Expert: Tom Whiting - 3/23/2011

Question
The ice core drillings that should tell us what the temperature was many years ago are hypothetic because we didn't live at these times, and we therefore don't know what the temperatures were.

Today, we have much better and accurate equipment to make these measurements, and we live while we make these measurements, so that we are not in doubt of the results.

Therefore, there is a correlation between between CO2 and temperatures.

Answer
Not true... while we cannot know the absolute dates, we DO know the relative dates are accurate, therefore the ice core drillings are accurate in a relative time frame sense, and not just hypothetical.

That's like asking, if an apple falls from a tree but no one sees it fall, does it really fall?
(I don't have to see an apple fall from the tree, I know it falls in a positive gravitational
field.... whether there are humans around to see it, or not.)
Or if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a 'sound' if there is no one there to hear it?
Of course it does, if there is a gaseous atmosphere present to transmit the sound, even if there is no one around to hear it. Humans don't have to be there to realize those ice cores containing both the relative temperature and CO3 content... are real and accurate.

Yes, of course there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but which controls which one?
Plus historically, the current Pleistocene era tells us there have been around 20 ice ages the past 2 million years, each 100,000 years long, interspersed with 10,000 year long warm periods, like the one we're in now. The one (the Wisconsin Ice Age) that ended 11,000 years ago, so we are well overdue (about 1000 years) for the next Pleistocene ice age.  So burn more fuel... help the Earth stay warm!

It's ironic the way the media TV weather liberal/socialists have bought into this socialist scheme of "false global warming".  If it's 95 in the summer for a week or two, then it's "global warming"... but when our winters hit 0 degrees F. for 2 months, some 20-25 degrees below normal for the past 3 winters (at least here in the Northeast USA and Europe), then it's "mother nature" or Old Man Winter.  How come the 95 degrees isn't "Mother Nature" and the months at 20-25 degrees below normal winter temperatures aren't...  "global cooling"?
Because the media (and solar panels, ethanol, and electric cars) get government funding, that's why.  Of course the ice is melting... the Earth is attempting to hold off the next ice age.
Ice either advances or retreats... it rarely stays constant.
Will the Polar bears go extinct? Perhaps...Hey, it's adapt or die - for any animal. It's been that way for over 3 billion years on this planet for all species of life! Polar bears are no different.
So should we spend 3 quadrillion dollars USD to try to stop the Earth from doing what it's just naturally doing?  That borders on... insanity.
Clear Skies,
Tom