Leif Ericson Says Global Warming is Malarkey

My problem with the whole argument for man-made global warming is the narrowness of the time frame of observations being used. Just look up the Wikipedia entry on paleoclimatology and look at the temperature graph over millions of years. There are some really wide swings and long periods of time when Earth was a lot hotter than it is now. 
 
I think the 135 year time span of the primary detailed observations leaves a lot of room for reasonable doubt, particularly since the satellite record for the last 36 years shows almost no change. The obvious political motivations of the people behind the global warming movement, who seek unchecked absolute power through the control of all energy use, makes me believe they have both the motive and opportunity for falsifying the data. The fact that Michael Mann's famous hockey stick did not show the Medieval Warming Period at all should make everyone think that something is fishy. The Medieval Warming Period is why Leif Ericson was able to discover America sometime around 980 AD. The following Little Ice Age is why there were no Viking settlements when Christopher Columbus got here in 1492. The existence of both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age really are accepted scientific and historical facts. 
 
I know some legitimate scientists take this very seriously. But I believe that the planet is a very big place with a huge amount of water that is going to buffer whatever man does in the short run. I think AGW is a political movement disguised as science. I don't think AGW has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson

My Personal Exposure to Paleoclimatology and Global Warming

My problem with the whole argument for man-made global warming is the narrowness of the time frame of observations being used.  My reservations are based on my personal experience.  I grew up in Missoula, Montana.  It was a prehistoric lake.  I was painfully aware of this as a kid, because anytime anybody tried to dig a hole to plant something there was about an inch of topsoil, an inch of gravel and then a seemingly infinite layer of big smooth boulders, most much bigger than the original size of the hole, that had to be removed.  It turns out that Lake Missoula got filled repeatedly as the result of ice dams on the Clark's Fork River 15,000 to 13,000 years ago.  Periodically the dams would break up suddenly and flood everything downstream with the contents of the Lake Missoula.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods

This personal experience and subsequent exposure to paleoclimatology led me to understand that climate varies quite widely over geologic time based on natural processes.  I believe that the state of our understanding of these natural processes is exceedingly incomplete.  We have had the computational power to study these processes for less than 30 years.  This is really not enough time to build all of the relevant factors into the models and then run them enough to understand the bugs and fix them.  If we are going to take action that requires drastic expensive changes to our economy, the burden of proof is on the people calling for the drastic expensive changes.  We should be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the changes are necessary.  It is not enough to find warming.  It has to be shown that the warming is caused by increased CO2 emissions or other alterations to the ecosystem that are the result of human activity. At this point, I think even showing the warming is a stretch.  It is definitely not proven that human activity is causing any warming observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

I think the 135 year time span of the primary detailed observations leaves a lot of room for reasonable doubt, particularly since the satellite record for the last 36 years shows no change.  The obvious political motivations of the people behind the global warming movement, who seek unchecked absolute power through the control of all energy use, makes me believe they have the motive and opportunity for falsifying the data.  The fact that Michael Mann's famous hockey stick did not show the Medieval Warming Period at all should make everyone think that something is fishy.  When the Climate Research Unit refused to share the raw data and fought off a Freedom of Information Request by saying they accidentally erased the data, I really became suspicious.  Science is supposed to be open and reproducible.  Accidentally erasing the data is the scientific equivalent of "the dog ate my homework."  I have provided a link for the erased data incident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_documents

Personally, today I am dealing with 10 degree F weather in Chicago.  I have found global warming to date extremely disappointing.  Last year there was a 35 foot high pile of snow extending 100 feet along the edge of the parking lot where I work. When I posted a picture of it on my Facebook page, one of my friends wanted to know if it was Montana or Illinois.  I know some legitimate scientists take this very seriously.  But I believe that the planet is a very big place with a huge amount of water that is going to buffer whatever man does in the short run.  I think AGW is a political movement disguised as science.  I don't think AGW has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.