About picking a year, I want to compare 1991 or earlier instead of 1996. They picked a year that is still influenced by the volcano eruption's cooling. Of course volcanoes have a cooling effect. That is the point. It took years for the earth to recover from that.

Ozone depletion has been on the decline. As well, the ozone hole is north of the inuit from Rankin Inlet and the sun shines from the south. They now have to wear sunscreen because the sun is burning them where it never used to and it never used to burn their ancestors. This is new. Or ar you saying that ozone depletion has been causing the earth to warm?

About the 0.28% and dehammer's supposed avoiding of the point, you can start with the http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor558911 section and follow its link to the http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html page. Or you can read this entire thread and see all of these links that were not avoided.

If what you say about science, namely that "It's aim isn't to reach a consensus,..." then why have peer review. Science is about testing hypotheses and having others confirm it. That is consensus.

I am glad you are interested in this topic. Please take your time and read this thread and let us know if, when you are done, you are able to answer any of the questions we raised like the past 10,000 years being inexplicably warm and consistant.

John M Reynolds