How many times must I ask for proof and not get any before it's reasonable to conclude that they don't have it

Question

Five? Ten? Twenty?

I'll give you buggers 48 hours.

Avail I'm not the one trying to impose limits and costs on other people - they are - don't you think they should have to prove their case before being able to use it as a pretext for imposing limits they've sought for countless other reasons for decades, long before global warming was the issue du jour?

Bob, again, proof that it is warmer than it was 100 years ago is not proof that we caused it. Proof that this or that person or group SAYS we cause it is not proof that we do. Some website that basically says skeptics are stupid without providing any proof of anything is not proving that we cause it.

Stop dodging the question.

Put up or shut up.

You didn't put up.

Fred I've asked a simple question - what's the proof of something that so many people say is so settled?

And they offer everything BUT proof.

Insults, intimidation, proof that it's warmer but not proof that it's us (again something I'd love to have gotten away with when I was prosecuting - "your honor, I can't prove the defendant killed her but if you let me prove twice that she's dead, that should be enough to convict!").

This is really easy to understand - I ask for something, they don't give it, how many times do I have to ask and not get it before it is reasonable to conclude that they don't have it?

It's now 47 hours.

Tick, tick, tick....

Trevor like you say, I've been given proof that global warming is real - - - which is NOT proof that we're causing it.

YES, it's warmer than it was 100 years ago.

That's NOT PROOF THAT WE CAUSE IT.

Look this is really not hard to understand.

Eric you're right - the "how to talk to a skeptic" sites never provide affirmative proof of warming and often provide misleading information about many of the points that skeptics point out.

The only evidence of past warming that they ever address is that Britain grew wine grapes from 1000 to the 1200s. They point out that Britain grows more wine grapes now. Yeah, after 1000 years of breeding for colder climates and improvements in growing techniques, you can grow wine grapes in Britain, Vermont - lots of places.

.....Just not the same grapes grown in Provence using 11th century growing techniques....

.....Which they DID in Britain in the 11th century.....

Seriously, folks, the fact that Mann would even MAKE that ridiculous argument should tell you a lot.

Dana again, as we've discussed, the FACT of prior, greater, longer, more severe, warming periods just since the last Ice Age when CO2 levels were lower, while it doesn't DISPROVE AGW, does mean that you cannot infer causation this time just because the Industrial Revolution started about 70 years before the present warming began.

Does CO2 trap heat? Yes. Have we increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes - by 1/11,000th of the atmosphere over 200 years.

So on some level are we contributing? Sure. Material? Measurable?

Nobody knows.

And the fact that we cannot prove that it's something else doesn't mean that we've proven that it's us - again, I'd love to have had that standard when I was prosecuting.

We can't prove what it was LAST TIME EITHER.

Keith stop calling the present warmth unprecedented, that's a lie and you know it.

It's not even a matter of unprecedented within the earth's history, we're talking wtihin recorded human history.

I collect antiques and artefacts and I own a few things that were around when it was warmer than it is today.

You haven't address one singe example of the several examples I gave you of evidence of warmer climes 1000 years ago, or addressed why the fact that one person's model, which fails to pick up the present warming, also doesn't pick up all of the medieval warming, should be taken over the physical evidence.

We're only 3 hours in but you're not looking too good, I have to say.

Grizz, proving that we emit CO2 is also not proof that our CO2 emissions are a material driver of the most recent of several similar warm periods all of the rest of which happened when CO2 levels were lower.

It DOES matter who is to blame because if it's not the activities you seek to limit, then you have no basis to limit them!

John I appreciate the articles but I do not want to get into a p---ing match between groups of people who say it's us or say it's not us - - saying it doesn't make it so, saying it 1000 times doesn't make it so, circling together the people who've said it in the past and signing a written declaration that it's us doesn't make it so.

And that's all they have. There is no actual proof that it's us. They just can't prove that it's something else. Just like they can't prove what it was LAST time - and they're not going to get proof if they spend their time trying to rewrite the climate history to pretend that it DIDN'T happen last time, which they can't logically do without either saying that the events that have for 1000 years been attributed to warmer climates are explained as having been faked or having happened for some other reason.

You can't vote for facts. You have to prove them. Showing that others believe it doesn't make it so.

Crabby, that answer might have been clever the first time, it's getting old now.

Put up or shut up.

44 hours left!!!!

....tick, tick, tick.....

Answer 1

You ask once. You ask a second time (with a specific date for a requested reponse) in case they got side tracked or forgot. You ask a third time with the clarification that this is your third and final request and that a lack of response by a specific timeline will be taken as notification that proof is not available. Then it is reasonable to conclude they don't have it - isn't it?

Answer 2

You just don't get it do you?

It doesn't matter who or what is to blame. The UN has enough facts to support the concept (see link 1 to UN climate change report ... it shows a correlation between CO2 production and human population growth with dramatic increases in both in the last 40 years), so you not believing it exists is not a function of the information provided, you are just too scared to admit it exists; that's normal.

In 1997 the UN said "OK, this thing Global Warming exists but you haven't proven what causes it. We want proof!"

Sound familiar?

Two years later, in 1999, they said "We're convinced!" So people with a lot more resources than you or me checked the validity of the statement "people cause Global Warming" and found it to be true.

You're just eight years behind the UN, that's all. Cynicism is healthy to a point. It's time to be more open miinded though.

Don't worry about the blame, that just wastes more time we don't have.

The second piece of information you need to understand is the potential magnitude of what can happen if the trend continues. I have already done some calculations and it is the second link. It is the amount of excess energy in the biosphere already...and growing rapidly.

You put forward a challenge to show you the proof. Now I, in turn, challenge YOU to do something positive about it!

Answer 3

Since you don't specify in your question, I presume you accept that global warming exists and want proof that humans are the main cause?

You're not going to get 100% certain proof of this, because it doesn't exist. Something has to cause global warming, and scientific models have ruled out natural causes as causing nearly enough of the temperature change.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have steadily increased since 1960, as seen in this plot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Clearly the cause for this steady increase is human sources, as we have increased our use of fossil fuels. As a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is a contributor to global warming, so clearly humans have contributed to it to some degree. The average temperature on Earth is higher than at any point in the past 2000 years and rising very fast, as seen in this plot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Something has to have caused this rise. Global warming skeptics attribute it to "natural causes", but what natural causes? You can't just wave a wand and say it's "natural" so it doesn't matter, because even "natural" causes are concrete, like variations in the sun and volcanic eruptions. These have been modelled by climatologists and shown not to have caused the recent global warming. In fact, particulates from volcanic eruptions in the atmosphere block solar radiation and cause global cooling, as happened in the 1970s when there were an unusual amount of eruptions combined with excessive human aerosol emissions.

The best way to answer your question is to say that the only way to accurately model the recent global warming is to factor in human emissions as a major contributor. Our emissions of greenhouse gases have caused a greenhouse effect, which in turn increases water vapor in the atmosphere, among other feedback loops, which in turn causes more global warming, etc.

If you're interested in going further into climate modelling than I can do here, read up about it. You can get started at Wikipedia and go directly to the climate models on the web, if you're really interested. I suspect that's a big IF.

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

*Edited to add* if you don't accept Keith P's evidence, then just stop pretending that any degree of proof will convince you.

Answer 4

EDIT: Let me make the point again. This can't be proved in a short post. I've provided the references to the scientific literature that constitute the proof. It is necessary to go to the library and read them. Take an analogy. Could I "prove" quantum mechanics in a Yahoo answers post? END EDIT

I can't prove it in a few paragraphs. This is serious science. You'll need to do some serious work, looking up the references (probably in a college library), and reading them thoughtfully. Will you do that?

Here are two good summaries, with detailed references to peer reviewed articles with peer reviewed data. In other words, proof.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

More data contained here, with more references.

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Of course, for most of us, the fact that the vast majority of scientists who've studied this for many years, accept that it's real and mostly caused by us, is further proof.

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

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Supporting a bad theory is not a good career move in science.

Bottom lines, BECAUSE OF THE DATA WHICH OTHERS HAVE STUDIED IN DETAIL:

"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 and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr, Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Honestly at this point being a skeptic on global warming is like saying the Earth is 6000 years old or that NASA faked the moon landings. That's not an insult, it simply refers to the fact that you pretty much have to deny science to do it.

And citing a few skeptics isn't proof of anything either. They have no "traction" in the scientific community, because the data shows they're wrong. For the general public, most of their arguments are countered here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Answer 5

the sum of the sq on the hypotenuse of a rt angle triangle = the sum of the squares on the other 2 adjacent sides
the proof is in drawing it out with a ruler. QED

what do you want to prove, or disprove? 5,10,20?
.
As this is a global warming forum I'll hazard you just have poor communication skills, and the key is to discover how to listen, calmly, breath, listen, have some good simple food and a drink, go and meet some people & try and make some friends. Think about what your position is, and how you might appear to others, is that how you really want us to think of you?

thank you for the 48 hours.

Answer 6

The proof is there but you are blind to it. Just read what the people above have provided and find peace with yourself and stop making trouble. The mere premise that people who aren't experts cannot provide you with research/evidence beyond their means automatically negates a worldwide accepted belief is bafflingly arrogant. I hope you, and people of your mindset realize the fallacy in your argument before it is too late(30 years). Besides, when was lack of proof ever the basis for not grasping for straws and launching unjustified actions? The Iraq war? Countless Christian Crusades in history? If so, why not disprove WMDs, terrorism, and God now for that matter.

Answer 7

Lets look at the link provided how to talk to a climate sceptic. Reminds me of similar sites, how to talk to a Christian, how to talk to a Muslim.

i noticed that there are no references to the fact that empirical evidence shows a better correlation between sun spots and temperatures than co2 and temperatures. Another site only addresses the solar energy, but does makes no references to the solar winds and its impact on cosmic rays in the forming of clouds. There is also no reference to increase in Hurricanes, polar bears dying, malaria etc.

But lets take the heading "What about mid-century cooling?"
This is what they write. "During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution." Notice the words perhaps. Perhaps is a word used to express uncertainty. Now look at the graph of aerosols, or sulphates. I see no correlation between temperatures and sulphates, high levels of sulphates in the early part of the century, low levels of co2 but temperatures still increased. Why?
Jan Veizer realizing that this explanation was not flying in the scientific community, went out to prove that co2 indeed was the cause of global warming and wanted to prove this anomaly. After ten years of his own research and countless studies he came up with this conclusion. solar activity has been the “climate driver” for billions of years. While the climate can be affected by the many factors , it is the sun and its effects that have caused changes in climate for 4 billion years. Dr Veizer first set out to prove that CO2 was historically what caused changes in climate, but noted, “Personally, this last decade has been a trying period because of the years of internal struggle between what I wanted to believe and where the empirical record and its logic were leading me.”

Answer 8

1. When coming out of an ice age, the earth typically warms by 4° to 7° C in a period of about 5000 years. That's a warming rate of 0.14° per century, or less.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf (page 21).
In the last century, earth has warmed by 0.7°, a rate at least five times faster than any natural warming.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

2. This unprecedented rate of warmth exactly coinicides with an unprecedented rise in the level of CO2 in earth's atmosphere. The level of background CO2 (taken far from cities) was stable for centuries prior to the industrial revolution at about 280 ppm. It currently stands at 383 ppm, a 37% increase -- and is increasing exponentially with no end in sight.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html

3. The current rise in CO2 is due entirely to human burning of fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the air. Furthermore, there are isotopic signatures in atmospheric CO2 prove that it is indeed coming from the burning of fossil fuels and not any other source.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

4. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, responsible for between 9% and 26% of the total greenhouse effect on earth.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

5. By increasing the level of CO2, we therefore must be increasing the greenhouse effect of CO2 as well. The amount of "forcing" (energy increase) caused by increasing CO2 can be measured in the lab is therefore known. The increase in anthropogenic CO2 has caused an increase of about 1.7 Watts per square meter of longwave (infrared, i.e. heat) radiation trapped at the earth's surface.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1...

6. This increase of 1.7 W/m² should cause an increased average world temperature of 0.8° ±0.4° C in that same time – which is what we have actually observed (see point 1).
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm#635

7. Ice ages and interglacial periods are caused by "orbital forcing", small changes in earth's orbit caused by pertubations of other planets and the Moon. Since planetary positions can be computed for thousands of years into the past and future, we also know that orbital forcing caused a temperature peak about 6000 years ago (the Holocene Maximum) and has been cooling the planet since then.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4434/943

8. Solar activity has been overall stable over the last three 11-year cycles, and is actually down from the mid-20th century peak in 1957.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsolarirradiance.html#composite

9. Since natural causes can be ruled out and anthropogenic causes exactly account for the increase, the scientific case is extremely solid. When the IPCC wrote that there was a 90% chance that humans were causing global warming, many -- perhaps most -- of IPCC's climate scientists objected. But they objected because they thought the 90% confidence UNDERSTATED the amount of evidence available.

Answer 9

The earth is heating and cooling itself according to its natural climate cycles.

Co2 emmissions? Are you kidding me? Was it all of the soccer Mom's driving their SUV's that ended the ice age?

Same people, different argument. Anti-capitalistic socialists (Al Gore) push this type of argument to further their own personal agenda.

Answer 10

The only "limits and costs' anyone has proposed--other than a cap on pollution--is coming from the efforts of oil and coal companies to limit use of alternative energy--and the only costs involved are the gigabucks its costing consumers who have to pay throught the nose for fossil fuels instead of having access to cheaper, clean energy.

As for prooof--there are hundreeds f reputable science sitees on the Internet. If you haven't seen the proof, its because you never bothered to look--which is your own d~mned fault--noone else's.