One of the main incentives to the global warming hype was the analysis of the ice cores of Greenland in which 'water' isotope variation (dD, d18O) is interpreted as temperature variation for instance Alley 2000 because if the temperature changes the isotope ratios change. This line of reasoning is an affirming the consequent fallacy, A -> B hence B -> A which fails if also C -> A.
I became sceptical of this interpretation with the discovery of several Mammoth mummies far in North Siberia who had lived there on a productive grassy steppe in the alleged coldest periods i.c. Younger Dryas, suggesting that it warmer than today. This just could not be.
I have worked for several years on this but I think I have solid evidence that the ice core interpretation is wrong. They do not tell about temperature exclusively but also about aridity and you can't use evidence twice. If a spike is all about moisture change, it can't be about temperature change simultaneously.
The Younger Dryas was not notably colder than the preceding or successing period but it was hyper arid. That explains the isotope spike, wrongly interpreted as temperature change.
hypothesis first or evidence first?