Dr., I see that Ginja has methodically addressed your concerns, and exposed where your protestations of integrity ran aground on your aversion to research.
I was especially intrigued by your repeated mention of the Mauna Loa CO2 station being on the side of an active volcano.
You seemed to have been implying that that upsets the quality of the data produced by that monitoring station, but you never said so. You seemed to expect the reader to take that and develop it in his mind into an otherwise undefined impression of fraud. My problem is that you never expressed or defined your objection to the apposition of volcano and station.
So you engaged in a rhetorical maneuver worthy of a parliamentarian.
(Of course, among the serious science-minded, that is mortal insult, a demonstration of the wrong mindset.)
I went and did a bit of research on that this morning, but was anticipated by Ginja. Note that the Mauna Loa trace corresponds perfectly with the ones from three other remote and nonvolcanic locations.
i will extend you the benefit of the doubt ... that you were misled, and that you didn't deliberately select bad info knowing its defects. Wherever you read that the volcanic placement of the Mauna Loa station was a) significant and b) injurious to the claim of rapid pCO2 rise ... you must now mentally mark those sources as dishonest. cn
PERHAPS the mauna loa site selection was simply for convenience, but i doubt it. as to the exact correlation with other sources, i still have doubts about the impartiality of the global climate wonks, as they have demonstrated a willingness to alter data to suit their agenda.
if i wanted to find CO2 i could, and if i wanted to create the appearance of correlation among many sites it would be simple to change the numbers to suit my desires. weather stations that dont report increases in temperature get shut down, with no comment from the people who should be watching for shenanigans, the russian temp data was deliberately altered to show temps the russians never reported, the indian glacial measurements were deliberately altered to show shrinkage far in excess of measured reductions in those areas where a reduction was noted, and those glaciers which were shown to be advancing were re-imagined as shrinking or stable.
see im not even suggesting that it's poorly exectued science im saying FRAUD on a massive scale is what probably going on. the global warming community has become a religion, and non-believers are cast out, while those who make wild unsupportable claims are embraced as heroes.
does it make sense to YOU that CO2 measurements should be done on the side of an active volcano? or that other locations which are NOT on the side of a volcano should show the same numbers? either mauna loa is correct and CO2 is increasing to almost 3% globally, and the volcano is unique in that it's the only active volcano in the world that doesnt release CO2, or perhaps the other reports are indulging in the already established preference to "Hide The Decline".
you cant sniff for CO2 in the middle of the northwest forests and get 3%, then sniff at the tailpipe of a running automobile and get the same number without something being wrong someplace.
between fear of exile from the academic establishment, the drive to publish or perish, the need for funding, and the abject terror of being declared a "climate denier" theres plenty of reasons to fake results.
if your latest paper becomes the hot new topic in the media, you might even guest segment on the view or a cushy job as a government advisor, if your latest paper casts doubts on the global climate change model, then youll be teaching remedial chemistry at a community college in oxnard. if youre lucky.
