No, because they are invalidated on the grounds of being common knowledge.

I think your conspiracy should falter if it's details are being told in high school. What kind of conspiracy would that be?

Tichy - I do not think there is any conspiracy around ice ages - all that data is readily available. There is, apparently, willful ignorance though.

Tichy (won't let me reply directly, think its nested too deep) - "Do you have evidence that any climate researchers ignored the cycles of the ice ages?"

Yes, actually. If you look at 99 percent of studies, they are based on temperatures from maybe 1500 (at the earliest) to present. In geological time, this is the blink of an eye.

Here is a relevant quote from Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

I don't see any mentioning of ice ages in that quote.

If you want to argue that no meaningful science can be done with data from 1500, then of course the answer of the effect of human CO2 output has to wait for a couple of million years. The whole research is then impossible in your opinion. I don't know about that...

As for Patterson's claims, I am no climatologist, so I can't comment. I don't think CO2 is generally thought to be the only thing affecting temperatures. Ok, off the top of my head: it is known that ice ages affect temperatures. That must probably be independent of CO2 (ice ages are not driven by CO2 changes), otherwise Patterson's remark would make no sense. So there is clearly at least one other known factor (the one that brings about ice ages), which Patterson conveniently forgets to mention. What do you say?

Sorry, but did you just argue that there is a slow cooling effect that cannot be seen, but that explains or will soon negate the rapid warming effect that has been detected?

Ice ages appear in cycles, that much is known. Sorry it was 25 years ago that I learned about it, so I forgot about the causes. However, the cycles are rather slow, so it seems possible that warming catches up with us faster than the next ice age. IANACS, though

Do you have evidence that any climate researchers ignored the cycles of the ice ages?