Wouldn't you rather believe someone that's right most of the time than randomly guess?

There are just as many, if not more, scientists that state Global Warming is not real.

That's simply not true.

Why? Because a 2009 study consisting of over 10,000 scientists, most of whom were self proclaimed climate scientists, stated that 97% of scientists believed in climate change?

I'm simply not going to bother dude.

Damn. I didn't even get to the part where many of the scientists claimed that they were misrepresented after the survey results were announced. Oh well, have a good one.

Yeah rather than wasting time talking about it, let's wait a couple of decades and see who's right. I really hope it's you, but if it isn't and we follow the policies you would likely want us to, we might be in some serious trouble.

Oh, climate change is happening, but it's a natural cycle. If you look at graphs constructed by scientists using data collected from core samples in Antarctica, the temperature rises and then dips slightly every 100 years or so, with larger swings across longer time periods. There is nothing peculiar about this instance.

The speed at which it is happening is unusual, but no doubt you'll disagree. Let's hope you're right because if you're wrong were pretty screwed. Edited due to terrible typing.

The intervals look fairly consistent to me. I will admit that the warm period is persisting longer than usual. I wouldn't worry too much about it, though. We are only talking about a fraction of a degree above average across the entire globe. It hasn't climbed any higher than in past cycles.

Well, I have to respectfully disagree. This graph shows the measurements and seems to show a much steeper gradient in recent years than we have evidence of from the past. https://xkcd.com/1732/

... is that a joke? That's what your basing your point of view on?

....no, that's a simple graphic that shows the upturn, the sort of thing that shows the data in an easily accessible format. The official scientific position on climate change is based on a wealth of empirical data that has been repeatedly measured and confirmed. To be honest I'm not sure why you would ask such an obviously silly question. Did you have a response that actually concerned the data?

"A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language." That's the description if their website... They have a store where you can buy their comics on t-shirts..... I've included a graph from NASA, that shows the earth's temperature over the last 800,000 years. If you view a graph over a small enough time frame, anomalies are sure to pop up.

Have you tried plotting the average temp on the graph you just posted? It looks like it's increasing. http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticalscience.com%2F%2Fpics%2FCarbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticalscience.com%2Fempirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm&docid=sWBGiDTZprhkiM&tbnid=Tk9fj0v49sWt_M%3A&vet=1&w=600&h=436&bih=512&biw=360&q=how%20do%20we%20know%20co2%20&ved=0ahUKEwiPjv6msPjQAhXIEywKHTODDvYQMwgbKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

OK, Co2 levels are higher. That's caused by many factors, some of which we are responsible for. There have been times in Earths history where Co2 levels have capped at close to 350 ppm. There is no proven link between Co2 levels and temperature fluctuation. They can coincide with each other, and they have in the past. They have also deviated greatly. Humans haven't dealt with a temperature fluctuations this large before. Much of the information being pedaled as fact is nothing more than speculation.

It seems a hell of a lot like you just don't want to accept it. I'm guessing for ideological reasons rather than because of the data. http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmediad.publicbroadcasting.net%2Fp%2Fmpbn%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fmedium%2Fpublic%2F201504%2Fb350___king_graph_2.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmainepublic.org%2Fpost%2Fmaine-lakes-tell-tale-climate-change&docid=iNClCLogrAg68M&tbnid=HXu9AJuTVvNsGM%3A&vet=1&w=800&h=572&bih=512&biw=360&q=graph%20showing%20climate%20change&ved=0ahUKEwi61rvQrfjQAhVG2SwKHXBVBQwQMwh1KFAwUA&iact=mrc&uact=8

Here's the thing, coincidences are everywhere when you look for them. They are easy to create when you can set the parameters of a graph and set the x&y scales.

Hang on hang on. Acting like this is a coincidence is absolutely disengenuous. You just accepted that carbon is at an all time high. We know that we've been pumping out lots of carbon. Would you dispute this? All we need after that is to show a link between carbon and average temp, and there you have it - man made climate change. http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Frobertscribbler.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F04%2Fice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Frobertscribbler.com%2Ftag%2Fco2%2F&docid=44RerjnIMUq0qM&tbnid=QyLpghIH3_NmVM%3A&vet=1&w=1000&h=682&bih=512&biw=360&q=carbon%20ppm%20vs%20temp&ved=0ahUKEwjyk4iwsvjQAhUF1ywKHRDSDdUQMwgcKAIwAg&iact=mrc&uact=8 All your objections seem to boil down to "it could just be coincidence". Is not persuasive, and as I said before it sounds like you don't want to accept it because of ideological issues, not because of the data.

Ideological issues? What, exactly, are you referring to? I've looked at the data, and I don't see it. As I've said, the earth cools and warms naturally, and it has since it formed. I'm not concerned about a mild temperature swing. I believe that climate change is a natural occurrence. I know you'll just pick the bits out of this that you can twist an use to further your argument, that's what you've been doing this whole time. Everything I've said gets ignored. Unless, of course, it furthers your "ideological" stance. Keep on rockin' in the free world. I'm going to keep driving my car. Keep your fingers crossed for a viable alternative to fossil fuels. It probably won't happen in our lifetime.

[i]Ideological issues? What, exactly, are you referring to? I've looked at the data, and I don't see it. As I've said, the earth cools and warms naturally, and it has since it formed. I'm not concerned about a mild temperature swing.[/i] The fact that you think your personal opinion is relevant is what amazes me here. Neither of us are in any way qualified to make a judgement call on this, that's why we defer to experts. Despite your earlier claim, there is a consensus that we are affecting the climate. [i]I believe that climate change is a natural occurrence.[/i] Again, your beliefs are not important unless you actually know what you're talking about. [i] I know you'll just pick the bits out of this that you can twist an use to further your argument, that's what you've been doing this whole time.[/i] I'm actually trying to have an honest discussion. I haven't been mean, I haven't tried to twist anything. I just don't find you saying "I don't believe it" to be relevant. [i]Everything I've said gets ignored. Unless, of course, it furthers your "ideological" stance.[/i] I've responded to everything you've said, not ignored you. I don't have an ideological stance. In fact I work in the aerospace industry, an industry that is actually responsible for massive carbon emissions. If man made climate change wasn't real it would be really great news for my chosen line of work. [i]Keep on rockin' in the free world. I'm going to keep driving my car. Keep your fingers crossed for a viable alternative to fossil fuels. It probably won't happen in our lifetime.[/i] We already have lots of alternatives and are researching more. The first country had just gone [b]entirely[/b] renewable. I don't know why Americans keep saying this whole the rest of the world innovates. That's normally what kept the US on top - being at the forefront of technology. Most interestingly though, you dodged my question. I asked if you accept that carbon emissions are at an all time high, as per the graph provided. All we need to do is demonstrate a link between co2 ppm and temperature. This link has been demonstrated. Here is a graph demonstrating that. http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Fpaleo%2Fglobalwarming%2Fimages%2Ftemperature-change-small.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Fpaleo%2Fglobalwarming%2Ftemperature-change.html&docid=27pGEEiUTymbFM&tbnid=9Z317q_BHKuyGM%3A&vet=1&w=524&h=291&bih=512&biw=360&q=link%20between%20co2%20and%20temperature&ved=0ahUKEwj_oabJvfjQAhUFWSwKHTiWCRkQMwgbKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8 In light of this, can you see why your line "I don't believe it" is so odd?

As I've said, those dramatic peaks on the graphs are manipulated by scaling. I'm not allowed to have an opinion? Actually, I am. This is America, land of the free. I can believe whatever I'd like. If you want to buy into the hysteria surrounding climate change, knock yourself out.

[i]As I've said, those dramatic peaks on the graphs are manipulated by scaling.[/i] No, they are almost exactly in line. Change the scaling and they will still correlate. [i]I'm not allowed to have an opinion? Actually, I am. This is America, land of the free. I can believe whatever I'd like. If you want to buy into the hysteria surrounding climate change, knock yourself out.[/i] You are absolutely allowed to have an opinion, but it doesn't mean anything if you don't understand what you're talking about. I can have an opinion on 'p hacking with regard to clinical trials' but it's meaningless unless I actually know what I'm talking about. You can believe what you want to believe, but at least acknowledge that you believe it because you want to, not because that's where the evidence points. And you avoided the question again, I don't see why you would do that if you could answer it. In short, you don't actually seem to have any issue with the data, you just want to ignore it.

I believe it because no one can provide solid proof. It's theory and graphs, nothing more. The graph I showed above linked drowning to the number of movies that Nicholas Cage was in. Are they actually related? No, I don't believe so. There are too many unknown variables to draw a definite conclusion. Opposite of your statement, your opinion may not be your own. You may have been force fed global warming theories for so long that you now believe it as fact. I'll not deny that man made global warming is possible, I just don't think that it's happening right now. We are just starting to understand the weather, we can only predict it correctly ~60% of the time. Even the best weather models in the world give a dozen different tracks for a hurricane. The same goes for every storm in it's early stages. In my opinion, stating that man made global warming is definitive, is foolish. It could turn out either way. In the 70's, we were warmed about the coming ice age, 30 years later, it's global warming. The inconsistencies amidst the scientific community doesn't give me much faith in their ability to accurately judge the weather. Earlier this year, people were raging about methane from cow farts. I don't know how seriously it was considered by scientists, as I dismissed it immediately. I wasn't going to waste my time researching such a preposterous idea.

And yet you so have the common sense to look at weather reports, because you know full well they're more reliable than guesses. This is the same - the experts have a much better idea of what's going on than any layman. The idea that we don't know because we thought differently once is obviously not logical. We get better and better at understanding the data. We used to think that bad humours caused illness, know we have germ theory. Just because we didn't understand it at one point doesn't mean we're still wrong. Having said that, we don't need to be 100% sure to know there appears to be a strong link between our emissions and the rise in temperature. It's highly probable that we're affecting our climate, and to carry on regardless is to risk our planet's wellbeing in face of all the evidence. This is a very dangerous thing to do. You say they're only graphs but they're graphical representations of r[b]real data[/b]. You can't dismiss the data because of the format in which it is represented. I still can't help but think you don't [b]want[/b] it to be real. Well, neither do I, but I can't just pretend it's not happening.