So, for example, when people claim that global warming is false simply by pointing to one anomaly ("the earth is known to have been warmer than today with no ill effects ...on human civilization.") then I say: it is completely irrelevant.
You have conveniently failed to mention a crucial fact; many theories have, over the centuries, fallen by the wayside as the "anomalies" you mention have not been able to be reconciled to fit with the theory. Saying that it is completely irrelevant that the Earth has been known to be warmer than today in the recent past (geologically speaking), is totally and utterly foolish. If a scientific theory can not explain anomalies that are proven to exist, then that theory must be examined very carefully, to determine whether or not it should be considered a valid theory anymore.
The fact that the Earth has been warmer in the past can not be casually dismissed. This data and the current theories (yes,
theories, there is more than the one you are promoting) must be reconciled, or else the current theories must be modified.
That is the scientific process.
PS: Oh, RE: "there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago."
This is a false statement, made by someone ignorant of the actual facts of the matter and the science involved, and sounds based on wishful thinking, as usual.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years
Read it all, don't just look at the pretty pictures.
Now excuse my language, but this statement really pisses me off, and I'm not someone prone to anger. I am
not ignorant of the actual facts of the matter and the science involved, as you said. I have done a significant amount of reading into the matters, and have found none of the theories to be satisfactory, and the amount of freaking out that some people do about "global warming" to be completely out of proportion. It seems to me as though the
proponants of global warming are the ones who have blinded themselves to the existance of other possibilities, such as natural cycles of warming and cooling. It would seem you are ignoring all but what you want to see.
Oh, and perhaps you should be taking a look at that link of yours, not just looking at the pretty pictures. In particular, take a look at the subheading "Uncertainties and Limitations" and "Criticisms". Just in case you don't take the time to take a look, here's a quote:
Quote:
"Expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400...more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached."
Thus the theory that the 1990s have been the warmest decade of the last 1000 years can no longer be supported at present state of scientific knowledge.
|
Now, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from any further personal attacks. Calling someone ignorant when you have absolutely no reason to do so, and have no idea of how much they do or do not know, is completely uncalled for. I have deleted the personal attacks from what I was going to post, and I suggest you do the same to your post, in the interests of civilized conversation.
PS: Am I to gather that you consider climatologists who do not believe the popular theory of global warming are ignorant as well? I guarantee you, they are much better versed in the matter than either you or I. Yet they have their reservations...how can this be? Perhaps they're scientists, and have noticed that the theory of global warming has some gaping holes in it? Could it be? [/sarcasm]