Global warming skeptics - put up or shut up. Where is evidence that global warming is not caused by humans?

Look at all your answers. Essentially they can be broken down to a more simple form:

-Deny with already debunked evidence

-attack the asker

-lead me to the data because I am too lazy to do some real research for myself answer.

-demand that the person asking for evidence supplies evidence that opposed to what is being asked.

I'm sorry, but burden of proof is on the accuser, not the person requesting data. So you make a statement like..."GW is a Hoax", the burden of proof is on you.

-act like the possible absence of man made global warming justifies lack of accountability of humans to be good custodians of our only planet, clean up our act, and create more sustainable living methods and habits.

Unbelievable that these people consider themselves logical thinkers.

The verdict is still out as to the cause of global warming. The evidence which supports the various camps of global warming, IE. natural occurring cycle, CO2 emissions, solar activity, are not yet sufficient to provide us conclusive proof. It is foolish to deal with the problem thru the very expensive reduction of carbon emissions that in the end will only provide a very marginal difference in temperature. The cost being a reduction in growth rates through out the world hurting the world's poor the most. World governments are wiser to pursue a course of more research and technology development rather than putting limits on carbon emissions now,

Here read this article.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf

Edit: Typical responce.

Do not discuss the science.

Attack the man.

.

So in your words "put up or shut up" and answer his questions.

You wanted science, you got it.

Pre industrial levels of co2 is faulty.

According to weather balloons, troposphere has not heated up as much, as ground temperatures. Greenhouse warming should produce the opposite.

Sulphates can not explain global dimming starting in 1940 "This does not make overall sense

because such burning did not suddenly begin in 1940 or diminish in 1970.

Others point to volcanic activity, the dust ejections of which also cool the

troposphere by reflecting sunlight (Robock, 2000). The effect of an extremely

large eruption normally lasts 1–3 years, not 30 years."

etc. etc. etc.

I know the question isn't addressed to me, but what I've seen in the debate that seems troublesome is "it isn't conclusive that...." The implication is that since one can not see a rise in the temperature every time a car engine turns over, then the car engine does not have an effect.

I can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt IN ADVANCE that staying out all night naked in a blizzard will result in my death, but I do not intend to test my ability to stand the local climate variations without a good coat, just in case.

It's a problem of both perspective and measurement. IF the effect is delayed it is more difficult to "prove" the relationship, but not always impossible. Sometimes the proof is simply DELAYED.

The problem here is that people who feel threatened somehow become recalcitrant. Whether the perceived "threat" is because of a lifestyle they feel is under fire, the politicization of the debate with Al Gore's very public efforts to promote awareness, actual financial interests in the status quo or simply an "us vs. them" mentality is impossible for me to decipher. The argument becomes so shrill that reason gets tossed.

From my view, what difference does it make if AGW turns out to be wrong? How is reducing, reusing, and recycling going to hurt me? How will it hurt my neighbors? How will reducing the dependence on foreign oil and the funding to foreign powers, both friendly and unfriendly, going to hurt me or my community? How will stopping the flow of funds to unfriendlies hurt the nation?

I just don't get the rancor.

Dana, I'm not jumping to any conclusions but I did find this scientific paper with a conclusion that climate variations are due to solar activity. This is the type of paper I hope you were asking for.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.htm...

I also found this image which unfortunately is form Wikipedia. Trust it if you can.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Acti...

Basically it shows that the number of sun spots has increased and decreased in correlation with other temperature measurements. One major one is the near zero number of sun spots during the "little Ice age" then the number of sun spots rises as well as the temperature. This I do not think is a coincidence.

Now, do I think that this is proven fact? No, but it is definitely another viable theory.

Additional Comment:

Dana you're saying it is not okay for sun-spot data to diverge from temperature data but it is okay for CO2 emission data to diverge from temperature data?

Check out this link and look at the average global temperature data for the past century. Then take a look at the CO2 emissions. You'll notice a steady temperature throughout the globe during the 1940's to '70's. The Northern Hemisphere's temperature even fell throughout this time. WHAT CREATED THIS? If we stick to your theory and your assumption that either sun spots or CO2 emissions must always "align" on a graph then you would expect a decrease in CO2 emissions or at least a steady output to maintain the steady temperatures of the 1940's through '70's. Not the case; in another graph, you can see an INCREASE in CO2 emissions. That means that CO2 diverged from temperature in the graph just like you said sun spots diverged. So your point proves nothing against solar caused "Global Warming." In-fact, it may poke an "inconvenient hole" in the AGW theory.

http://processtrends.com/pg_global_warming.htm

Another Update:

WOW!!!!! CO2 did indeed diverge from the average global temperature because it's concentration levels were climbing at the same steady rate as before. BUT the average temperature did not climb for THREE entire decades. You say that aerosols were the cause of this stable temperature of the 1940's through 70's? Let us assume that is the cause. We should then expect more aerosol output as the world industrializes. Makes sense right? The more people, the more burning of fuel and more smoke, dust, and sulfates. This would indeed reflect more sunlight and thus make the world a cooler place. But wouldn't the world cool more as we produced greater amounts of aerosols? Then what caused the Earth to warm back up after the '70's? Did CO2 suddenly become more effective and somehow overpower aerosols? You can see that you can't have it both ways. Humans, even though increasing both aerosol and CO2 concentrations, seem to have cooled the planet during the '40's but then warmed it back up after the '70's. THIS IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL!!!!

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Aerosols.html

The only constant on Earth is Humans, we output at a steady rate. So you should expect a steady change in climate if we're the primary influence. As you can see, climate is anything but steady with or without humans. The main driver of climate, the sun, isn't even as steady as people think. So logically an unsteady regulator will yield an unsteady climate.

Lastly, you shouldn't look at one hundred years of data and then think you know "the big picture" of climate. I know you hear this argument a lot but I ask you to listen to it this time. How can we possibly know what the Earth is going to do if we've only been around for a split second of it's aged history?

All of the theories put forth on climate are inconclusive. We don't know enough to base entire economies on policies only proven to do one thing, destroy the human economic and social structure as we know it. That, sir is a known outcome no matter which path of action we choose.

It makes more sense that natural factors known and unknown have more to do with climate than anything humans can do. So you can spend you entire life thinking you can compete with the sun. You can try to change the climate back to "normal" whatever that is. Or you can worry about real PROVEN environmental threats like mercury contamination or toxic waste spills.

Personally, I think we should fix proven threats and problems. Dealing with those WILL have an absolutely positive outcome.

Plenty of evidence. Go to any conspiracy or conservative websites, the main evidence is because science is a liberal conspiracy.

Or, try the oil funded think tanks. They have plenty of cherry picked graphs showing global cooling.

You still don't get it do you. The burden of proof for any scientific theory is on the proponents of the theory. It is not up to the skeptics to disprove a theory. This is not how science works. Politics, yes, science no. Are you and Bob scientists or politicians?

I think the best evidence against man-made GW is that other planets in our solar system (Mars, for example) have been warming at the same rate as the Earth.

Lighten up. Convincing somebody to change their opinion is not the same as winning a debate. Think Gandhi and simply, calmly keep making your point. I changed my opinion about global warming but that was in spite of, not because of argumentative people.

As Carl Sagan once said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” The claim that humans are causing a climate change that will lead to cataclysmic global events and human extinction sounds pretty extraordinary to me.

I believe the burden of proof rests on you.

the main thing people bring up when they are talking about man cause global worming is that the sun goes in cycles (of sun spotes) what cause the earth to warm or cool, source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot). Another main fact is that the earth does not have a constent orbet it has cycles also when it is more eliptical the temp is more extrem. source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)