Ice Age Scare of the 70's

[Old Rocks]

Mr. Kosh, all you ever provide is flap yap, never any reputable or credible backup to your lies. You want the why and how of CO2 and the other GHG's? Here you go, a site from the largest scientific society in the world, the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.

 

[IanC]

Not unlike Himalayagate. The head of the IPCC dripped scorn as he accused the whistleblower of voodoo science. Yet we are told to believe everything the IPCC says without question.

You have demonstrated NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - that would cast the slightest doubt on the work of the IPCC.
Ian, I begin to worry about your mental acuity these days.

Himalayagate WAS the work of the IPCC. Pachy's attack on the whistleblower WAS the work of the IPCC.

Every time I point out a mistake or a misrepresentation, or a lie you say it doesn't matter. How many examples would it take before it DOES matter?

The inclusion and initial vehement defense of Himalayagate is an obvious sign that mistakes are made and criticisms are unwelcome. There are other areas that are not so cut and dried. What makes you think they are not also dealt with in the same heavy handed manner?

Previously I showed you an example of how one working group chapter was riddled with citations from the lead authors papers that had not even been published at the time when the IPCC report was released. A clear contravention of IPCC rules. Again, you said it didn't matter.

You guys say the IPCC only uses the best and the brightest scientists. Unfortunately the UN demands that every nation be included and therefore a lot of under qualified people are included, often in meaningful positions.

The exaggerated claims and one sided theories of the new millennium IPCC are being scaled back. That is a good thing. I don't care who gets the credit as long as it gets fixed.

 

[IanC]

Are you up to a thousand citations of that link yet Old Rocks?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Complete waste. I've put you back on ignore.

SO instead of answering his fully relevant question you runaway like a little bitch..

Ill ask the same question. What have YOU proven that James Hansen could not?

 

[Crick]

Not unlike Himalayagate. The head of the IPCC dripped scorn as he accused the whistleblower of voodoo science. Yet we are told to believe everything the IPCC says without question.

You have demonstrated NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - that would cast the slightest doubt on the work of the IPCC.
Ian, I begin to worry about your mental acuity these days.

Himalayagate WAS the work of the IPCC. Pachy's attack on the whistleblower WAS the work of the IPCC.

And the IPCC has admitted that mistake.

Every time I point out a mistake or a misrepresentation, or a lie you say it doesn't matter. How many examples would it take before it DOES matter?

A GREAT fucking deal more than the half a paragraph out of 1,800 pages that "HimalayaGate makes up.

Now, please explain the connection between "The Ice Age Scare of the 70s" and "HimalayaGate"

The inclusion and initial vehement defense of Himalayagate is an obvious sign that mistakes are made and criticisms are unwelcome. There are other areas that are not so cut and dried. What makes you think they are not also dealt with in the same heavy handed manner?

For one, the response to the erroneous statement about the future of the Himalayan glaciers - YOUR response - was that it laid waste to, discredited, the entire report - as you are still trying to claim it does. That is the reason you got the response you saw. You reap what you sow. You and yours wanted to reject the entire thing. You always have and your desire has had nothing to do with the scientific validity of the report. Be fucking honest. You simply hate the IPCC and the whole idea of global warming. It has nothing to do with the science and it never did.

Previously I showed you an example of how one working group chapter was riddled with citations from the lead authors papers that had not even been published at the time when the IPCC report was released. A clear contravention of IPCC rules. Again, you said it didn't matter.

How about this? How about we completely forget about the IPCC and their assessment reports. Let's take ourselves back to the source. Let's you and I assess the literature; see what the peer reviewed climate science of, say, the last five years has found. What do you say? Will that get us closer to the truth? You've been suggesting and implying all along here that the IPCC is not accurately reporting on the state of climate science today. Let's you and I see if they're doing a good job. Eh? I haven't the slightest concern that we will find anything different than what the IPCC has found. Do you think we'll find something different? Do you think there some silent majority of climate scientists out there waiting to be heard? Give us a fucking break.

You guys say the IPCC only uses the best and the brightest scientists. Unfortunately the UN demands that every nation be included and therefore a lot of under qualified people are included, often in meaningful positions.

Oh, here we go. Was that in the latest Fossil Fuel Newsletter? That only puts us a hop skip and a jump from spreading suspicions about their loyalties. We can't trust those third world darkies, can we.

The exaggerated claims and one sided theories of the new millennium IPCC are being scaled back. That is a good thing. I don't care who gets the credit as long as it gets fixed.

I don't care who gets the credit as long as my children and their and theirs and theirs don't have to look at lifetimes of bare survival-level conditions all because a group of loud-mouthed, anti-science rednecks decided humbling Al Gore was more important than the future of the fucking planet.

 

[Thanatocoenosis]

So there is little doubt that the ice age scare of the 70's actually happened...

So the CIA documents the fact that NOAA, NCAR, the National Academy of Science, the National Science Foundation, CRU, and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory were all in agreement that a cooling phase was on the way.

I am sure someone has already refuted this bullshit, but in case they haven't:

The NAS report, that you're referring to qualified the report with we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course [so] it does not seem possible to predict climate.

The NSF report concluded it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path...

If you will provide links to the papers that you alluded to in your copy/paste from some anti-science bullshit site, I will find why you are wrong about those, too.

In fact, most scientific papers(written by the guys that study these things) of the 70s concluded that we were heading for a period of warming due to the release of CO₂, but I suspect that you already know this since this information is readily available on Wikipedia.

It is an intellectual coward that uses half-truths, mistruths, and outright lies, through cherry picked data, to spread their demonstrably wrong bullshit-not calling you an intellectual coward, but the liars at the website where you found your copypasta.

 

[Thanatocoenosis]

Yup OP it was a big media scare, which the man made climate change cult, now trys to denie...

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism


1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 - New Ice Age May Descend On Man(Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Prospect A Chilling One(The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution's 2-way 'Freeze' On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 - Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 - Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 - U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic (The New York Times, July 18, 1970)
1970 - Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 - Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground(Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 - Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (The Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)
1971 - Pollution May Bring Ice Age - Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 - Ice Age Around the Corner(Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)

lol... you cite newspaper articles to support your claim about science? Let me guess, you haven't been in a science classroom since middle school, because even in high school, if student tried to pull that crap, they would receive an E for the absurdity of it.

 

[IanC]

Not unlike Himalayagate. The head of the IPCC dripped scorn as he accused the whistleblower of voodoo science. Yet we are told to believe everything the IPCC says without question.

You have demonstrated NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - that would cast the slightest doubt on the work of the IPCC.
Ian, I begin to worry about your mental acuity these days.

Himalayagate WAS the work of the IPCC. Pachy's attack on the whistleblower WAS the work of the IPCC.

And the IPCC has admitted that mistake.

Every time I point out a mistake or a misrepresentation, or a lie you say it doesn't matter. How many examples would it take before it DOES matter?

A GREAT fucking deal more than the half a paragraph out of 1,800 pages that "HimalayaGate makes up.

Now, please explain the connection between "The Ice Age Scare of the 70s" and "HimalayaGate"

The inclusion and initial vehement defense of Himalayagate is an obvious sign that mistakes are made and criticisms are unwelcome. There are other areas that are not so cut and dried. What makes you think they are not also dealt with in the same heavy handed manner?

For one, the response to the erroneous statement about the future of the Himalayan glaciers - YOUR response - was that it laid waste to, discredited, the entire report - as you are still trying to claim it does. That is the reason you got the response you saw. You reap what you sow. You and yours wanted to reject the entire thing. You always have and your desire has had nothing to do with the scientific validity of the report. Be fucking honest. You simply hate the IPCC and the whole idea of global warming. It has nothing to do with the science and it never did.

Previously I showed you an example of how one working group chapter was riddled with citations from the lead authors papers that had not even been published at the time when the IPCC report was released. A clear contravention of IPCC rules. Again, you said it didn't matter.

How about this? How about we completely forget about the IPCC and their assessment reports. Let's take ourselves back to the source. Let's you and I assess the literature; see what the peer reviewed climate science of, say, the last five years has found. What do you say? Will that get us closer to the truth? You've been suggesting and implying all along here that the IPCC is not accurately reporting on the state of climate science today. Let's you and I see if they're doing a good job. Eh? I haven't the slightest concern that we will find anything different than what the IPCC has found. Do you think we'll find something different? Do you think there some silent majority of climate scientists out there waiting to be heard? Give us a fucking break.

You guys say the IPCC only uses the best and the brightest scientists. Unfortunately the UN demands that every nation be included and therefore a lot of under qualified people are included, often in meaningful positions.

Oh, here we go. Was that in the latest Fossil Fuel Newsletter? That only puts us a hop skip and a jump from spreading suspicions about their loyalties. We can't trust those third world darkies, can we.

The exaggerated claims and one sided theories of the new millennium IPCC are being scaled back. That is a good thing. I don't care who gets the credit as long as it gets fixed.

I don't care who gets the credit as long as my children and their and theirs and theirs don't have to look at lifetimes of bare survival-level conditions all because a group of loud-mouthed, anti-science rednecks decided humbling Al Gore was more important than the future of the fucking planet.

Wow!!!! Third world darkies. Just how racist are you?

Himalayagate has little to do with the OP. You keep demanding that I give yet another example that casts doubt on the IPCC and I keep responding. Perhaps someone should start a thread on the misrepresentations of the IPCC. Wasn't one of the concurrent stories with Himalayagate the claim that the IPCC only uses peer reviewed papers as references? Didnt that turn out to be a lie, with 30 or 40% not qualified? Do you really want me to chase down examples of poorly qualified IPCC personnel in high positions?

If you don't want me to slag the IPCC, quit asking me to provide evidence that they are biased and misrepresent the full position on climate science.

 

[Zander]

The ice age is coming, the sun is zooming in
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growin' thin
Engines stop running, but I have no fear
'Cause London is drowning, and I, I live by the river

 

[Zander]

How cute!! Today's global warming alarmists are denying the global cooling alarmism of the 1970's......it's comical!

 

[Old Rocks]

How cute, Mr. Zander, demonstrating your astounding ignorance for all the see. So post us links to the articles in the scientific journals of that period demonstrating a consensus on that global cooling alarmism of the '70's.

 

[Crick]

All this thread accomplishes is to demonstrate the denier's complete lack of meaningful arguments in support of their position.

 

[Wyatt earp]

All this thread accomplishes is to demonstrate the denier's complete lack of meaningful arguments in support of their position.

No, it shows how old the alarmist are or how dishonest and gullible they are.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yup OP it was a big media scare, which the man made climate change cult, now trys to denie...

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism


1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 - New Ice Age May Descend On Man(Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Prospect A Chilling One(The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution's 2-way 'Freeze' On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 - Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 - Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 - U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic (The New York Times, July 18, 1970)
1970 - Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 - Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground(Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 - Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (The Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)
1971 - Pollution May Bring Ice Age - Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 - Ice Age Around the Corner(Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)

lol... you cite newspaper articles to support your claim about science? Let me guess, you haven't been in a science classroom since middle school, because even in high school, if student tried to pull that crap, they would receive an E for the absurdity of it.

don't deny Jack ass it was main stream hyperbole, you site shit, that was on the fridge lier





Like I said your ilk is like the book 1984


No
No
No
We never said that.

 

[Thanatocoenosis]

Yup OP it was a big media scare, which the man made climate change cult, now trys to denie...

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism


1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 - New Ice Age May Descend On Man(Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Prospect A Chilling One(The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution's 2-way 'Freeze' On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 - Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 - Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 - U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic (The New York Times, July 18, 1970)
1970 - Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 - Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground(Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 - Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (The Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)
1971 - Pollution May Bring Ice Age - Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 - Ice Age Around the Corner(Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)

lol... you cite newspaper articles to support your claim about science? Let me guess, you haven't been in a science classroom since middle school, because even in high school, if student tried to pull that crap, they would receive an E for the absurdity of it.

don't deny Jack ass it was main stream hyperbole, you site shit, that was on the fridge lier





Like I said your ilk is like the book 1984


No
No
No
We never said that.

The post above the one that you quoted demonstrated that your full of it, but I wouldn't expect someone with such a poor understanding of both, science, and grammar, to comprehend what I posted.

Oh, and for the record, that popular news media pablum that you posted is all based upon one original media source publishing the absurd nonsense. Media outlets do that, you know. Wait, I suspect that you don't know that...

The fact is that some media websites wrote some bullshit articles that were refuted by real science. That denialist idiots with a poor understanding of factual data, science, and the English language, would harp on something that is so demonstrably wrong is telling- what a bunch of disingenuine fools... I laugh at your folly.

 

[IanC]

Yup OP it was a big media scare, which the man made climate change cult, now trys to denie...

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism


1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 - New Ice Age May Descend On Man(Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Prospect A Chilling One(The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution's 2-way 'Freeze' On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 - Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 - Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 - U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic (The New York Times, July 18, 1970)
1970 - Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 - Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground(Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 - Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (The Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)
1971 - Pollution May Bring Ice Age - Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 - Ice Age Around the Corner(Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)

lol... you cite newspaper articles to support your claim about science? Let me guess, you haven't been in a science classroom since middle school, because even in high school, if student tried to pull that crap, they would receive an E for the absurdity of it.

don't deny Jack ass it was main stream hyperbole, you site shit, that was on the fridge lier





Like I said your ilk is like the book 1984


No
No
No
We never said that.

The post above the one that you quoted demonstrated that your full of it, but I wouldn't expect someone with such a poor understanding of both, science, and grammar, to comprehend what I posted.

Oh, and for the record, that popular news media pablum that you posted is all based upon one original media source publishing the absurd nonsense. Media outlets do that, you know. Wait, I suspect that you don't know that...

The fact is that some media websites wrote some bullshit articles that were refuted by real science. That denialist idiots with a poor understanding of factual data, science, and the English language, would harp on something that is so demonstrably wrong is telling- what a bunch of disingenuine fools... I laugh at your folly.

You're new here so I'll cut you some slack. Obviously you read some articles that claim the ice age scare was a hoax and you stopped looking. Did you read the CIA report? How do you simply dismiss that as media exaggeration? If you have (or will) read it, did you notice the similarities of potential problems claimed for both global cooling and global warming?

 

[mamooth]

And Ian confirms the lack of any meaningful science supporting his claims, being that he has to ignore all the actual science and instead quote a CIA report.

Deniers, can you name any other field of science where people run around quoting nothing but a CIA report to support their position? There aren't any. Deniers are setting new low standards here in the "desperate and pathetic" category.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yup OP it was a big media scare, which the man made climate change cult, now trys to denie...

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism


1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 - New Ice Age May Descend On Man(Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Prospect A Chilling One(The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution's 2-way 'Freeze' On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 - Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 - Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 - U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic (The New York Times, July 18, 1970)
1970 - Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 - Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground(Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 - Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (The Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)
1971 - Pollution May Bring Ice Age - Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 - Ice Age Around the Corner(Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)

lol... you cite newspaper articles to support your claim about science? Let me guess, you haven't been in a science classroom since middle school, because even in high school, if student tried to pull that crap, they would receive an E for the absurdity of it.

don't deny Jack ass it was main stream hyperbole, you site shit, that was on the fridge lier





Like I said your ilk is like the book 1984


No
No
No
We never said that.

The post above the one that you quoted demonstrated that your full of it, but I wouldn't expect someone with such a poor understanding of both, science, and grammar, to comprehend what I posted.

Oh, and for the record, that popular news media pablum that you posted is all based upon one original media source publishing the absurd nonsense. Media outlets do that, you know. Wait, I suspect that you don't know that...

The fact is that some media websites wrote some bullshit articles that were refuted by real science. That denialist idiots with a poor understanding of factual data, science, and the English language, would harp on something that is so demonstrably wrong is telling- what a bunch of disingenuine fools... I laugh at your folly.

quit fucking lying child, the ice age was all the rage in the 70s



Dumb fuck

And I just shrug my head at you for your ignorance to history......the book 1984

 

[IanC]

And Ian confirms the lack of any meaningful science supporting his claims, being that he has to ignore all the actual science and instead quote a CIA report.

Deniers, can you name any other field of science where people run around quoting nothing but a CIA report to support their position? There aren't any. Deniers are setting new low standards here in the "desperate and pathetic" category.

The Pooh flinging monkey is at it again! Hahahahaha

The CIA claimed they were using the best available climate expert advice. Perhaps it says something about climate expert advice. 40 years from now we may be laughing at the present 'best advice'.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And Ian confirms the lack of any meaningful science supporting his claims, being that he has to ignore all the actual science and instead quote a CIA report.

Deniers, can you name any other field of science where people run around quoting nothing but a CIA report to support their position? There aren't any. Deniers are setting new low standards here in the "desperate and pathetic" category.

The Pooh flinging monkey is at it again! Hahahahaha

The CIA claimed they were using the best available climate expert advice. Perhaps it says something about climate expert advice. 40 years from now we may be laughing at the present 'best advice'.

"When we looked back, we realized that the entire AGW scam was based on one single tree ring. Amazing the scam lasted as long as it did" CIA Report on the AGW Scam 2022