Asking for a million year old “measurement” as opposed to a proxy is obviously impossible, but that impossibility sheds no light whatsoever on the balance of evidence regarding validity of the claims of science regarding climate.
I stipulate that the measurements made on the ground with thermometers are better than proxy evidence. What of it?
I’m trying to identify if you have the capacity to adopt a genuinely skeptical stance, that is, as skeptical toward your own position as toward mine. So far I am disappointed if unsurprised.
Your challenge indicates to me that you are playing ideological games and trying to win an argument for your preconceived position, rather than being willing to honestly examine the evidence that does exist.
I can ask you if you have stone tablets handed down from on high justifying your position. If you say you have none, does that support my argument? It’s hardly conclusive either way, is it?
I wrote this bit in a meandering thread on Google Plus and I like it.