greenhouse gas science a fraud., page-105

That's right radiomoscow - keep throwing up red hearings and ignore the facts.

Answer me this please. Which one of these graphs you say is the correct representation of the earth's temperature, at least to the best of our knowledge? Note that the first was was used in that UN Climate Change 2009 report. Also note that both were made by the same person - Hano, who appears to be a mystery person.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CO2-Temp.png
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:NH_temperature_2ka.png

Anyway, the most accepted view of the temperature fluctuations over the past 1000+ years is much closer to the second one. So, what does that make the first graph as shown in the UN report? Either a deliberate corruption of the truth or a big honest mistake. So, the report has to be considered as dishonest at best, a fraud at worst. If you look at it in any other way then you certainly are not interested in the truth. Is this the sort of truth you mean?

In conclusion then, what does that say about their thesis that increases in CO2 causes a rise in temperature so we must curtail our CO2 emissions? Clearly there is no such evidence. Also, even if there was, is anyone really seriously saying that only the man-made component of the total CO2 concentration is causing the warming? Man-made CO2 makes up a small fraction of the total CO2. Even if the whole human population teleported to another planet, the CO2 levels would not alter by much. More realistically, how does an ETS that might force us to reduce our CO2 emissions by 10, 20, perhaps 50% make any difference when in total we as a species generate a small fraction of the total CO2? Use some common sense please.