So all the organizations I posted are...what then? Non-existant? Lying? What?
There is very big difference between a group of people sharing a belief and consensus or opinion held by a majority. Despite what you may like to think the groups you list dont' even come close to be the majority of scientits that have researched the topic.
Who should I trust regarding whether the claims are accurate...you or various national and international scientific organizations? Tell me Bern...do you honestly think you are more reliable than all of them?
When are you gonna quit resorting to this stupid tactic? It's such a cop out. The whole time I have in fact encouraged you to not take my word for it. Go find out for yourself. I didn't pull this stuff out of thin air. It's your typical attack the messenger tactic because it's so much easier than finding out if what was said is accurate or not.
I'm sorry when did I say it can't be true? And please explain how time is cyclical. I'd also like to know how your great grandmothers life is cyclical, considering she is dead. She going to come back anytime soon?
You said you will take the word of the more recent research, which inherently implies that you don't believe the evidence I cited to be true. You in fact do know that climate does occur in cycles because there are ice ages every 90,000 years or so. The evidence from the two scientists simply found that there are less extreme cycles that occur between these longer periods. As to cycles ,gosh life and death, seasons, rotation around the sun, days, months, weeks, years. Plants comeing out every spring, el nino, la nina, hurricane intensity, grouse populations, deer shedding their antlers every year and growing new ones every year, ica ages, sunspots. Want me to go on?
Lmao...yes I'm lazy, thats it. If you think reading information from the internet will give you the expertise to back up an opinion on climate change, you are an idiot. You need to learn how little you really know about the world. People spend their entire lifetimes trying to figure this stuff out, and usually they fail. You won't be able to do it with your little side project.
You are by your own admission. You prefer to defer instead of check validity. I choose to learn. You know nothing about the amount of material I've read on the issue. If you think the only thing I've read about this is what's on the internet you'd be wrong. You don't need to be a scientist to understand a lot of this. Your explanation is exactley why there are sheep like you in the world who take whatever opinion is popular at the time because you simply refuse to find out for yourself copping with this 'i'm just not smart enough to understand this, so i'll just beleive whatever mr. x says' This is simply another excuse on your part to avoid learning about a belief that doesn't fit your view. And truly asanine attempt to discredit me.
Evidence needs to be corroborated by many other things. This has not been.
That isotopes can tell us temperature in years past has been corraborated several times over and rather standard practice in the scientific commmunity. Again you don't have to take my word for it. Look it up yourself it will take you all of 5 minutes to find out. I'll even help you out a little. Below is a link to discussion conducted by the Hudson Institute of recently published work that summarizes much of the research on the alternative view.
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/UnstoppableGlobalWarming.pdf
and here are some more fun factoids about the holy grail of climate change research
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21811
Actually all you've done is research to attempt to find alternative theories about global warming.
Which you haven't done at all. You choose to defer to the people that fit your beliefs and stick your head in the sand, discredit the messenger, or whatever lame ass excuse you can think of at the time to not have to expose yourself to information that doesn't fit your beleifs.