warming up in line with predictions.”

This winter seems so bad precisely because it is now so unusual. In contrast the deep freezes of 1946-47 and 1962-63 were much colder – 5.3 F (2.97C) and 7.9 F (4.37C) cooler than the long-term norm.

And with global warming we can expect another 1962-63 winter only once every 1,100 years, compared with every 183 years before 1850.

Dave Britton, a meteorologist and climate scientist at the Met Office, said: “Even with global warming you cannot rule out we will have a cold winter every so often. It sometimes rains in the Sahara but it is still a desert.”

Scientists point out that the people must distinguish between climate and weather. Weather is what happens in the short term whereas climate is the long term trend.

“Just as the wet summer of 2007 or recent heat waves cannot be attributed to global warming nor can this cold snap,” said Bob Ward, spokesman for the Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change at London School of Economics.

“What is important to do is look at the long term global trends and they are still up. What we experience in the short term in this country is not important. After all, Melbourne had a heat wave last week.”

As for the suggestion that the recent cold weather is due to a reversal of the warming Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift – otherwise known as the Thermohaline Circulation – this has been mostly ruled out by recent research.

“It has a very low chance of happening and if it does occur it will be in centuries time,” added Mr Ward.

The North Atlantic Drift is an extension of the Gulf Stream which brings warm tropical water from the Gulf of Mexico to northern Europe, including Britain. Its effect is to bring up the average temperature.