What is one proof that global warming can not be true and site that backs up your answer?

Question

please make sure you have a site with your answer...i know one is about how they judge on the carbon.....

Answer 1

Check this out:

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/

Answer 2

Remember in science you can have all of the theories you want, but in the end the empirical evidence has to support the theory. You should always be wary like the person above who tries to convince you to his point of view only by attacking others.  

Here is a study.  When this study was posted a while back you got the typical response, of attacking who said it, where it was said and not what was said.   Despite the claims that the scientific evidence is so overwhelming they could not attack it on the science.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...

Here is another good site with hundreds of links, many of them peer review:

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Techn...

Answer 3

Good luck trying to getting someone to answer this question using a SCIENTIFIC source.

The best that you can hope for are links to 1) ENERGY INDUSTRY lobbyists, such as the Heartland Institute:

http://www.heartland.org/

The Cato Institute:

http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new...

Science and Public Policy Institute:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

Science & Environmental Policy Project

http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/keyissu...

or 2) random articles written by conservative pundits and published in the opinion page.

Edit:

I see that the person below me has taken issue with my insistance that we should be receiving science information from scientists and not from lobbyists. He also has posted an “article” from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t*t... and claims that the “science” in the article is sound. I challenge him to account for a few of the following errors in the article. My guess is that he won't bother.

Basic Errors

Figure 1

•The dating of the Sargasso Sea record is 50 years out, because they misunderstand the use of 'BP' (Before Present) dates in paleo-records, which refers to before 1950 AD, not the present day.

•The 2006 plotted value is incorrect. Current SST in the Sargasso Sea region is about half a degree above 23 deg C line and while this was included in the original figure, it has been deleted here. For reference, the HADISST data has 24.2 C for this location.

Figure 2

•The caption states that “the principal source of melt energy is solar radiation”, which incorrectly implies that the Sun is to blame for glacier shortening.

•The figure is taken from Oerlemans (2005) (uncited)[1]

•The line corresponds to the result “Excluding Alps” and not the “Global” line, as it should have been.

Other issues

•The authors state “The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years”. This is actually derived purely from Figure 1, and show refers the Sargasso Sea temperatures, not any kind of hemispheric or global compilation.[5]

•The notion of 'rebound' of climate from the Little Ice Age has no support in the climate literature.

•Humans exhaling CO2 do not contribute to accumulating GHGs.

•Most of the graphs show amount of fuel burnt, rather than CO2 concentrations, or better still radiative forcing. No direct correlation is expected from hydrocarbon use to climate.

•Neptune is not significantly showing a response to solar forcing “The nature of Neptune’s increasing brightness: evidence for a seasonal response” Sromovsky et al (2003), Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature?[2], [3]

•"There is [no correlation] between hydrocarbon use and temperature". This is not true. Even between use and temperature there is a correlation, and between radiative forcing and temperature (the more appropriate comparison) the correlation is stronger.

•Comparison of human-related CO2 fluxes to natural fluxes is flawed. As natural emissions of carbon dioxide are very much greater than those from human activities, surely the effect of man is insignificant?[4]

•The assertion that current Earth temperatures are 1C lower now than 1000 years ago requires rejecting a recent National Academy of Science panel report in favor of an article by one of the authors and another unpublished manuscript.[5]

•The first paragraph on page 8 argues that since past temperature variations were as large as they were and not considerably larger, CO2 increases cannot produce a water vapor feedback. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how feedback works in climate (see here for more explanation[6]).

•The comparison of solar activity change over the past century (0.19%) and United States temperature change (in K) (0.21%) assumes that readers are sufficiently ignorant of basic blackbody radiation theory to think that the similarity of the numbers supports their thesis, rather than being convincing evidence against their thesis.

Cherry Picks

•Only the Sargasso Sea record the used in the paper, rather than any of the other compilations[5].

•Reference #19 is private communication from one of the authors.

Journal

•The Journal of Physicians and Surgeons is a very non-standard venue for climate science papers.[7]

Answer 4

Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and THEN Carbon Dioxide levels would increase.

Answer 5

There is not proof. Because global warming IS true. It is a completely natural phase, but we are contributing to it.

Answer 6

they say  don`t believe anything on Internet, So I look out side for weather report. trust me, no global warming