Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your excellent point rings the death bell for this moronic and commonly repeated BS. Unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears. If anyone wants to learn something: this is called a line of best fit.
I just posted a graph showing that the numbers have increased.
You're the one claiming something contrary to expert opinion. Climatologists are the ones who have studied this their entire lives, and their answers to your objections are easily found on the internet, as I just did in the above article.
Experts don't need to bow to you, but they have answered ALL objections from skeptics anyway - I've never seen one that wasn't answered.
If you want to prove that all the experts are wrong and you are right, you would need prove thousands of articles wrong. You haven't. Instead, when someone gives you an answer, you ignore what they said and raise the question again.
Here is another article, hopefully you can understand this one:
The two articles I posted have simply been for explanation, not proof. There's no longer any debate among professionals in the field about whether there is some degree of man-caused global warming ....... the only debate is about how severe the problem will get.
If you wish to prove a point, you need at all costs to avoid reasoning errors.
You have committed a major logical fallacy that is called "appeal to authority", which guarantees absolutely nothing. It's a huge reasoning error to conclude otherwise.
Moreover, not "all the experts" agree; this is another claim of yours that represents another logical fallacy called a "strawman", which is yet another major reasoning error in your argument.
Moreover and most importantly, the graph you offer as proof graph does not at all explain why there has been no aggregate global warming after 1997. There was not a single hypothesis put forth by any scientists back in the late ninties that predicted this would happen. This failure of data to confirm either any hypothesis or the man-made global warming theory itself, as put forth by some scientists, represents exactly what happened to the ice-age scare that was put forth by scientists in the seventies; I'm still waiting for their ice-age.
Finally, their is no proof whatsoever that the data changes on your graph resulted from man-made activity.
Science is not based on consensus of opinion, but observable, verifiable evidence. The naysayers argue that statistics overrule the facts - that one dissenting opinion by a statistician (or even a weatherman on TV) is enough to overturn and discredit all evidence as "phony science". Well, that's not the way it works.
The overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate caused by hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere, and that anthropogenic activity is a significant contributing factor. What we know is that the polar icecaps are melting as evidenced by satellite imagery and decrease in mass verified by scientific measurements in situ. We also know that climate change occurs naturally as evidenced by core samples of the earth's surface. However, what we are seeing now is abrupt climate change; which the evidence links to the growth of the earth’s human population and activities over the past 250 years; and, most dramatically, in the last half century. What we know is that there is only a thin layer of ozone that shields the earth from the sun’s rays; and that it is being depleted by industrial emissions into the atmosphere resulting in the rise of the ocean temperature that generates the earth’s climate conditions. Just a small change in ocean temperature will affect the thermohaline conveyor leading to more harsh winter weather, reduced soil moisture and more intense winds in regions that provide the significant portion of the world’s food production, and cause a dramatic decrease in the human carrying capacity of the earth’s environment.
The naysayers have succeeded in politicizing the global warming debate; and they are wrong for the true test of science is empirical evidence - not political correctness. The fact that there is a lack of consensus of opinion is inapposite. See article “The cold truth about climate change,” by Joseph Romm, Salon (February 27, 2008). [www.salon.com]
As Dr. Romm put it: “What matters is scientific findings - data, not opinions.”
Where to start? Have you observed the melting of the polar ice caps particularly in the arctic. That is visible direct evidence with a chronological decline in the ice.
Science is not based on consensus of opinion, but observable, verifiable evidence. The naysayers argue that statistics overrule the facts - that one dissenting opinion by a statistician (or even a weatherman on TV) is enough to overturn and discredit all evidence as "phony science". Well, that's not the way it works.
The overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate caused by hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere, and that anthropogenic activity is a significant contributing factor. What we know is that the polar icecaps are melting as evidenced by satellite imagery and decrease in mass verified by scientific measurements in situ. We also know that climate change occurs naturally as evidenced by core samples of the earth's surface. However, what we are seeing now is abrupt climate change; which the evidence links to the growth of the earth’s human population and activities over the past 250 years; and, most dramatically, in the last half century. What we know is that there is only a thin layer of ozone that shields the earth from the sun’s rays; and that it is being depleted by industrial emissions into the atmosphere resulting in the rise of the ocean temperature that generates the earth’s climate conditions. Just a small change in ocean temperature will affect the thermohaline conveyor leading to more harsh winter weather, reduced soil moisture and more intense winds in regions that provide the significant portion of the world’s food production, and cause a dramatic decrease in the human carrying capacity of the earth’s environment.
The naysayers have succeeded in politicizing the global warming debate; and they are wrong for the true test of science is empirical evidence - not political correctness. The fact that there is a lack of consensus of opinion is inapposite. See article “The cold truth about climate change,” by Joseph Romm, Salon (February 27, 2008). [www.salon.com]
As Dr. Romm put it: “What matters is scientific findings - data, not opinions.”
What is the clear and unyielding empirical evidence that proves man-made global warming has been and is occurring?
If the evidence is so empirical and so understood on that basis, then why did not a single scientist in the late nineties put forth a single hypothesis that predicted the end of this alleged man-made global warming after 1997?
So, if the Arctic sea ice is melting and connecting the north Pacific and the north Atlantic oceans for the first time in two million years, either we are living in a time of extraordinary natural climate change or anthropogenic climate change is at fault. The evidence of any extraordinary natural phenomena that would cause this Arctic sea melt is exactly zero.
So, if the Arctic sea ice is melting and connecting the north Pacific and the north Atlantic oceans for the first time in two million years, either we are living in a time of extraordinary natural climate change or anthropogenic climate change is at fault. The evidence of any extraordinary natural phenomena that would cause this Arctic sea melt is exactly zero.
I can either agree with NASA, Climate Change: Evidence, or the Deniers on this Forum. That answer is a no brainer.
The clear and unyielding evidence to support man-made global warming is zero.
Mother Nature has been around forever and, as best we can prove, has caused every single weather related phenomena. I'll side with Mother Nature.
Global warming is no longer a question of belief or opinion, it is a fact. The evidence of global warming, and its links to human activity, has been established by research and experimentation results collected by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on over seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans; and that has definitively ruled out natural climate variations due solar activity, volcanic eruptions, photosynthesis, etc. as the cause of measurable increase in ocean temperature, which has risen 0.9F in just the past 40 years. (The same findings were made in a long-range study in Britain.) Even the Pentagon acknowledges the fact of global warming and the threat of climate change on national security interests. See Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" (October 2003). In face of the scientific evidence, which has been independently verified, to say that there is any doubt about it is no longer tenable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
