Holy COW! Mauna Loa is a volcano? Who knew? And volcanos emit CARBON DIOXIDE?? Jeez, how could I have been so stupid?

As you say, “Really funny!” — though not, perhaps, in the way you intended.

Try reading this. Or, more generally, this.

It’s also illuminating to see that neither Callander, nor Keeling had a clue about the carbon cycle - in Keelings own words. He even thought there was less CO2 contamination on an island in the middle of the pacific on top of a volcano. Really funny!

What is absolutely clear is that many people start with a theory then they find ways of confirming it by excluding data that doesn’t agree and keeping data that does.

Can someone tell me why Beck’s paper should be ignored? What are the flaws that invalidate the observations of all these scientists?

Keep up the good work!

Because, looking at the theory of evolution we are presented with a very plausible explanation of how life on earth could have formed and I believe it an brilliant hypothesis for scientific working, but applying hard standards - and I am strictly refering to Karl Popper (Logik der Forschung 1934 and Der Elend des Historizismus 1936) - can not be classified as a scientific theory (just like psychoanalysis or historic marxism), because it does not allow falsification.

I assume you’re unware that Popper some time afterwards recognized that he was wrong, and agreed with biologists that evolutionary theory is indeed falsifiable.

For some reason which I have a hard time understanding (cough cough) creationists are always eager to quote Popper’s initial conclusion, but never point out that later, Popper recanted.

On the basis of porosity measurements, investigators determined that the time lag between the mean age of the gas and the age of the ice was 95 years and that the duration of the close-off process was 22 years (Schwander and Stauffer 1984).

NB: Neftel & Friedli determined the depth and age of the firn-ice transition independently of any assumption about what the “right” age might be. There has been a great deal of good research on gas mixing in snow columns, some of which Jaworowski cites, so he is obviously aware of it. Yet he persists in claiming that estimates of the firn-ice transition age are “arbitrary”, a claim he knows to be false.

Your second point is off-topic, but worth a brief response. It is simply not true that evolution is not falsifiable. Evolutionary theory has made many, many specific predictions, the failure of any one of which would have falsified its central proposition. Yet, every one of those predictions has been borne out. Do we see ancestors and descendants in the same strata? Nope. Do we see the same fossil sequence in columns from widely separated areas, dated by independent means? Yep. Most tellingly, when DNA was discovered, the genetic evidence confirmed relationships already observed from fossils and the morphology of living species. Any way you cut it, evolutionary theory is falsifiable — and is not false. It is an old, old criticism, and has been flogged to death, so enough of that. See the FAQ for a thorough discussion.

I am not a natural scientist so please do excuse if it takes time for me to undestand certain issuses. I took the liberty to look up certain extras you posted in your first article. And am for the beginning left with some questions:
In his reply to J’s ESPR article (however small and well hidden it might have been) Hans Öschinger drawing attention to some misunderstandings or misinterpretations from J’s side states: “Another example concerns the gas-occlusion process in firn and young ice. This process has been studied in detail theoretically and experimentally. The theory of diffusion of gases in firn and the occlusion at the firn-ice transition has been confirmed impressively by the detection of a gravitational enrichment of the heavier gases and of the heavier isotopes of a gas. This enrichment depends, in the first instance, on the depth of the firn-ice transition.” He seems to be referring to to J’s claim that : “The age of the gas recovered from 1 to 10 grams of ice was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped! This was not supported by any experimental evidence, but only by assumptions which were in conflict with the facts.” (Quoted from the 2007 EIR article, p. 43 - see as well: Figure 2 (a) and (b) p. 44) Does Öschinger thereby agree to the fact that gas in ice probes is 83 years younger than the surrounding ice?
For if he would, it does seem slightly “contradictory” to Geerts and Linarce (Ice cores, CO2 concentrations and climat) claim that “It appears that the air bubbles trapped in the ice represent the atmospheric composition at the time of snow deposition , [in other words gas diffusion through the ice is negligible.]” It is clear as daylight that the decisive point for the authors is the fact that ice probes are a legitimate source of information about past times’ climate, but they never the less seem to implicit contradict Öschingers statement (if he wasn’t argueing the 83 years thing and “snow deposition” by chance does not take 83 years).

My second point refers to Peter’s, Dave’s and admin’s 8th/9th May discussion on creationists and denier of climate change.
I think it is a rather backfiring business to compare those two ideas, especially if you are supportive to the idea of climate change. Why is that? Because, looking at the theory of evolution we are presented with a very plausible explanation of how life on earth could have formed and I believe it an brilliant hypothesis for scientific working, but applying hard standards - and I am strictly refering to Karl Popper (Logik der Forschung 1934 and Der Elend des Historizismus 1936) - can not be classified as a scientific theory (just like psychoanalysis or historic marxism), because it does not allow falsification.
Whereas the theory of climate change very well allows falsification. After all that’s on of the reasons there’s this blog.