So you have empirical evidence of what you say don’t you? You’re ready to stop arguing with us and actually enter the big league and publish your evidence in Science or Nature are you? Good for you.
By the way, here is what you said in the post I quoted:
All in the same paragraph, two sentences. It was very easy to misunderstand your comment. You start by talking about the last 100 thousand years and you follow with three facts that seemingly happened during that time period. So if the last two facts ( magnetic poles and tilt) have nothing to do with the time period, what’s their relevance to your argument?
You see, you and others in this thread seem to think that because I tend to agree more with the majority of scientists on this issue, I’m a drone programmed to say yes to Big Brother. That’s the problem. You think belief, I think evidence. Global warming isn’t a religion that one must believe in. It is an effect that has been studied and is generally accepted to be accelerating because of human causes. That’s what the empirical evidence show.
You probably have a few websites or articles that criticize this findings but how many of them would pass the double check system?
Anecdotal evidence is good to give someone a hunch about making an hypothesis but it isn’t sufficient to refute or accept it.
Statistics in science don’t have the same leeway as statistics in social studies or economics. Data must be tested in order to achieve the status of “statistically significant”. For example, this can help decide if new drugs are accepted or rejected. The correlation between the use of the drug and the healing of a certain illness must be pretty strong in order for the drug to be accepted as a medication. The placebo effect has to be contolled as well as any other factors that could affect the result. Try to publish anecdotal evidence for one of those miracle cures in the New England Journal of Medecine and you’ll see how people will ask you to do empirical studies.