Wrong. It's pretty representative of all the ice core data that ever been published on the matter.
That couldn't be further from the truth. I, like everyone would love it to be untrue.
No, I only refute the ridiculous stuff that spews out of hicks in log cabins in Montana. The scientific process handles the rest.
Oh you hero! We are not worthy...

Careful now, remember what happened when njp came up against Manhattan Mike.And that didn't end nicely at all!
Irrespective of the science, the most compelling argument for me that the global warming skeptics are wrong, is that they are invariably the same people as those that hold these views:
creationism should be taught in schools (conservative evangelical christians)homosexuality is a sin (conservative evangelical christians)pollution is good (Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Jeremy Clarkson, Exxon)global warming science needs suppression (Ronald Reagan, George Bush)god exists (conservative evangelical christians)abortion should be illegal (conservative evangelical christians)the war in Iraq (George Bush)no to universal healthcare (Republicans)Guns for everyone (Republicans)And if you need me to provide any evidence that these are all the same group of people, just go ahead and ask. Or do a google.
No it's not wrong. What I said was actualy quoted from the references mentioned in the Wikipedia link that you yourself provided.
As for the rest of your outburst and personal remarks, it just reinforces the fact that your belief in MMGW is simply a wish to believe it to be true, and that you cannot tollerate anyone who holds a different opinion.
In my opinion, skeptism is healthy and it is right to ask questions. Fanatical, unquestioning, belief is not.
Oh and sorry to blow a hole in your "most compelling argument" for Global Warming but I am neither a conservative evangelical christian nor a republican nor is my name Reagan, Bush, or Clarkson and nor do I have any connection with Exxon.
So, now you're quoting my references? The ones you just criticised?
And your snippets come from "geocraft.com". Who are they? An organisation based in West Virginia, run by Monte Hieb, whose qualifications seem to be that he is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner's Health, Safety, and Training.
Oh, and by the way, the website registrant is ChristianWebHost.com - an evangelical christian organisation. Oh, what a surprise!
Sorry to blow a hole in your argument.
(ps. for any brits that might not know, West Virginia is famous for being a hotbed of christian right-wing extremism)
What a conceited, arrogant and frankly stupid post.
I am referring to the sources of "information" that always get quoted in skeptic arguments. It's not arrogant, conceited or stupid, to pointout the obvious - that the infromation is derived from those people with that political agenda. Call me whatever names you like, but it's true, as I have demonstrated above, and as anyone with access to google can confirm for themselves.
Then why didn't you say that.
My goodness, what a rant.
Not just now, but all along, I have been quoting your references.
Firstly, you quoted an extract from Wikipedia. I pointed out that the Wikipedia reference itself referred to one particular piece of data (check the link you gave, the scroll down to the references, and look at number 3). You then said that I was wrong and I replied that this is in fact what is in the Wikipedia article.
Now you talk about my snippets from Geocraft. What snippets? All I did was post a graph but, as I have pointed out, I made absolutley no comment as to whether this was evidence for or against MMGW. In fact johnthexpat has looked at it more closely than I did, and concluded that it could in fact be evidence for, rather than against MMGW.
Rather than continue with the debate about the science, you are now giving vent to some drivel along the lines of a conspiracy by christian right wing extremists.
I can't take your posts seriously but they are entertaining though.
Nothing I have posted here is rantish - it's entirely factual and well-sourced, as anyone reading the thread can see, and independently verify. Quoting genuine articles from Nature, exposing people's dubious sources and observing the propensity of right-wing conservatives and evangelical christians to be skeptics, is not ranting. But thanks for letting me make those points again, for anyone who may have missed it the first time.