the problem. We have already seen one revision of the temperature that declared the "warmest" years on record (revised to 1934). And that is just in the last 100 years. Again, we look at your chart and while of course the swings look dramatic, it is only dramatic when you ignore the scale. Then they are insignificant. And the final truth is the chart is just a guess for temperatures before 1900 because man had no accurate way (and definitely no way to measure fractions of degrees) prior to that.There is a reason that real scientists say "....on record" since the vast majority (with the exception of the last second of earth time) is not on record. And as Mason pointed out, the increase (slight as it is) in temperatures in the latter part of the 20th century correlates very well with the increase in sunspot activity.But lets assume for a moment in time, that we can dismiss all these concerns about the data. A mighty assumption that will usually lead us down the wrong path, but for the sake of argument, we will assume it now.Your next task is to prove that it is caused by man. And his actions. And that no one can do, period.There is a reason that there is a Heisenberg Uncertainty principal - and the cause of that is you cannot isolate your observations with your causes, because when you eliminate all other factors to focus on your suspected root cause, you change the dynamics of the system - and therefore negate the test. While Heisenberg was talking about the behavior of electrons, his principal applies to all systems where man is still GUESSING at dynamics. Taken as a whole, the hypothesis that man is burning up the world cannot be tested so far, and the data does not support the conclusion as the effect of man is dwarfed by the effect of nature and the sun.
Your arguments seem the most valid one I've ever seen.
I agree that the record is not record at all. As seen on the graph, it is 'reconstructed' from secondary resoruce, and there should be many errors. But again, this is 'best' estimate we can use. There is certainly no 'perfect' evidence we can use in science, but 'best.' It is just a nature of science.
I guess people are just plain personal on understanding the chart, so I won't argue with this further more.
But the there is one really big problem to regard the global warming as hoax. The problem is that according to all of our climate models, carbon dioxide indeed affects the climate, and we definitly know that we are making much more carbon dioxide enough to disrupt the natural carbon dioxide cycle.
Now, if we really assume that there is no global warming, then it is same as we are ignoring the effects of extra carbon dioxide affecting on climate, which is not true at all. We just cannot make any valid assumption on climate without talking about carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is increasing, the model shows that the climate will change if carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere.
Now Heisenberg Uncertainty principal thingy. To be honest, I think merely measuring temperature cannot alter the temperature itself. This theory usually only works in really small worlds, where the actions for measuring is just too powerful to keep the original state of being measured. We are dealing a really huge object called the earth, and I think we can ignore the Uncertainty principal.
