[Catfish]

@Rockstar i know you just want to troll, as much as you may paint yourself to mirror or quote "independent" science. Still i will not give up

Originally Posted by Rockstar

[...] I question the use of average temperature base lines as evidence temperatures are rising.
Are temperatures actually rising or is it because we have more weather stations around the globe than ever before taking measurements.

Certainly there were not as much weather stations placed all around the world in the cretaceous or as in recent times, the technology did not exist, nor did these f'n humans.
But it is about the last hundred thousand years, and in this time the core drillings of arctic and antarctic ice probes that have been derived by humans (tm of idiots) show the temperatures. Just like a tree's seasonal rings every being can go back in the years and determine the temperature, down to one year.
When it comes to older records the layers of sediments and precipitated chemicals tell about the earth's climate development or exceptional outliers (like in the permian and cretaceous ages). Oxygen and CO2 content can be measured along with a lot of other indications. The first oxygen abundance led to the first major extinction in those ancient oceans, not much living things of the time liked oxidizing [sic!] oxygen.

As our technology improved and the number of weather monitoring stations dramatically increased so did the global average temperatures.

This is a lie tale to suit your prejudice. You are right, temperatures rose since humans are able to directly measure it (took them long enough eh?). Before those times there were no humans. Yes i know your next phrase like "the technology to record and measure only exists since xxx years", but no!
There is indirect measuring of the times before those humans (who are so proud of themselves) roamed the world. And just of all those f'n humans are now able to determine the earth's temperature before their very own existence.

[...] It's an assumption say Im so keen on not 'believing' what I'm not so keen on is fanboy science which dictates anything different than their cherished beliefs is labelled b.s.

It is not about "fanboys of science" or about what is is "hip" now according to Fox News or Scientific American, it is just because you are obviously tired of thinking yourself and sum up obvious facts. Believing is for your human religion.
Your "cherished beliefs" you so criticize are based on exploration and logical thinking, just because you prefer to believe in conspiracy theories does not make the latter true.