Why don't global warming alarmists show proof?

So-called "global warming" is subjective science where opinions of a group decide if the theory is correct. The proof is not in any scientific reasoning as no one can predict the future. If anyone tells you it will be warmer in the future, that's just a guess, and guesses are not science.

All science should be held to the standards of objective science.

Global warming is not true as defined by the "consensus". This is why they use subjective science, as it allow them to work to a far lower standard of proof.

the quantity of convolution interior the solutions is overwhelming. various the people say that worldwide traits can no longer be extrapolated from 10 years of temperatures over the final 150 years, a time whilst we've been rising from the little ice age. Then they are saying it extremely is extrapolated from the final 150 years over the final 3,000 years or maybe the final 4.5 billion years. interior the 1970's, there replaced into lots of project some new ice age. you will discover the temperature replaced into declining by using fact the 1930's until related to the mid 70's. the information magazines and the information courses have been crammed with thoughts related to the subsequent ice age. i understand, i replaced into there. It replaced into provided as an inevitability, in all danger the top of mankind, no longer some thing we had to objective to offer up, yet perhaps some thing to coach for by using fact we could no longer supply up it if we would have enjoyed to. in this new age of narcissism, the Earth is right from the 2nd i replaced into born and that i could guard this 2nd in time for how forward for the human race by using fact guy is now greater powerful than any tension on earth and easily i will substitute the destiny! reality is, you and that i are merely airborne dirt and mud interior the Wind.

The alarmists over-emphasize the role of Man.

Is the climate warming? Absolutely. It is inevitable. The Earth's climate is cyclic. The 1930s temperature increases produced the Dust Bowl which caused the great migration to California!

We came out of an Ice Age and the glaciers are a product of that Ice Age. They are going to melt.

There are a lot of scientists who believe that global warming is inevitable in spite of man, not because of man. Those scientists get very little media coverage.

It is the 'Gore Bores' who get the media coverage, and.... It is big business!

Everyone should read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. It is a novel but well researched (35 pages of biblio) and does an entertaining but truthful job of exposing just how big business the global warming scam is.

No, this has been done many times. Every year the evidence becomes more damming.

The real question is, why do some people refuse to accept proof even after it has been meticulously laid out and literally spoon fed to them?

Because no amount of logic can overcome dogma.

Quantitative science is hard. Most people don't really get it. To understand problems in global ecology one needs at a minimum a basic understanding of the basic sciences - and - to understand mans' role in this - anthropology - and - the presence of mind to understand the interrelation of things and the interdisciplinary nature of the problem.

It takes years of study to gain this kind of understanding.

But you can just apply some sophomoric mental gymnastics and declare it all a hoax.

After you have done your homework come back when you have a real argument.

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/07121...

ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007) — The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F...

...Since the start of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74°C. But this rise has not been continuous. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years...

...2007 global temperatures have been averaged separately for both hemispheres. Surface temperatures for the northern hemisphere are likely to be the second warmest on record, at 0.63°C above the 30-year mean (1961-90) of 14.6°C/58.3°F. The southern hemisphere temperature is 0.20°C higher than the 30-year average of 13.4°C/56.1°F, making it the ninth warmest in the instrumental record since 1850.

January 2007 was the warmest January in the global average temperature record at 12.7°C/54.9°F, compared to the 1961-1990 January long-term average of 12.1°C/53.8°F...

Global 10 Warmest Years Mean Global temperature (°C) (anomaly with respect to 1961-1990)

1. 1998 0.52

2. 2005 0.48

3. 2003 0.46

4. 2002 0.46

5. 2004 0.43

6. 2006 0.42

7. 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41

8. 2001 0.40

9. 1997 0.36

10. 1995 0.28

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/07121...

"So, the temperatures back then should be more extreme between night and day, just like on the moon, which lacks greenhouse gases, right?"

Hilarious

There are two options here (1) you have no clue at all or (2) you are 10 years old.

When we claim support for global warming is politically, and financially motivated and want proof to show us otherwise, do they provide us with proof? No.They just quote politically and financially motivated organization/individuals That is not proof.

We have had no statistically significant temperature increases for the past ten years.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/a-...

Hansen is the only person who shows warming during the past ten years, and he has done that by rewriting history. We all know how politically motivated Hansen is. If it turns out to be false, he would lose all credibility.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pa...

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964

Now they are predicting no more warming for the next ten years.

“The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date."[Dr. John Brignell, Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton, on Number Watch (May 1)]

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politi...

But they are still calling it a crisis. That is the biggest hoax.

Have you ever seen temperature so you can have the opinion you do? The Co2 theory is flawed, the heat generation atmospherically isn't.

Did you know that academia and the best universities in the world use calculators for temperature considerations because the temperatures couldn't be seen?

Go to the following link to see what academia missed in their calculations and information that will be going into academia to give them sight. http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.ht...

Your comments about Beth and nail polish are ignorant, grow up and accept debate.

Alan J said:

"Still can't comprehend basic atmospheric physics, I see?"

Tell me why the classical approach of radiation transfer must necessarily fail. It is a pretty basic question.

Alan then said:

"Anyway, why don't the denialists show proof? After all, they are proposing theories that defy the laws of physics, it seems to me they ought to be providing some pretty overwhelming evidence to support them."

Laws of physics? Do we really know the "laws of physics"? The laws of physics never change, only our understanding of them does. Sort of like how we "knew" all about ozone chemistry: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382...

And the problem is that there is not a single piece of empirical evidence that directly links CO2 to the recent warming, or any warming for that matter. If you have any, please post it. I doubt that you can, that is why Bob blithers on about organizations and Admiral Truly, because he has no real evidence.

Because it isn't possible to prove the key proposition either way. We cannot conduct a controlled experiment in which part of the earth is at limited CO2 levels and the rest isn't.

There's no proof because there's no data to prove anything on the subject. A majority of scientists think it's probable that humans have had an affect in global warming. Global warming is happening, you would be hard pressed to find a scientist that disagrees, the only questions remaining is what is causing it and how severe it will be. Neither side can prove their case until more study is done.