"Cherry-pickers, can you cherry-pick me this?"

I could be called a cherry picker of sorts, due to how, and what I think. My view has been that both of the two main sides, have been cherry picking data points, since the inception of the whole warming cooling debate, that got it's start back in the late 1960's early mid 1970's. Both sides have dismissed both geological, and fossilized records, that are contrary to their position. Also dismissed, is catastrophic events that have caused both global warming and global cooling or the ice ages. Which is something no reputable scientist does. One can not sum up history, that's even a thousand years, with a narrow and more recent time frame. Same to with climate change.

Thirty fifty or even three hundred years, is less than insignificant, when one starts accounting for anywhere from the four point three to four point six billion years, that our planet has been estimated to have existed. Thirty or even three hundred fifty years, is like comparing one minute to say ten years. That one second, is barely even noticeable on such a time scale. Therefor so too is a time period of three hundred fifty years, when compared, on a relative time scale of four point three billion, to four point six billion years. Another somewhat equal scale, would to compare a single atom to our star that we call the sun. Simply put such comparisons are not equitable on such a scale.

Also both of the two primary sides, or combatants if you will, seem to have dismissed that part of science learned in school, that goes through the various time periods of earth sciences. Which by doing so invalidates any of the supposed finding/results that they use, as those "finding/results" are flawed due to being incomplete, on the long term time scale. Therefor those who look at the longer time span, dismiss the claims from the two main proponents, for being what they are, incomplete, and thereby of little value, on the much vaster, longer term scale of time. But we are those "skeptics"which both sides willfully ignore. We don't fit into, or except their "science, and the resulting short sighted data points."

Therefor for myself, I can not except the "proclamations and findings/results," on the grounds they have omitted important data,l that throws their claims into the area of non feasible, non sustainable science, or into more accurately a pseudo science. It fits their agenda, and does not properly fulfill the proper scientific standards.

I'll take my thumbs down, for a view that opposes what mainstream media science promotes. I maybe a bit of a lone outrider, taking the position I do, but I'm giving thought to what is said, and what both geological and paleontology shows, over the full history, rather than a mere passing of a couple decades, or even just a couple centuries of time.

"Hiding from and hiding the truth is one o f the greatest self deceptions a man can conceive." Author unknown.

Global surface temperature anomalies vary from month to month by 0.6C at times and in either direction (warming or cooling). The ridiculous effort people make at trying to compare temperature trends is futile. Trying to connect any of those "cooling" fluctuations to a greenhouse gas increase is an act of lunacy. Alarmists/warmers/"climate clowns" seem to be hell-bent on blaming humans for any and all temperature fluctuations.

Using a 50, 75, or even a 100 year graph isn't going to tell you anything about "natural" fluctuations, as long as there is a belief in the scientific community that an anthropogenic forcing is un-natural.

I'll stick with the 353 year (industrialization warming) warming of 0.87C, since the "climate clowns" want to keep trying more inventive ways to scare people into believing that human actions are detrimental to the planet.

Insane and extreme environmental activism's claim of catastrophic happenings has worn out its welcome so bad, even National Public Radio (NPR) is outing its environmental advocacy from its programming (due to lack of interest and Governmental funding).

Ok. Even if it is getting warmer as a recent trend, then there are no guarantees that it will continue. In fact it is more likely to get colder as there have been historic highs and lows throught our planets lifetime. So the warmer it gets, the more chance that it will get colder than hotter.

I'm looking forward to growing grapes as they did around here in the middle ages, and I don't think they caused that temperature.

True scientists don't cherry-pick. This is the preserve of those with a vested interest - media sensationalists trying to increase their ratings, alarmists trying to sell books, denialists who are funded by energy companies or who don't want to give up their SUV's or pay more for their fuel/electricity, conservatives who present the issue as a "liberal scam" to increase taxes and state control - oh boy, getting to the truth is a real can of worms!

Very few deny it hasn't generally warmed since the little ice age. By picking any time since then, it wouldn't be surprising if there is a warming trend and it isn't proof that we caused it.

According to the World Meteorlogical Organization, 30 years is what determines a climate trend.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/fa...

i am a professional cherry picker, i have been picking cherries at my farm for over 10 years. I say any temp. is okay as long as your cherries do not freeze

No your right the world is warming, you can see it on this chart (just)