The North Pole could melt this year

now that is an ignorant statement if I ever saw one. How can you debate the current change, but want to exclude the facts of previous changes.

Talk about an unscientific approach.

__________________
Charles_Main

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."
Thomas Jefferson

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson

You asked why we need to validate ice core sampling as a scientific method, and later stated that they are only used to show CO2 concentration, not to measure temperature.

1) One of the main points of the now infamous hockey stick graph shown in Al's movie was the direct relation between C02 concentrations and temperatures over the past 650,000 years. In fact, this link is a main "proof" of AGW theory. If you are willing to concede that ice core samples are not/can not be used to measure temperature, then we can assume Al's point on that relation is invalid right away.

2) If AGW theorists are going to continue to use ice core samples to show that CO2 levels have increased due to human intervention, then they need to be able to prove two things. A) The date of a sample with a reasonable tolerance for time (i.e. a sample advertised as being from a certain date would probably need to be from that actual date +/- ten years in order to show human intervention in climate change). B) The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at the time of the sample.

Very few, if any, measurements go back in time as far as ice core samples. Therefore, without any VALIDATION, the time tolerance and CO2 accuracy of very old ice core samples is mere theory, not proof. What if the dating used in ice core samples is off by 10s, 100s, or 1000s of years? (dating inaccuracies have already shown to be off by 200 to over 1000 years). What if the CO2 levels in an air pocket of an ice core sample deteriorate over large spaces of time?

From my understanding, they have been validated by data actually taken at that time for about the past 40 years. A reasonable person might grant that the same levels of inaccuracy PROVEN over the past 40 years could be EXTRAPOLATED out to 100 years. To assume that those levels of inaccuracy hold steady for 650,000 years is theory.

Nothing else goes back 650,000 years to validate the level of accuracy of CO2 concentration found in the ice cores. We are making policy decisions that will impoverish millions of people. These decisions are only justified if the apocalyptic predictions based on a stand alone theory are true. How sure do you want to be?

And aren't negative feedbacks in nature PROPORTIONAL? In other words, the more CO2 that gets put into the atmosphere, the more those negative feedbacks counterbalance it.

Great post, and to answer your question, I want to be very sure

__________________
Charles_Main

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."
Thomas Jefferson

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson

Who said anything about Al Gore's movie? We are talking about the cause of the current global warming, not some movie which I have never seen.

There is no need to test the validity of the ice core samples because they are testing the actual air from ancient eras.

Nice try though.

What happened in the past does not effect what is happening now.

If the negative feedbacks were working then CO2 would not have increased by one third.

Thanks.......and I do too. The AGW theorists claim to be so worried about the millions of people that they say will die from rising sea levels and such. What about the millions that will starve to death because they won't economically advance? The industrial revolution is responsible for the advancement of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. We KNOW that third world poverty kills millions. That is not a stand alone theory.

I don't think you have to worry. No one is going to do sh*t about global warming until something drastic happens. There are too many moneyed interests that don't want anything done.

Yes, but it can give you insight into what is happening now, the fact that you want to Ignore the past hurts your credibility on the issue if you ask me.

__________________
Charles_Main

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."
Thomas Jefferson

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson

I guess you're right. There is no need to VALIDATE the theory that you BELIEVE that the air taken from the ice samples has the same content that it did when it was frozen. That is what religion is all about. That is what this is for you.

If you have a blood sugar monitor on, and you eat a candy bar, your blood sugar might go up by 1/3. Recognizing this, your pancreas starts to secrete insulin, bringing your blood sugar back down. So does that mean that the negative feedbacks aren't working? Some people have a very high tolerance for low blood sugar. I have an extremely high tolerance for low blood sugar. I've tested myself at work before where I've had a very low reading and completely without symptoms. Others at a higher level were hungry and symptomatic.

Most everything in nature has a proportional negative feedback.

Nice try though.

No, religion is believing in something you can't see.

The air in the ice core samples was tested, and the study was peer reviewed. You are just grasping at straws.

The accuracy of the content has not been validated. You admit this yourself and say there is no reason to. It doesn't matter to you that the content of that air now might not be the same as when the air froze. The scientific process does care however. This is a fundamental concept taught starting in 5th grade science class when the kids start doing science projects. This is a standard they are held to. It has been in every science project I've helped my kids with and it was reinforced to them over and over again.

Sadly, what passes for good science now days are stand alone theories that have not been validated for accuracy. Why might that be? It isn't that the scientists aren't experts in their fields. It probably has a lot to do with the complexity of the issue and the inexact nature of it. It very likely has to do with politics corrupting the standards of the scientific community.

The politics that are corrupting standards in the scientific community are coming from the White House.