650,000-Year Ice Core: Questions

Updated!

The latest Rosetta Stone of the global science debate -- the 650,000-year ice core bored out of Anarctica -- is being presented by MSM in absolute terms. The articles I've read quote no one but people who believe the core shows the impact of humans on the environment, as if no argument can be made against this stuff.

But watch: The assumptions about the core will begin to be picked apart, and MSM will be nowhere to be found to cover that. Here's one hole in the study to poke around in. The LA Times buried deep this paragraph:

Scientists are eager to look further back into earth's climatic past. About a million years ago, the earth shifted from ice age cycles that were 40,000 years long into cycles that were 100,000 years long. This shift from a "40K world to a 100K world" is a major mystery, said Oregon State's Brook, and will require a core that reaches deeper into the ice and much further back in time.

What caused this change a million years ago? Certainly not human intervention into climatology; nevertheless it happened. Yet the princes of global warming refuse to accept that if there are permanent changes afoot in global climate, it's conceivable they could be another planetary shift like the one a million years ago.

Over at the NYTimes article, we find this:

While the overall climate pattern has been set by rhythmic variations in Earth's orientation to the Sun, the records show that carbon dioxide and methane consistently made the interglacial climate warmer than it would otherwise have been, said Thomas Stocker, one of the researchers and a physicist at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Where did carbon dioxice and methane come from during the earlier cycles? Obviously not humans. There were enough natural sources -- volcanoes, biomass dynamics, etc. -- to lengthen a warm period, but the global warming princes want us to discount this today and place the blame on human elements.

Update: Jon Jay at GreenieWatch has this to say about the study:

So a study of "the composition of the atmosphere between 400,000 and 650,000 years ago" suddenly tells us about "the modern atmosphere"??? And a study that looks at times scales of "tens of thousands" of years suddenly tells us something about the last 200 years??? Go figure!