I am wondering why you are so willing to accept the word of some random website where they don't even give citations for their data (therefore we don't know that their data is even real) rather than look at the work as presented by the actual scientists who are doing the work, as Al Gore and I do. Seriously, in some ways you are citing people whose view you WANT to believe and ignoring the experts, even the most skeptical of experts.

But let's look at the data on the website you refer to. First off, I don't know where they get their data, so I cannot judge its validity. But assuming it is valid, here are my problems: they are picking and choosing data they happen to like and ignoring gobs of data that is out there. The graphs I referred to use a far wider range of data.

Let's start with their Greenland temperature graph. This is just ONE location, yet they claim that these "changes are probably very indicative of temperatures changes across all of the Northern Hemisphere." There are two fundamental problems with this. First, you cannot in any way assume temperature records from ONE location can possible be representative of an entire HEMISPHERE. Local variations can be enormous. Second, they act like this is the only temperature record for the entire Northern Hemisphere. It isn't. Taking the ENTIRE HEMISPHERE (data comes from this site (NOAA)) you can see from this graph that what is shown for Greenland in your website is most certainly NOT "very indicative of temperature changes across all of the Northern Hemisphere." Again, assuming their data is accurate, they are engaging in a particular mistake scientists have to avoid: over interpreting their data. The data they present represents a single location, not an enitre hemisphere. The temperature records across the hemisphere show something clearly different, and yet the website you present doesn't mention that. And the graph from this NOAA page, again covering hemispheric temperatures using a different set of methods, once again shows that the first graph on the site you show is NOT indicative of the temperature changes across the whole hemisphere. Beware of people who pick and choose data. There is a very comprehensive set of graphs and data here that you can review. It is from the raw data and not filtered through anyone's belief in what is happening the way the website you cite is.

The second graph you show is again a single location, so not necessarily indicative of larger scale changes. Second, why are they covering periods of 20,000 to 50,000 years ago? That is a very odd time span, isn't it? Why not look up until the present? Why not look back 650,000 years? As with the single location data, taking one specific period and ignoring the rest of time is suspicious. Remember, the further back you go, the larger your inherant error regarding precise time. Evidence from 2000 years ago will be more precise than evidence from 20,000 years ago. But they ONLY are looking at one time point and one time period while ignoring other, more precisely measured time periods.

The third graph has basically the same problems as the second graph.

The fourth graph shows the exact opposite of what you and they claim. The increase in carbon dioxide CLEARLY precedes the increase in temperature, and the 5 year ave temp is increasing as one would expect from the increasing carbon dioxide. The website you refer to claims that the annual variation in temp (some years up some down) somehow disproves global warming. Well, that is a fallacy that NO ONE should still be making. Not only is annual variation expected to continue, but some models predict MORE record cold years as well as more record high years. The annual variation is expected to INCREASE by some models, but the 5-year average temperature is STILL going up despite that annual variation. This is the actual definition of global warming: an overall warming despite the annual variations. I will point out that this fourth graph is the ONLY one they show that isn't a single location and the ONLY one where the data shown covers anthropogenic global warming and it also shows exactly the expected dynamics of global warming.

Please look at a wider range of data and consider ALL data critically. You are taking one website's word for it and not considering the bias. When I look at data from ANY source I consider whether the data actually supports the claims made. I look at your site and the data does NOT support the claims made and, in the case of the last graph, supports the opposite conclusion from what they make.

I will also point out that the website you cite is ignoring a huge amount of data from other sources that show increased carbon dioxide leads to increased temperature. This is fundamental to understanding the planet Venus which, due to its greenhouse effect, has a surface temperature HOTTER than on mercury. Your website is ignoring what we have learned from Venus.

Again, I am happy to discuss data, but I suggest you consider data from all sources more critically than you are.