by Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski
20 September 2008
I was born on 17 October 1927 in Krakow , Poland . I
graduated as a physician in 1952 at the Medical Academy
in Kraków. In 1963 I received PhD in natural sciences
and in 1967 DSc in natural sciences. I became a docent
in 1967 and in 1977 a full professor. Since 1958 I am
married to Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska, who is a professor
emeritus of paleontology at the University of Oslo and
at the Institute of Paleobiology of the Polish Academy
of Sciences in Warsaw; and the editor of the Acta
Paleontologica Polonica; she is a full member of the
Polish Academy of Sciences, of the Norwegian Academy of
Sciences and of the Academia Europea. We have one son,
and two grandchildren.
Between 1951 and 1952 I worked as an assistant at the
Institute of Physiological Chemistry of the Medical
Academy in Kraków, studying chemical carcinogenesis.
Between 1953 and 1958 I worked as a radiotherapeutist at
the Oncological Institute in Gliwice . In 1957 and 1958
I served as a medical doctor of the Polish International
Geophysical Year Expedition to Spitsbergen , where I
studied activity concentration in precipitation of
radionuclides from nuclear test explosions and
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Between 1958 and
1970 I worked in the Institute of Nuclear Research in
Warsaw as a head of the Laboratory of Radiotoxicology.
In 1960/1961 I
worked at the Department of Physics of the Research
Cancer Institute in London as a stipendiary of
International Atomic Energy Agency measuring content of
210Pb in bones of British population and in hair of
Polish uranium miners. Between 1970 and 1987 I worked in
the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in
Warsaw as the head of the Department of Radiation
Hygiene. Between 1982 and 1984 I worked in the Centre
d'Etude Nucleaires in Fontenay-aux-Roses near Paris as a
guest professor. In 1987-1988 I worked at the
Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics ,
University of Oslo . In 1988-1990 I worked at the
Norwegian Polar Research Institute in Oslo . Between
1990 and 1991 I worked for six months as a visiting
professor at the National Institute for Polar Research
in Tokyo . Between 1991 and 1993 I was working in the
Institute for Energy Technology at Kjeller near Oslo .
Since 1993 I am working at the Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection in Warsaw , now as the Senior
contamination of man and animals with radionuclides
of analytical methods for detection of pollutants in
the human body and environment
effects of ionizing radiation
(5) impact of
nuclear war on population
measures in nuclear emergencies
environmental levels and migration of radionuclides
and heavy metals
between pollutants in the environment and in man
monitoring of radionuclides and heavy metals in man
- the first discovery that lead level in human bones
was up to two orders of magnitude higher between
11th and the end of 19th century than now
monitoring of radionuclides and heavy metals in
distribution of natural radionuclides, fission
products and heavy metals in the troposphere and
determination of natural radionuclides, fission
products and heavy metals in contemporary and
pre-industrial ice from glaciers in both
hemispheres, for studying the geographical
distribution, temporal changes and flux of natural
and man-made pollutants in the global atmosphere
and global impact of pollution caused by coal
of polar ice core records of greenhouse gases for
reconstruction of the composition of the ancient
I was a principal
investigator of three research projects of the US
Environmental Protection Agency on:
and geographical changes in distribution of
pollutants in the global cryosphere, in components
of terrestrial environment, and in human body
(2) on vertical
distribution of pollutants in the troposphere and
toxicology of organically bound tritium.
I was a principal
investigator of four research projects of the
International Atomic Energy Agency on radiotoxicology.
I organized 10 expeditions to the polar and high
altitude temperate glaciers ( Spitsbergen , Alaska ,
Northern Norway - Svartisen, Southern Norway -
Jotunheimen, Alps, Tatra Mountains, Himalayas, Ruwenzori
in East Africa, Peruvian Andes and Antarctica ).
Their aim was to
measure (for the first time) the mass of stable heavy
metals and activity of natural radionuclides entering
the global atmosphere from natural and man-made sources,
and to determine their pre-industrial and contemporary
annual flows. During these studies the mass of global
annual atmospheric precipitation was measured (for the
first time) by means of radioactive tracers (natural
210Pb, and 137Cs from nuclear tests).
I am or I was a member of:
Society of Radiation Research
Society of Medical Physics
of Radiobiology of the Committee of Medical Physics
of the Polish Academy of Sciences
Commission of Nuclear Safety - until 1980)
Society of Polar Research
National Council for Environmental Protection -
of the Basic Medical Sciences of the Polish Academy
of Sciences - until 1987
Physics Society (USA)
member of the International Society for Trace
Element Research in Humans
of Radiological Protection of (Polish) National
Council of Atomic Energy (1984-1988 chairman) -
International member of the Advisory Committee of
BELLE (Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures)
(13) Member of
the Scientific Committee of Environmentalists for
(14) I am the
president of the Polish Branch of Environmentalists
for Nuclear Energy.
I am a member of
the editorial boards and scientific committees of
several Polish and foreign scientific journals.
Since 1973 I am a member of the United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
(UNSCEAR); in the years 1978-1979 I was the
vice-chairman, and 1980-1982 the chairman of this
I was participant or chairman of about 20 Advisory
Groups of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and
of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).
In 1986 I was a member of the Polish Governmental
Commission on the Effects of Chernobyl Accident.
I published more than 300 scientific papers, 4 books and
I participated in writing and editing 10 published
scientific documents of UNSCEAR, IAEA and UNEP.
I published about 100 articles in Polish newspapers and
popular science magazines.
In an op-ed in a Polish weekly I
commented recently on a remarkable decrease of global temperature in
2008, and over the past decade.
Not surprisingly the op-ed evoked a
strong reaction from Polish co-workers of IPCC, denying the
existence of cooling. Surprising, however, was that the criticism
dwelled upon a “global climatic conspiracy”, and “colossal
international plot”. I did not use these words nor even hinted at
such an idea. The idea was probably apparent from the data and facts
I presented, showing weaknesses of the man-made global warming
Without irrational political or
ideological factors, it is really difficult to understand why so
many people believe in human causation of the Modern Warm Period,
which was never plausibly proved by scientific evidence.
Some of these factors I will discuss
A conspiracy stratagem was openly presented by
Maurice Strong, a
godfather of the global environmental movement, and a former senior
advisor to Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General.
In 1972 Strong was a Secretary-General
the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which
launched the world environment movement, and he has played a
critical role in its globalization. In 1992 Strong was the
Secretary-General of the “World Summit” conference in Rio de
Janeiro, where on his instigation the foundations for the Kyoto
Protocol were laid.
In an interview Strong disclosed his mindset:
"What if a small group of world
leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth
comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to
survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement
reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The
group’s conclusion is "no." The rich countries won’t do it. They
So, in order to save the planet, the
group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our
responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders
form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse."
The climatic issue became now perhaps
the most important agenda of the United Nations and politicians, at
least they say so.
It became also a moral issue. In 2007
addressing the UN General Assembly Gro Harlem Brundtland, the UN
Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, pointing at
climatic skeptics stated:
“It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply
immoral to question the seriousness of the real danger of climate
But earlier “scare them to deaths!”
morality of “climatists” was explained by Stephen
Schneider, one of their top gurus:
"On the one hand, as scientists we
are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect
promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but...
On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings
as well... we need to get some broad-based support, to capture
the public's imagination.
That, of course, entails getting
loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of
any doubts we might have...Each of us has to decide what the
right balance is between being effective and being honest”
The same moral standard is offered by
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of
factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a
predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the
In similar vein Rajendra K. Pauchari,
the chairman of IPCC, commented in the last Fourth PCCC Report:
hope this will shock people and governments into taking more serious
Thus IPCC does not have ambition to
present an objective climatic situation, but rather “to shock” the
people to take actions which would bring no climatic effects (NIPCC,
2008), but rather disastrous global economic and societal
consequences. Implementation of these actions would dismantle the
global energy system, the primary driving force of our civilization.
This is what Maurice Strong and other leaders of Green Movement
apparently have in mind.
The political and business scale of the problem is reflected by sums
planned or already spent to counter the blessed natural Modern Warm
Period, one of several similar periods enjoyed by the biosphere over
the current interglacial .
According to the U.S. Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works, during the past 10 years funds for
the promoters of the man-made global warming hypothesis received in
the United States alone more than $50 billion.
The International Energy Agency announced in June that cutting by
half the CO2 emission will cost the world $45 trillion up
to 2050, i.e. 1.1% of the global GNP each year (Kanter, 2008). For
this expenditure one may expect a trifle climatic effect.
Even if a substantial part of global
warming were due to CO2 – and it is not – any control
efforts currently contemplated, including the punctiliously observed
Kyoto protocol, would decrease future temperatures by only 0.02°C,
an undetectable amount (NIPCC, 2008).
Both surface and troposphere observations suggest that we are
entering a cool phase of climate. These observations are in a total
disagreement with IPCC climatic model projections, based on an
assumption that the current Modern Warm Period is due to
anthropogenic emissions of CO2 (IPCC-AR4, 2007).
increment of global industrial CO2 emission increased
from 1.1% in 1990-1999 to more than 3% in 2000- 2004 (Raupach et
al., 2007), and is still increasing. Thus, according to IPCC
projections the global temperature should be increasing now more
rapidly than before, but instead we see a cold spell. It is clear
that cooling is not related to the rapidly increasing CO2
Its cause is rather
the Sun’s activity, which recently
dropped precipitously from its 60 year long record in the second
half of the 20th century, the highest in the past 11 centuries (Usoskin
et al., 2003), to an extremely low current level.
Sun activity is reflected in the number of sunspots, which normally
shows an 11-year periodicity (or 131 month plus or minus 14 month).
sunspot cycle no. 23 had a maximum in 2001 (150 sunspots
in September). NASA officially declared it over in March 2006, with
a forecast that the next cycle no. 24 will be 20 to 50 % stronger
than the old.
But until now the Sun remained quiet, with only few
sunspots sighted both from the old cycle, and from the new one
declared again by NASA to start on December 11, 2007. However, the
Sun’s activity was still low in the first part of 2008 (NOAA, 2008), and August 2008 was (probably) the first month without sunspots
since 1913 (some observations noticed not a “spot” but a tiny
short-lived “pore” on 21-22 August).
It seems that we still remain
in the cycle 23.
The unusually long low activity of Sun suggests that we may be
entering a next
Maunder Minimum, a period from 1645 to 1715, when
almost no sunspots were visible.
This was the coldest part of the
Little Ice Age (1250—1900), when rivers in Europe and America were
often frozen, and the Baltic Sea was crossed on ice by armies and
travelers. Other authors suggest that the Earth will be facing a
slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015, reaching a deep freeze
around 2050-2060, similar to cooling that took place in 1645-1715,
when temperature decreased by 1 to 2°C (Abdussamatov, 2004;
Abdussamatov, 2005; Abdussamatov, 2006).
Another analysis of
sunspot cycles for the period 1882-2000, projected that the cooling
will start in the solar cycle 25, resulting in minimum temperature
around 2021-2026 (Bashkirtsev and Mashnich, 2003). A long-term
cooling, related to Sun’s activity, was also projected for the
period around 2100 and 2200 (Landscheidt, 1995; Landscheidt, 2003).
The current Modern Warm Period is one of innumerous former
warm climatic phases. Its temperature is lower than in the 4 former
warm periods over the past 1500 years (Grudd, 2008). Unfortunately
it seems that it comes to an end, and the recent climatic
fluctuations suggest that perhaps a new, full scale ice age is
It may come in the next 50 to 400 years (Broecker, 1995;
Bryson, 1993), with ice caps covering northern parts of America and
Reliability of IPCC
Each of four IPCC reports became a holy book for the UN, Brussels
and national bureaucracies. These credulously accepted reports are
now a basis of long-term political and economic decisions. If
implemented, the decisions will bring a global scale disaster.
credulity is astonishing, as many impartial perusals of the IPCC
work demonstrated that its assessments and foundations, not
withstanding an impressive numerical and graphic façade, are clearly
biased, and should be rejected as not providing adequate climatic
information for policymakers.
The name of
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, tacitly
suggests that only now the climate changes. This notion, in various
forms for example “climate change is now upon us” (CCSP-USP, 2008)
is repeated ad nauseam in the names of institutions, programs,
scientific papers and media.
This, however, is not true. Without
human intervention and without influence of CO2, climate was
changing constantly over the past several billion years, sometimes
much more and much faster than now. The rapidity with which the
Modern Warm Period appeared is often invoked as a proof of its human
cause. However, the Dansgaard-Oeschger events (D-Os), with their
extremely rapid changes of climate, occurred without human
intervention about 20 times during the past 100,000 years.
of them, the so called “Younger Dryas”, happened 12,800 years ago,
when the warm climate switched rapidly to a cold one, and then after
1300 years, almost immediately returned back into warm phase.
times the switching took just a few years, much less than the
recovery from the Little Ice Age after 1900 AD, which “is now upon
Proofs of human causation of the Modern Warm Period
The most important argument of IPCC report (IPCC-AR4, 2007) for
man-made climate warming is based on climatic models combined with
observations of temperature in the period 1906 – 2005 over the five
continents and the whole globe.
The IPCC use the “fingerprint
argument” that the Modern Warm Period is caused by human activities,
particularly by the burning of fossil fuels.
The argument is that
computer models using only natural climatic factors, “such as
volcanic activity and variations in solar [radiative] output”, are
unable to simulate the past temperature trends, but,
“When the effects of increasing
levels of greenhouse gases are included in the models, as well
as (natural) climatic factors, the models produce good
simulations of the warming that occurred over the past century”.
This is, however not true. Using all the anthropogenic and natural
factors, the models are unable to correctly match the real warming
trends with altitude.
Greenhouse models predicted about two times higher temperature at
10km than at the surface, while the balloon measurements gave the
opposite result: no increasing of warming, but rather cooling with
altitude in the tropical zone.
There are two errors in the IPCC “fingerprint argument”:
limiting natural factors only to solar irradiance, and ignoring
other cosmic factors
incorrectly assuming, on the basis of
unreliable ice core studies, and after rejecting a large body of
direct measurements of CO2 in the 19th and most of the 20th century
atmosphere, that during the past 650,000 years the natural
concentration of atmospheric CO2 never exceeded the concentration of
180 to 300ppm (parts per million), that the pre-industrial value was
about 280ppm, and that human activity increased it to about 380ppm,
i.e. by about 36%.
To fit these data into a global carbon cycle IPCC assumed a
speculative lifetime for man-made CO2 in the atmosphere as 50 to 200
years, ignoring observational evidence from 37 studies (based on
natural and nuclear bomb carbon-14, Suess effect, radon-222,
solubility data and carbon-13/carbon-12 mass balance) documenting
that the real lifetime is about 5 years .
With CO2 atmospheric
lifetime of about 5 years the maximum amount of man-made CO2
remaining now in the atmosphere is only 4%, and not 36% (see review
in Segalstad, 1998).
Ignoring cosmic rays
IPCC-AR4 limited the natural “radiation forcing”  to only one
factor (solar irradiance), and based its estimates on ten
anthropogenic factors, listed in the Summary for Policymakers in
The IPCC regards the anthropogenic CO2 emission as the
most important factor, and assumed it to be 13.8 times more powerful
than the solar irradiance. But the glaciological studies clearly
demonstrated that it is climate that influences the atmospheric CO2
level, and not vice versa.
Over the past several hundred thousand
years increases of temperature always preceded the CO2 concentration
increases; also climatic cooling always preceded decreases of CO2 (Caillon
et al., 2003; Fischer et al., 1999; Idso, 1988; Indermuhle et al.,
1999; Monnin et al., 2001; Mudelsee, 2001).
This suggests that
changes of temperature of the atmosphere are the causative factor
for CO2 changes, probably by influencing the rate of land erosion,
and the solubility of gas in oceanic waters (lower in warm than in
cold water). In its almost monothematic concentration on greenhouse
gases, especially on CO2, the IPCC underestimated water vapor - the
main greenhouse gas contributing about 95% to the global greenhouse
effect (Ellingson et al., 1991; Lindzen, 1991).
About 95% of the
total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere is natural and
comes from the land and sea, and only 5% from human sources. Thus
the anthropogenic CO2 contributes only a tiny fraction to the total
greenhouse effect, probably less than 0.15%.
The IPCC ignores a dominating climatic effect of incoming cosmic
rays governed by solar activity, well known for 17 years (Friis-Christensen
and Lassen, 1991). Recent studies demonstrate that the climate of
the Earth is completely determined by the Sun, via insolation and
the action of galactic cosmic rays, and that the so-called
anthropogenic “CO2 doubling” problem is practically absent (Rusov et
In opposition to the IPCC message, the natural forces
that are driving the climate are 4 to 5 orders of magnitude greater
than the corresponding anthropogenic impact, and humans may be
responsible for less than 0.01oC of warming during the last century
(Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2006).
The cosmoclimatologic studies
demonstrate a powerful influence on climate of fluctuations of muon
fraction of cosmic rays, caused by short-term variations of the
Sun’s activity (Svensmark, 2007; Svensmark and Calder, 2008), and
in geological time scale by migration of the Solar System trough
spiral arms of the Milky Way, with different concentration of dust
and activity of novas (Shaviv and Veizer, 2003).
In the 20th
century the reduction of cosmic rays was such that the maximal
fluxes towards the end of the century were similar to the minima
seen around 1900 (Figure 10). Decreasing cosmic-ray flux, caused a
decrease of low cloud cover, and resulted in warming the Earth.
Low-level clouds cover more than 25% of the Earth surface and exert
a strong cooling at the surface. The change in radiative forcing by
3% change in low cloud cover over one solar cycle will vary the
input of heat to the Earth surface by about 2 Wm-2. It can be
compared with 1.4 Wm-2 estimated by IPCC for the greenhouse effect
of all human-made CO2 added to the atmosphere since the Industrial
Revolution (Svensmark, 2007).
The low cloud formation depending on
fluctuations of cosmic rays, ignored by IPCC, is a much more
plausible cause of the Modern Warming Period than CO2 concentration
changes. As was always in the past, also now CO2 change lags the
temperature. Not a single publication on cosmoclimatologic effects
was cited in the IPCC reports.
This disqualifies them as impartial
and a reliable source of information for policymakers and scientific
Proxy ice data instead of atmospheric CO2
The foundation of the hypothesis that the Modern Warm Period is
induced by humans is an assumption that the pre-industrial level of
CO2 was 280ppm, i.e. about 100ppm lower than now.
British engineer, G.S Callendar may be truly regarded as the father of this
hypothesis, and of this assumption (Callendar, 1938; Callendar,
1940; Callendar, 1949; Callendar, 1958). This assumption was made
possible by the arbitrary rejection of more than 90,000 technically
excellent, direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out
in America, Asia and Europe, during 149 years between 1812 and 1961.
Some of these direct measurements were carried out by Nobel Prize
winners. Callendar rejected more than 69% from a set of 19th century
CO2 measurements ranging from 250 to 550ppm.
This shows a bias in the selection method. Without such selection
the 19th century data compiled by Callendar averaged 335ppm (Slocum,
1955). Similar biased selections were later applied in ice core
studies of greenhouse gases (Jaworowski, 1994).
The low, flat CO2 ice-core concentrations, never reaching above
300ppm during the past 650,000 years and six interglacials (Siegenthaler
et al., 2005), even in periods when the global temperature was much
warmer than now, suggest that either atmospheric CO2 has no
discernible influence on the climate, or that the proxy ice core
reconstructions of the chemical composition of the ancient
atmosphere are false – both propositions are probably true.
long-term ice core data combined with more recent 19th century ones,
and with direct atmospheric measurements (since 1958), are widely
used for propagating the idea of man-made global warming.
Ice core foundation of greenhouse warming
The proxy estimates of the past CO2 atmospheric concentrations,
based on analysis of air bubbles recovered from ice deposited in the
17th, 18th and 19th centuries at the ice caps of Greenland and
Antarctic, are regarded as a strongest proof that humans increased
CO2 content in the atmosphere, causing the Modern Warm Period.
However, polar ice is an improper matrix for reconstruction of the
chemical composition of the pre-industrial and ancient atmosphere.
No efforts to improve the analytic excellence of CO2 determinations
can change this situation.
Ice and the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed-system
criteria, indispensable for reliable estimate of the past CO2
levels. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice. This criterion
is not met, as there is ample evidence that even the coldest
Antarctic ice contains liquid water, in which the solubility of CO2
is about 73 times, and 26 times higher than that of N2 and O2,
This dramatically changes the chemical composition of
the gas inclusions in polar ice in comparison to atmospheric air.
More than 20 physical and chemical processes, mostly related to the
presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the
original air in gas inclusions - see review in (Jaworowski et al.,
1992). One of these processes is the formation of clathrates (gas
hydrates), solid crystals formed at high pressure by interaction of
gas with water molecules.
In the ice sheets, CO2, O2, and N2 start
clathrates at about 5 bars, 75 bars, and 100 bars,
respectively. Due to this process, CO2 starts to leave air bubbles
at a depth of about 200 meters, and the air bubbles themselves
disappear completely at a depth of about 1000meters.
Drilling, which is an extremely brutal procedure, decompresses the
ice cores, in which the solid clathrates decompose back into gas
form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades.
In the decompressed bubble-free ice the explosions form new gas
cavities and mini-cracks. The ice cores, however, are earlier
exposed to a coarser cracking by vibration in drilling barrel, and
by the sheeting phenomenon at the bottom of the borehole, induced by
pressure difference between the drilling fluid and the ice.
cracks open the gate to extreme pollution of the inside of ice cores
with heavy metals from drilling fluid, thousands of times higher
than their levels in surface snow (Boutron et al., 1990; Boutron et
al., 1987), and for the escape of gas inclusions.
Glaciological CO2 records are strongly influenced by natural
processes in the ice sheets and man-made artifacts in the ice cores,
which lead to the depletion of CO2 by 30% to 50%, probably mostly in
the upper layers of the ice sheets.
These records are also beset
with arbitrary selection of data, experimentally unfounded
assumptions on gas age, one-sided interpretations ascribing the
observed trends to human factors, and ignoring other explanations. A
classic example of such manipulation of ice core data is the famous Siple curve, the mother of many other “CO2 hockey curves”.
The problem with the
Siple data is that the CO2 concentration found
in this locality in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters
(i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was “too high” to fit
the man-made warming hypothesis. In this ice deposited in 1890 AD,
the CO2 concentration was 328ppm, not about 290ppm, as needed by the
The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328ppm was
measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii in 1973 (Boden et al., 1990), i.e. 83
years after the ice was deposited at Siple. Instead of rejecting the
assumption on low pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere, the glaciologists found a “solution”.
An ad hoc speculative assumption, not supported by any factual
evidence solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary
decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was
trapped (Jaworowski, 1994a; Jaworowski et al., 1992).
“corrected” ice data were made to smoothly overlay the recent Mauna
Loa record and then were reproduced in countless publications as a
famous “Siple curve”. Eight years after first publication of the Siple curve, and a year after its criticism (Jaworowski et al.,
1992), glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the “age
assumption” (Schwander et al., 1993), but they failed (Jaworowski,
Similar manipulation of data was applied also to ice cores
from other polar sites, to make the “CO2 hockey curves” covering the
past 1000 and even 400,000 years (IPCC, 2001; Wolff, 2003). For
some of these curves much longer air/ice age difference was
arbitrarily assumed, without any experimental support, reaching up
to 5,500 years.
The apparent aim of these manipulations, and of
ignoring other proxy CO2 determinations and of some 90,000 direct
determinations in the pre-industrial and 20th century atmosphere,
was to induce in the public a false conviction that the 20th century
level of CO2 was unprecedented over the past hundreds thousand
The “CO2 hockey curves” were used as an “indicator of human i” (IPCC,
2001) (IPCC-AR4, 2007).
Also in the report by the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change
Research these curves are used as an evidence of,
and “fingerprint” and to argue that the “observed (current) warming
could not have been caused by natural forces alone”.
In fact this is the only proof of human causation of the Modern
Warm Period presented in the Report. This proof is false.
The Siple case demonstrates an unacceptable distortion of science.
During the past 16 years I presented it in many publications,
together with data demonstrating that polar ice does not fulfill the
close-system criteria, essential for reconstruction of chemical
composition of the ancient atmosphere. This had practically no
effect on a worldwide acceptance of the false, ice core based, dogma
on human causation of the Modern Warm Period.
The recent climatic
cooling might perhaps open the ears of the public and decision
makers to what the astronomers have been saying:
our Sun enters a
long period of slumber, cooling the Earth and its fellow planets.
cannot enhance it with Kyoto or stop it otherwise.
But we can
 For example:
Angela Merkel - “Climate Change
is the greatest threat that human civilization has ever
Barak Obama - “Climate change is real. Not only
is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to
frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural
Prince Charles - “Climate change should be seen as the
greatest challenge to ever face mankind”
Gordon Brown - “Climate
change makes us all global citizens, we are truly all in this
Tony Blair - “We have reached the critical moment of
decision on climate change. Failure to act to now would be
deeply and unforgivably irresponsible. We urgently require a
global environmental revolution”.
 “Climatology is a science. Climatism is an ideology.
Climatologists are scientists. Climatists are social or
political organizers who abuse climatology in service of
ideologues. Climatology was and still is an investigation of
nature. Climatism is the exploitation of the fear of nature to
gain power, wealth and social esteem”.
 During the Holocene Warming 7800 to 9500 years ago, at the
dawn of the agriculture and great civilizations, the temperature
of the Arctic was up to 7°C higher than now, the polar bears and
many other species survived there, and were better off than in
colder periods [Jaworowski Z. (1990b) Influence of climate
changes on animal life in Arctic. Chapter 7 in R. Hanson (ed.)
Influence of climate changes in polar regions (in Norwegian).
pp. 102-118. Norsk Polarinstitutt.]
 CO2 atmospheric lifetime of 5 years was determined in 1959
by Bert Bolin. Apparently he forgot it three decades later, as
the first chairman of IPCC (1988-1998).
 Change in difference between the incoming radiation energy
and the outgoing radiation energy.