3 ms·

Okay. What do you say of purely geological phenomena, like glacier coverage. You can look at hydrostatic rebound, erosion patterns, etc to see where glaciers

Okay. What do you say of purely geological phenomena, like glacier coverage. You can look at hydrostatic rebound, erosion patterns, etc to see where glaciers usually are. And you just have to look at pictures within the last 50 years to see where they're not. Much harder data. Same for ecological ones like flora and fauna existing in and being habituated in environments that are no longer very compatible climatologically. And for anyone in their forties or older, there's always your own damn lying eyes. There's a billion pieces of supporting evidences for global warming. As far as I have ever heard, there's not a single piece of evidence against it, just piles and piles of FUD thrown at each model that tries to explain it.

tpainton 13y ago
Noone is arguing that there WAS a warming trend. The onous to prove its due to humans lies on the chicken littles. It has not yet been accomplished.
- leot 13y ago
  Actually, the parent was arguing that we can't trust the one figure that is in TFA. It's a picture of a warming trend. Surprisingly enough, the fear, uncertainty, and doubt about anthropogenic warming claims have come from people who receive money from carbon-intensive industry groups. It's these people who keep on claiming that it "hasn't been accomplished". And since FUD is easy to do, the FUD-purveyors are winning in the public sphere. What kind of evidence would convince you, exactly?
- throwaway9848 13y ago
  Actually, everyone but you acknowledges the warming trend, even groups that oppose AGW theories. The fashion du jour is to blame it on volcanoes or solar output cycles. Catch up!
- gnaritas 13y ago
  No one needs to prove it's due to humans; it doesn't matter what it's due to, it only matters that it's bad for us and we can do something about it. Natural is not equal to good, claiming it matters if humans caused it is as stupid as refusing to stop an asteroid from hitting us because it's not a man made disaster.
  - mhartl 13y ago
    Heh. I've been using the same asteroid example for years.

tpainton 13y ago

Noone is arguing that there WAS a warming trend. The onous to prove its due to humans lies on the chicken littles. It has not yet been accomplished.

leot 13y ago
Actually, the parent was arguing that we can't trust the one figure that is in TFA. It's a picture of a warming trend. Surprisingly enough, the fear, uncertainty, and doubt about anthropogenic warming claims have come from people who receive money from carbon-intensive industry groups. It's these people who keep on claiming that it "hasn't been accomplished". And since FUD is easy to do, the FUD-purveyors are winning in the public sphere. What kind of evidence would convince you, exactly?
throwaway9848 13y ago
Actually, everyone but you acknowledges the warming trend, even groups that oppose AGW theories. The fashion du jour is to blame it on volcanoes or solar output cycles. Catch up!
gnaritas 13y ago
No one needs to prove it's due to humans; it doesn't matter what it's due to, it only matters that it's bad for us and we can do something about it. Natural is not equal to good, claiming it matters if humans caused it is as stupid as refusing to stop an asteroid from hitting us because it's not a man made disaster.
- mhartl 13y ago
  Heh. I've been using the same asteroid example for years.