Scumbria,
If ice at the north pole shows no signs of having melted over 50,000,000 years and it is melted now, the only reasonable conclusion which can be reached is that polar temperatures are at their warmest in 50,000,000 years.
The bolded portion is either your assumption or a hypothesis. I think it would be a better idea to give some supporting reasoning behind this hypothesis, rather than come up with another hypothesis and use the first hypothesis as a supporting argument of the second one.
Once again, this is what the original article said:
The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago.
This doesn't say that the the ice caps did not melt 2,500 time in the last 50,000,000 years, it only say that they are certain that it did happen at least once, and it happened 50,000,000 years ago.
To put it another way, suppose I made a statement:
"The last time scientists can be certain the president Clinton left a semen stain on one of his intern's dresses was 4 years ago."
This statement doesn't say anything about any possible stains between then and now. It can't be used to support a statement:
"The dry-cleaning bills of the president Clinton's interns have gone down"
Joe |
