It seems like the fellow (assuming it is a fellow) has just dipped his toe in the water of the Climate Change issue and is trying not to be bamboozled.
It's an excellent site overall, and does not try to pick a political side. However, he's missing out on several key issues that I'll just briefly outline.
1. He's still in the Global Warming vs Global Cooling argument. But the actual climatic change will be highly dynamic, and (mathematically) catastrophic -- possibly a 1-5 year-long heat wave followed by a very stormy 2-5 year period of ice age development. The most dramatic of the predictors think the heat wave phase began last year.
2. For all the brouhaha over the ozone hole, I'm beginning to think it's a 3rd-order effect of the changing climate.
3. His observation of the periodicity of ice ages is correct, but evidence is mounting that we humans have pushed the change. For instance, the CO2 graph taken at
Vostok Station (Antarctica) shows the highest CO2 levels at an estimated 300 ppm at 320 kYA. However, current CO2 levels are averaging at 375 ppm, as high as the levels had been during the Permian Extinction.
4. His attention to the influence of
geomagnetism is much welcomed. It's only recently been studied in connection with climate, and it seems to have a lot more to do with it than we ever thought.
5. His selection of temperature data is too limited, but it's typical of industry apologists, whom he probably got his info from -- his small bibliography is heavily weighted with them. A more complete picture would show the atmosphere beginning to undergo profound changes in its temperature and pressure "architecture". As the surface has been getting warmer, the thinner, cold stratosphere has been getting much colder -- and denser. There has also been an increasing difference between polar and equatorial temperatures and pressures, far beyond what had previously though to be normal. What we may be seeing is a world-wide temperature inversion getting started.
Overall, a three-star site, but you should not take it as being definitive -- not that any single source should be considered definitive. There is still so much we don't know about planetary climatology -- we don't even have the resources to properly monitor ocean temperature in the Atlantic Ocean, even though from 1950-1980, we had the entire ocean well-monitored with data-collection buoys.
--bkl