People have told "scientists" that they are misreading the ice cores, often interpreting rings that are made intraday to being years... and it's the third millennium, we have instruments, we can measure the temperature of distant objects via direct measurement of energies... have you used a temperature probe that shines the laser on a targeted area and you can read the temperature? I have one, I can read your temperature from across the room by putting the dot on your head... science is fun, idiots like you are boring as hell....
Even if that were true, which it isn't given that there have been multiple ice cores taken from massive distances apart such as Greenland and the antarctic, then you'd still have to disprove the coral evidence, tree ring data, boreholes, etc. etc. The term you're looking for is "IR thermography." Just thought you might like to know.
which part of "The temperature curve over the past 800,000 years matches the CO2 curve beautifully -- during glacial periods in which the climate is cold, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere," says Professor Thomas Blunier from the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen" did you not understand? and as to "there isn't one study - are you seriously claiming this as true????? proof? as to the opposite, you can start with the 121 studies, which are only a starting point, near the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Well, if someone is telling me global warming is man made, but the ROC of the uptrend does not suggest a breach of the prior high, I am going to be skeptical as to whether or not this not a normal occuring circadian rhythm that the planet is having. CO2 is a naturally occuring gas on the surface of earth, so I would want data to suggest that man made CO2 is causing temps to accelerate on a curve that would suggest a breach of a temp zone established by a series of peaks to determine an upper and lower range. Otherwise the planet is just doing it's thing.
If it is, then it's an even worse situation because CO2 emissions will exacerbate the situation. Since you're familiar with logical fallacies, that's the naturalistic fallacy, where something is okay because it's "natural."
I did not use it in that way. I would want to c data that CO2 created by man can be differentiated from CO2 that occurs naturally and that man made CO2 is the cause of present global warming and that it is producing data that would indicate a problem that is reversible by our actions. Has this data been gathered and has there been an attempt to falsify this data? It appears that scientists cannot agree on this. Do u have data that would tip the scale, or have simply been convinced by images of dead seals and Katrina?
Once again, yes, this is proven. If you don't like the isotope measurements then you can know that it's man made because there's only two places for the CO2 to come from, the oceans and land, and there have been at least 22 different studies proving that there's been no reduction in CO2 from the oceans. Of course, but it's been confirmed again and again. See the list I just gave you, ie. boreholes, ice cores, tree ring analysis, coral measurement, etc. etc. What data would you like now?
and they do not grasp what will happen if the permafrost melts enough to really pour a lot of methane and CO2 into the air. but they keep dancing and singing, questioning rigorous scientific alarm over what is happening. Corals and amphibians are already under unprecedented historic decline. Arctic animals are under unbelievable pressure. Half the penguin species are in serious decline. it is like talking to stone. I am a very conservative republican. But I also am degreed in biology. And folks, you just don't get it.