Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not but global warming was never intended to be the five day forecast. We can have one cold day in an isolated city without global warming being a myth.

 

:up:

 

some of the normal climate changes you are referring to were caused by gases in the atmosphere and such.

 

no its not untrue or unfounded. They do core samples which show the atmosphere had gases that caused a net effect on the temperature and such.

 

yes, but the point is if we have evidence gasses and chemicals have effected the earths temperature before, why now would they stop having an effect to where CO2 that we produce no longer has an effect. The only way CO2 would not have an effect is if there is some counter to it. To date there is no known counter.

 

Is this based on your years of research and scientific degrees?

 

I have to agree with your assessment and can by logical progression make a case that all this global warming stuff is bull. Simply put.................

We must be the most ridiculous and arrogant, self centered beings in the entire universe!!!

If anyone thinks for one second we can take 200-300 years of data,(temperatures actually recorded), some of which we don't even know for sure is accurate, and apply it to a planet that has been around for 6 billion years and come up with the conclusion that the planet is warming......

We are dumber then we look:pity:

There simply is not enough data to draw that type of conclusion. Now if we had say....................a billion or even several million years of data to compare it to then maybe. Even more surprising is the scientists "global warming theory" is based on a temperature rise of not more then 1/2 degree

 

You don't think scientist are just using 200-300 years worth of temperature readings to determine whether or not the earths temperature is rising....Do you?

 

they've taken core samples from many of the ice ages, as well as warming periods, etc. In fact its why they have stations all the way up north so they can dig the ice cores. Its actually a fascinating process if you ever get a chance to read about it.

 

And then they adjust it. :up:

 

adjust what? ice cores?

 

Ya, they make then water cores or was it puddles?.........:no:

 

Holy hell we do not care. What does it matter about the temperature data when the earth was mostly molten rock? All that matters is the temperature on the planet for the last 100,000 thousand years, maybe 200,000.

The rest of the data does not matter because we want to know the temperature that is best for our own survival.

 

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091118/full/news.2009.1094.html

It's a multi-pronged equation IMHO.

You have the natural changes the earth undergoes over time. You have the sun, orbit and everything else outside of our atmosphere. And you have man.

IMHO, man plays the smallest roll. But it only takes one final straw to break a camel's back.

I think there is a bit of indigenousness on both sides of the debate. To me, it's obvious that it's not a man-made phenomenon. But that doesn't mean man cannot and/or does not influence it.

 

No. The temps after the cores. :up:

 

not sure what you are talking about. The infer temperatures from different parts of the ice core such as the way its packed together, the ice design etc, as well as the make up of the gasses.

 

I mean to say, they take ice core temperatures, then use that as a baseline. Then they take direct temp readings of the last few decades, then adjusted them upwards.

 

hmmmmmmmmm I haven't read about that in relation to ice core data. I have read it in relation to the urbanization effect.

 

http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/...-and-hottest-jan-april-in-temperature-record/

 

A thousand thanks to Muck, a great post.

I would add my 2 cents but after being questioned as the person who makes sarcastic remarks after every time it snows I shall refrain from any further retort. It is hard but I shall do it!:wink2: