TNO....I grow weary of you offering the same tired arguments that remain as fallacious now as they were in the beginning. The definition of insanity (liberalism paraphrased) is repeating the same stuff over and over, expecting different results.
The bottom line is that your arguments and supporting data are agenda motivated, and largely junk science......for someone that writes in an intelligent manner, such as you do, I find it perplexing that you seem incapable of grasping such a non-nuanced rebuttal. You seem to think that quoting me out of context and putting words in my mouth are successful discussion tactics.
I simply find it a waste of time to continue a discussion with a person that thinks establishing a mean global temperature by means of analyzing ice and sedimentary core samples (which couldn't establish any conclusion within a +/- 5 Degree Celsius optimally), among other methods, as accurate enough to drive a historical conclusion for determining anything substantive. The scientific method REQUIRES that if the underlying data cannot be precisely correlated over the subject period, your result will simply be an "assumption", not a conclusion......a true scientist can simply NOT "mix and match" the sources of their data and arrive at anything meaningful........which is why the entire AGW discussion is specious, because in order to even ARRIVE at such a conclusion (as AGW), you are required to mix and match the source of the data.
Let me spell it out for you in a manner that even an idiot could understand........when you come to me with a data set that has been determined over time using the same methodology (preferably satellite infrared spectronomy, which is hyper accurate)....and this data suggests that the global "average" temperature is rising......THEN I WILL LISTEN TO YOU!! However when you present me with "studies" that are based on data which are arrived at by DOZENS of different sampling methods, and ask me to support a conclusion based on said data, I will simply mock both you and your sources.
You seem to have a "thirst for knowledge" in the area of science, so my suggestion would be that you actually STUDY some science academically (instead of on the internet), then actually go out and DO some scientific research (as I have), and after a while you might grasp the reason why AGW is essentially bull feces.
To summarize this entire exchange for you.......I'm not attacking all of your proffered "studies" and "environmental research"....I'm simply stating that because the underlying data cannot be correlated, the results are "assumptions", not "theories", or "facts" or even "conclusions".....and no intelligent person would base public policy on an assumption.
Until then, I'll let you annoy someone else.....
PS Wikipedia is not a credible source
doc