Why don't global warming alarmists show proof?

Question

I mean I presented the option of obtaining the temperatures differences from the 1930's, before the industrial revolution and while so-called greenhouse gases were less present.

So, the temperatures back then should be more extreme between night and day, just like on the moon, which lacks greenhouse gases, right? But, they can't provide those temperature extremes because they are the same as today. So, proof and point is that global warming is the greatest hoax of the 21st Century. Beyond a shadow of a doubt....

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

I thought they had proof of the polar ice caps melting since 1979.  I've seen the photo's.  It is not a hoax...you're not paying attention to the weather in the last ten years.

Answer 3

Sweetheart, there's a TON of proof out there, all over the place, you don't even really have to look for it.  Take a look at the weather news from the past few days.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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/f...

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.

Answer 6

"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.

Answer 7

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-h...

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

Answer 8

Because they are still collecting evidence to justify Al Gore's theories.

Because they are perplexed by the changes in the weather down under.

Answer 9

How do you show proof for a fairy tale meant to scare small children.

Answer 10

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.

Answer 11

The Industrial Revolution produced more pollution and "carbon" than ever.  As a result, temperatures cooled down at the time.  That's because pollution and their aerosols blocks out some of the sun's rays causes so-called global cooling--yet now it supposedly causes global warming.  They really have contempt for us and our intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cool...

Answer 12

Proof of what exactly, that they can absorb more b.s. than a pasture?

Answer 13

Their isn't any proof!!!!,just like evolution,smart politicians,honest lawyers etc.

Answer 14

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

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.

Answer 15

We have, many times.  OK, again.

This is science and what counts is the data.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Good websites for more info:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 16

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.

Answer 17

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

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

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/200...

Answer 18

Here's a start:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.h...

After you read that, I suggest you read the referenced original journal articles.

Answer 19

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/200...

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=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_Warm...

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

Answer 20

Censorship.

Answer 21

thats stupid, who uses one variable as proof of anything, next time ask a question instead of soap boxing.

Answer 22

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.