I've already explained all of this. I never said the Earth isn't warming, so your second quote there only makes you look like the moron. I also never quoted an oil company, so there's that. It's called a straw man, you're posting about something loosely related even though it isn't the argument I'm making. Great logical fallacy. Next time choose someone who can't see through it.
As for the first quote, government funded? Check. Evidence based on ice core samples, that are already problematic for reasons discussed? Check. Does that mean that NASA is wrong? I don't know. But the thing is, neither do you. You're so worried about being right that you can't see the simple fact is that right now, with the information we have, nobody knows for sure. If they did, they wouldn't be going to extremes to continue to collect data to prove themselves correct, would they? Yet ice core sampling is still happening. It's a piece of evidence that may turn out to be correct.
I would also like to know how they collected atmospheric samples before the industrial revolution, which is what allows them to collect those samples now. And finally, I'll let you look up the data on how increased CO2 levels (which is what the NASA article talks about) actually spur increased plant growth, which causes an increase in oxygen production and can lead to a long term cooling effect. The earth wabbles and tilts. It goes through heating and cooling phases. The NASA article demonstrates correlation, for sure.
Finally, I'm not saying that NASA or anyone else is wrong. I'm saying that they don't have definitive proof, which is different than evidence (yes, I did say evidence earlier, my mistake). They are using evidence as proof, while the two can be easily confused, again, I made the mistake earlier. Scientists aren't supposed to act as prosecutors, who have a job to use evidence to convince a courtroom that it equates to proof. That's why it's important to question these things.
Edit: For clarification, I know that nobody said atmospheric samples were collected long ago. The other methods used (ice core samples, tree ring data, carbon samples from the earth) could mean things about the atmosphere, but that data can also be attributed to other factors. Maybe the tree went through a drought in one decade, so the rings got smaller. Maybe there was less sunlight, or more, based on the tilt of the earth. Maybe a heard of mastodon settled in the area and ate all the leaves off of that particular tree. Maybe there has been an increase in CO2. Tons of possibilities, no conclusive proof. See where this is going?
