Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think you're confused as to the claims of the credible scientific community. They have never - ever - argued the Earth has not warmed before. Please be clear on that.
The claim is that the the rate of warming is unprecented due to the rapid increase in CO2 from human emissions.
Yeah I know...but where's the proof that CO2 is increasingly warming the earth? It's just speculation, they have no proof. CO2 is naturally in the environment. Every human, mammal on earth releases CO2 when they exhale....it's natural. They have not shown proof that it is CO2 that's causing it.
Yeah I know...but where's the proof that CO2 is increasingly warming the earth? It's just speculation, they have no proof. CO2 is naturally in the environment. Every human, mammal on earth releases CO2 when they exhale....it's natural. They have not shown proof that it is CO2 that's causing it.
Yes, there has been "proof."
First, remember that there is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century.
Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.
Here's a question directed to all the skeptics...what observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7329799.stmGlobal temperatures 'to decrease'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst
Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
More...
THat's my problem with global warming....because it cannot be proven...I cannot buy it. I believe the globe is warming...but since scintists have not tracked the warming of the earth until recently, how are they sure that the globe didn't once warm at a rapid race like today?? THey don't have records that can even indicate the rate of warming in the old days or in prehistory. This is why I'm skeptical...sure, the globe is warming, and I'm sure humans are contributing to it, but I cannot be convinced that we have sped it up.
I'm not going to let you off the hook. I asked a very serious question. I would appreciate you answer it. Here is it again...
What observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?
I don't think there's any amount of proof that I could see, that would PROVE to me, that humans have rapidly increased global warming....
Why you would even assume your claim that "...scientists were not around or kept record of the rate of heating or cooling the earth," would have any bearing on the validity and reliability of the mountains of evidence that exist ( which include ice core samples, NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis, CRU direct surface temperature analysis, Satellite Data,Radiosondes, Sea level rise, Borehole analysis,Proxy Reconstructions,Glacial melt observations, Sea ice melt, Permafrost melt) pointing to human emissions of climate change is elementary at best, pathological at worst.
Clearly, you are not a serious person with a serious argument. You're questions are completely idiotic and irrelevant. Your claim that "...scientists were not around or kept record of the rate of heating or cooling the earth," is even more absurd.
I've never seen or heard of a peer-reviewed article in a scientific scholarly journal argue that position. Not even the most hardened global climate skeptic would dare offer that claim. I think they would be embarrassed to.
Lastly, I think you are a bizarre person who prides himself on exhibiting a ghastly propensity to boast about approaching a debate with a closed mind.
These are your words "I don't think there's any amount of proof that I could see, that would PROVE to me, that humans have rapidly increased global warming...." Then why are you here Brian? If your mind is already made up, and you admit no amount evidence or proof will ever convince you otherwise, I ask why the hell are you here posting in this thread?
I'd like to defend him.
His questions arent illegitimate. In them is the nucleus of scientific enquiry, the old geologists who laid the groundwork of all palaeoclimatology set out with just such kinds of questions. How come there are oysters in my field, and such.
The crux seems to me to be in the willingness to reserve (i. e. withhold) judgement for the time being, and look at such questions and follw the evidence wherever it may lead as far as one can do with observations and deduction.
To say " I don't think there's any amount of proof ... that would PROVE to me .. " is of course strictly a statement of faith. Excluding an outcome right before any proof (evidence) has actually been looked at. Thats end of legitmiate discussion about science.
Still, to wonder about such seeming simple things seems quite innocent to me. As long as people are in principle willing to concede that there might actually be good evidence behind the global warming issue then it isnt a futile discussion.
. 
"[/B]But considering that scientists DO NOT HAVE RECORD OF THE RATE OF THE WARMING OF THE EARTH PRIOR TO HISTORY, HOW CAN THEY BE %100 POSITIVE THAT THE RATE OF HEATING NOW IS SO ABNORMAL?.
First of all, ask yourself if this claim is even true. Did you just make this up in your head?
Then explain why this claim would even matter.
First of all, are you willing to debate the fact that scientists/using today's techonology were around 1,000,000 years ago? If you're claiming that i have to provide fact/evidence for this statement, you've got a long education ahead of you.
Why was last year a significantly colder year than most?
If the suns orbit around the galaxy as well as plate tectonics can affect how the globe-warms....why is it CO2 that is receiving all of the attention? Is the sun not orbiting the galaxy anymore? Are the plates no longer shifting?
Scientists have speculation about the rate of warming of the earth. Imagine if scientists had been around to track it at the ending of the ICE AGE...would they have been shittin their pants over CO2?
This is getting ridiculous. You have already been told. Among many other lines of evidence, ice core samples and borehole analysis are a record of warming dating back millions and millions of years.
Oh yeah...I've been told a 19 year-old supreme knower of all things.
It's funny how advocates of global warming are lining their pockets as we speak. Google Al Gore, and those that sell carbon credits and see what you get. The plot thickens....They say, "Hmmm...they globes warming...let's make some money off of it.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
The earth is warming, but so are the other planets....Frickin ET needs to quit burning greenhouse gases or he'll have a global warming crisis on his hands.
So you can prove...without a reasonable doubt. That CO2 emissions have extremely impacted the globe, and sped up global warming?
I'm all ears sunshine...
At least you finally realize what ice core samples, borehole analysis are - empirical evidence of paleo climate etc.
And to explain this to you requires a small baby step. Do you know the difference between climate and weather? And what is it?
1. Last year was not colder than most. Where are you getting this obviously inaccurate information from?
