[JLindgaard (OP)]

 With a hyphen that is the name of my website. And the cause of ice ages might come from an understanding of natural climate cycles. When both the Medieval Warm Period and the current Industrial Warm Period (a name I cam up for it)
started, there were rare Super Moons.
 When I say rare Super Moons I am saying that 2 consecutive moons with a perigee of less than 357,000 kms.
When the Medieval Warm Period ended there was also such a relationship. Why I mention it is because it might encourage events. This could be caused by deep sea vents.
 Jason Box of Ohio State said that the current warming (1978 to present) mimics the 1920 - 1940 event. https://news.osu.edu/current-melting-of-greenlands-ice-mimics-1920s-1940s-event/
 With the 1920 - 1940 event, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222661107_The_regime_shift_of_the_1920s_and_1930s_in_the_North_Atlantic
Just a side note, this research paper separates the warming of the early 20th century and after 1980.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965211000053
And possibly because of an episode of significant glacier calving around 1910 that earthquake monitoring was started in and around Greenland in the 1920's. The USGS database has information for all recorded earthquakes. It's possible that a deep sea vent was opened allowing the higher latitudes of the North Atlantic to warm. Where cod was found along the west of Greenland is where the excess calving of a glacier is suspected to have happened.
 With Jørgen Peder Steffensen, he notes "In Europe and Greenland there was a flip 14,700 years ago which gave Europe almost present day climate. Then 12,700 years ago the climate in Europe and Greenland flopped and reverted back to arctic conditions for 1000 years."
https://nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/determination_of_end_of_ice_age/
 He did write another response where he said the Earth's position to the Sun was advantageous to it warming. A more circular orbit coincides with an ice age while a more elliptical orbit corresponds with an inter-glacial period.
 Warming since 1978 is most likely from a different cause (I do consider ozone depletion as a possibility).  And why did I bring the orbit of the Moon into play? When the moment of inertia of the Earth changes because of either glacial growth or melting, it's rotational velocity and tilt will have very slight variations. And it is possible that the difference between an ice age and an inter-glacial warm period
is the Earth's moment of inertia and its axial tilt. If you consider the Earth's momentum and that space is basically a frictionless environment, how long does it take for a shift in the Earth's moment of inertia to show in its orbit around the Sun?
 With minor warming and cooling periods, the change in the lift and possible drop of the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates could change the speed of ocean currents flowing north. And it's possible that changing the northward flow of the North Pacific Current and the Gulf Stream allows for changes in heat being absorbed, transported and released by those currents.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 The 2001 link is not  a valid link any more. But a search of those terms led to this IPCC paper.
If you scroll down to the 3rd page you will see an IPCC approved graph showing cooling between 1945 and 1980.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_SPM.pdf
 I am not responsible for material the IPCC has published. And the IPCC has made it known that CO2 levels started rising circa 1950. And it is possible that the scientists who wrote their paper citing possibly the IPCC research I just posted did not realize that warming caused by CO2 would have a delayed effect of 3 decades while ozone depletion allows radiation in today. I am just thankful that UV radiation absorb by the ocean does not increase its kinetic energy.
 And I will always support the IPCC.

[alancalverd]

 And I will always support the IPCC.

"Intergovernmental" means it is run by or for politicians. Beware of nailing your colors to such a mast - a man is judged by the company he keeps.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 I like this researcher from Denmark. https://nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/determination_of_end_of_ice_age/
 I think he edited his answer. It is like the research paper I posted a link to. It's link to an IPCC 2001 report was a dead end. As one person mentioned, I cannot say "conspiracy". And yet I can show where the IPCC's own information is not consistent with observed atmospheric phenomena. I showed where their research concluded that between 1945 and 1980 that there was global cooling.
 I am only able to repeat/dispense information while having no opinion.

[alancalverd]

In its first report, IPCC stated that the principal greenhouse gas, by several orders of magnitude, is water, but as there is no means of measuring, controlling or understanding it, they would ignore it.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 Water vapor is acknowledged as being responsible for 60% of global warming. When there are discussions about GHG's, water vapor is omitted. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

 As I have previously stated, I have no opinion but can only make known research. And I cannot comment as to why I am aware of information such as this. I can only refer to research and the information it has led to.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 I will need to consider the possibility that the IPCC changed its position after the 2006 release of Al Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth. I have to consider that the IPCC changed its position on climate change to agree with the popular public opinion of CO2 is causing climate change.
 In my original post, in the 3rd link is a research paper that documented the IPCC's position on climate change being different than what it is today. I did not write that research paper. And the IPCC's own annual temperature graph showed global cooling between 1945 and 1980. It seems the graph in the IPCC's 2001 report has been changed.
 What I stated are facts.  It does seem the IPCC changed its view on climate change because statements and research it made known in 2001 disagrees with later reports. To agree with Bored chemist, this information from the IPCC is credible. It is after all from the IPCC itself. https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm