Keep faith alive. Creationism......... a revival of faith healing and a return of horse drawn carts all are just around the corner..... damn "circle", that shape ruined everything.... square wheels are the way to go.
Not sure what is worse for climate science deniers, the willful ignorance, or the willingness to display it for all to see.
So three years of college qualifies you to talk down to others? The lower tropospheric temperature from 1999 to 2015 was lower than it was in 1998. 2016 is the only year in 18 years to be above the 1998 level. Here is what that record looks like for the globe and across different regions. I feel like I can use these graphs to pick out every major El Niño. I wouldn't even have to reference the actual sea-surface temperature anomalies to do so.
Cohete, you can keep track of all the stats from Nasa. Here's some evidence that is nothing more than actual data. The data you provide in no way disproves climate change. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ but wait there's more... http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ and that's not all... http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ You can check this out too, if you'd like. http://climate.nasa.gov/images-of-c...es-dam-brings-power-concerns-to-central-china
unlike silly things like religion, science doesn't require "belief"... it is supported (or not) by observational data. it isn't a coincidence that the vast vast VAST majority of experts that study these things speak about climate change with such certainty. "belief" has nothing to do with it save for people like you who look at science through this odd faith-based construct.
There are no "experts" in the field of climate science yet. To suggest that there are cheapens the title of "expert" to a degree that discredits it almost entirely.
I've not once sought to "disprove" global warming. Keep your false accusations to yourself. I have agreed that global warming is real and that humans are causing global warming. However I have doubts, which I have presented data to support, about the strength of anthropogenic causes and instead have suggested that natural factors remain the largest driver of global warming. See the above post and chart for a more detailed explanation.
Actually science isn't quite like that anymore. Scientists today aren't so specialized. That was the way it was in the past, but now they may be stronger in some areas, but by and large the diversity of their scientific knowledge is one of their most valued strengths.
fair enough. Sorry to have misrepresented your beliefs. The evidence of man being the largest cause isn't really a solid one.
Ok.... so then should mankind take actions of reduce their footprint in regards to contributing to climate change?
I always expect a bump of this thread whenever it gets cold or someone finds a single data point that does not support climate change... It's January 12th and I am running my air conditioner. Go figure.
Made about as much sense as presenting anecdotal accounts of running one's air conditioner. Fight fire with fire?
It's like a Monty Python sketch. Too little snow? Global warming. Too much snow? Global warming. Anecdotal events used to highlight anthropogenic global warming: ok. Anecdotal events used to highlight natural global warming: dumb.
