Quote Originally Posted by Robert Kosek
Using ice cores is inaccurate. 1: You assume the rate of build up was constant. 2: You assume melting and refreezing was constant. 3: We are unable to witness the entire period that the layers formed within, so we cannot judge the amount of time, temperature, or "kind" of climate involved.
I'll say this as politely as I can. From what you've written, it appears that you have little to no knowledge of ice-core science. None of your points are critically relevant to the process of dating ice cores and extracting temperature, CO2 concentration, and other data from them. Revealingly and amusingly, you miss the number one criticism, or the most challenging problem, of ice-core science: contamination. This occurs either from the drilling process or by natural processes (e.g. summer melting, ice flow, underground melting). I'll refrain here from addressing your bizarre Grand Canyon rant.

It's good to be skeptical, but if you base your skepticism on anything other than a thorough and honest study of current scientific knowledge, then you are only contributing to the mass ignorance that causes or exacerbates most of the world's problems. It is a disappointing feature of human psychology that the more ignorant you are about a subject, the more sure you are about your position on that subject. The most uncertain people I have known are scientists, who are reticent and tentative on forming opinions and conclusions in their fields of specialisation. At the other end of the spectrum are politicians, writers, religious people and the common ignorant boob with an internet connection.