Wow, you provide a link to a chart that you don't even seem to be able to read. That chart clearly shows a 1,000 year history of temps going up and down, just like they are supposed to do. Yes, it does show an slight increase in the 20th century over some previous peaks, but it's hardly significant when compared to even older temperature periods where the planet was much, much warmer than it is now. Oh, and there were no cars or factories during those times.
You misread the table. Those yellow area is error margin. The black lines are the one shows the reconstructed temperature. Here is more clear/better one for you.
1) The changes in these days are just way too rapid. It is simple insane compared to old times.
2)According to Milankovitch cycle, we should have very gradual global cooling since a long time ago, but we don't have at all.
There are periods when the temperature is quite high (not high as today's remind you) But even such cases the changes are very very slow, unlike today's change which skyrocketed in less than.... uh, 30 years?
I understand the scientific community quite well, obviously much better than yourself, much as I understand the science much better than you seem to understand it. I also understand the nature of objectivity which you seem to lack in spades. You're so convinced of this dubious theory of man-made global climate change that you can't even wrap your little mind around the possibility that it's completely wrong, or at best highly overstated.
No shit? Objective science does not "want" a conclusion. You observe, test, evaluate data, form a hypothesis, test that, and draw a conclusion.
So if you understand it well, you should not even state 'true scientific conclusion' on your argument then. As you said yourself, such thing does not exist.
Oh wait, you really do not understand anyway, since you keep saying 'dubious' on the global warming!
If the global warming is dubious enough for you, then other theories like newton's laws of motions, the theory of Relativity are dubious as well (in fact, even more dubious if you ask me.) So you don't believe these theories because they are dubious. Man, If the theory of Relativity is dubious enough to not use, then we should not use GPS at all because a large part of its mechanism is based on that theory!
Because I know how to think for myself. Sheep like yourself just accept the "generally accepted theory" without questioning or doing their own research. I have spent a very long time evaluating the available data on this subject, from all fields of study that could possibly relate to it and I happen to believe that that minority of which you bleat happen to be correct.Remember, in the 1970s it was generally accepted theory that we were heading into another ice age in the very near future. You see one? I must have missed it.It was generally accepted theory that the Earth was the center of the universe. I am pretty sure that's been proven false.It was generally accepted theory that heavier than air flight was a physical impossibility. That has obviously been proven false.Get the point, or do you need more?
Even before I mention that that global cooling thingy in 1970 was not even considered as majority's opinion, and never gained acceptance as much as quarter of the global warming theory received....
All theories made can be (most of time) wrong after some time passed. For example, back to Newton's Laws of Motion and the Theory of Relativity, they had been regarded as valid until a new theory emerged. We now know the Newton's laws do not work on the large scale of motions, while both Newton's and Theory of Relativity fail to describe the motions of small particles as small as/smaller than an atom. I will not be surprised if a new theory emerge in future to replace the global warming theory, but currently this is the one widely accepted and proved one. Again, this shows that you are not used to general science.
By the way, the global warming is a very old theory, back to 100 years.
This one statement demonstrates just how naive you are. Do a little checking into just how many billions of dollars in research monies are being poured into this man-made global warming bullshit. It has become a booming industry just as the same research was in the 70s when they cooked up the whole ice age story and scared the shit out of the sheep like you who swallowed that hook, line, and sinker. They had some pretty good looking charts and data back then too.
Of course billions of dollars are poured because they need for maintain those expensive scientific equipments and other stuffs. Hell even one like a really small-scale vibro-solidification investigation for earthquake scenario my team and I had to write a proposal would costs tens of millions if it happens. Let alone the research for the ENTIRE earth. I am not surprised how much money is being poured.
But again, let's say it is true that there is something else is going on those research projects, then -let me ask you AGAIN- what would it be?
So what's their goal to spend billions of dollars to prove/investigate man-made global warming?
Screw up average Americans to shrink their businesses? OK, but it will certainly affect the other sides of the world. All of us will have to reduce the business which makes too much pollution into the air and change to cleaner one. And I do not think that such measure will reduce the jobs for Americans, rather, as Mccain pointed out (very sorry to use him again.
), it will make MORE jobs if we use this change right. Only thing we need to do is saying that "we will act if rest of you guys act as well (China and India)" Simple as that.
Try to hide the fact that global warming is not really true? That's absurd. Why we need to do that? If it is not true, all of investments we made in last century will be still useful for a while, and it is welcomed by everyone, including many scientists funded by corporations.
Try to be famous by making new, cool theory? Well, again, that's too funny to be true. And you will not become famous if everyone else is saying the same thing.
And you don't want to make a useless theory if it gives some disadvantage to current businesses.
I said earlier.
Now tell me what's possible (buhahahaha) motivations of NASA, IPCC, AGU, NOAA, CMOS and others, and some really few people who disagree?
I ask you again the same question, now without laughing and in really full seriousness, what is their motivations according to your thought? I really want to know.