[briandear]

Assuming the data is accurate and hasn't been 'adjusted' or 'corrected.' The whole climate business is a corrupt mess. Raw data over the years has been 'fixed' and policy is being made from 'models.' Yet what non partisan organization checks the models? The IPCC certainly doesn't. It's all a scam. We had global cooling fears in the 1970s. Then warming. Now "climate change." Yet industrial carbon output has risen exponentially and consistently since the industrial revolution yet temperatures haven't, thus calling into question that increased carbon dioxide raises temperatures. Such a disgusting mess.

[tstactplsignore]

This is an interesting post, because so much of what you say is contradicted by basic fact. I'm wondering how you can possibly defend yourself?.

>We had global cooling fears in the 1970s.

No, we didn't. Climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting warming trends (the media just wasn't paying attention).

[0] http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

>Then warming. Now "climate change."

Nope, the two terms have been used in the scientific community for decades. Climate change has always been the more popular term in numerical analysis of the scientific literature.

[1] http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.ht...

>Yet industrial carbon output has risen exponentially and consistently since the industrial revolution yet temperatures haven't

This is factually inaccurate according to several datasets published by independent scientific organizations around the world. How many do you want? Let's start with NASA, Japan, and satellite data:

[2] http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

[3] http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.h...

[4] http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

How many more do you want? There's also ocean heat content:

[5] http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/