The supposed "evidence" for global warming

Given the substantial amount of evidence for global warming, you'd be a fool to go against the scientific consensus that global warming is happening. But that's really the problem: the evidence. The evidence for global warming relies entirely upon the average climate of the earth hundreds of thousands of years into the past. But how do we get that information? Well it's simple really: we go to the north and south poles and we dig straight down and extract something that we call an ice core (pictured above). The ice core (extracted by a small team of scientists) is transported to a lab (in which another small team of scientists study it). It is of the utmost importance to keep in mind that these individuals rely on global warming phenomenon to keep their jobs and continue their research. But let me ask you something: have you ever seen an ice core yourself? Have you ever gone in and confirmed their information to make sure they're not making it up? Is it not logical to assume that a small group of climate scientists would fudge the data for their own benefit? You blindly follow the cult of global warming without realizing that the small groups of scientists have no credibility for their claims. Granted the evidence is true, then sure, it's clear that the earth must be warming. But without being able to confirm that evidence, the theory of global warming is utterly meaningless, and it should be regarded as so. If you 'believe' in global warming, you are apt to use the term 'believe', because you have to rely on blind faith to support it all.