In response to Al Gore's blizzard comments.

“The end is nigh! The world is headed for a global ecological catastrophe! Telltale signs are everywhere and we need to make a change, now!” These are some of the prominent ideas from the 24 June 1974 issue of the Times Magazine.  My attitude towards global warming, or global climate change, is one hundred percent skeptical.   Looking at the data, there is only one right answer to whether global warming exists: “We don’t know.”   My belief is that there is too much uncertainty in our knowledge of weather and climate change to make definitive interpretations on future global weather patterns.

 What has helped install the idea of global warming is the measured increase in global temperatures since the 1980s.   While it is clear the temperatures did rise, this climate trend could have multiple interpretations. Scientists supporting the global warming theory state that the cause of this temperature rise is the increase of greenhouse gases, especially from industrial sources.  However, I believe this is just one interpretation of the data. An examination of global average temperature estimates for the past several hundred years reveals that temperatures have been rising and falling for hundreds of years.   Some scientists suggest that a rise in greenhouse gases may be a side effect of the earth’s natural climate fluctuation toward a season of higher global temperatures rather than the cause. Other scientists propose that the temperatures correlate more closely with the behavior of sunspots than the emission of greenhouse gases While our consumption of fossil fuels has significantly increased, I believe that it cannot be concretely correlated with the increasing temperature.  

Because of the uncertainty of climate science and the variety of interpretations from the data, I believe that it is foolish to decide to follow one theory of thought without concrete evidence.   It is irrational to make political and legal decisions affecting the livelihood of millions of Americans based on one interpretation of climate data, especially if the suggested interventions are unlikely to make much of a difference.  Many people blame the perceived global warming on other human beings consumption of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.   While our consumption of carbon dioxide has increased, the majority of carbon dioxide (97%) comes from forest fires, decaying plants, and volcanoes.  So, if seven billion people in the world (which includes all the factories in the world), why the huge focus on the three percent?   How much of the three percent is America?  

The cost is all too high.   Global warming enthusiasts want us to give up our way of life and many of our comforts for something that may not be happening.   Therefore, our government has no right to enforce businesses and individuals to change their way of life, likely causing many Americans to become bankrupted and jobless, based on one interpretation of climate change data. While minor policy changes may be permissible, such as giving tax credits for “green” construction and business practices, extreme policy changes are inappropriate until we have more concrete evidence that global warming exists. In my life, I will make personal changes to my lifestyle dependent upon the cost of the changes.

Another concern is that I’m convinced the global warming issue is being used as a spearhead for political agendas supporting global governance.  Redistribution of wealth has been a phrase commonly used with environmentalist.  A news story from 18 November 2010 stated that Ottmar Edenhofer said, “climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth,” and “it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”   Americans shouldn’t be forced to pay for climate change that may or may not be happening, especially if climate change policy is being twisted to be used for political aims.  

 It comes down to the question of how does one take control of a county whose population is ingrained on idea liberty? Consensus science holds the key. Through mass media global warming supporters relay their ‘scientific’ message of global warming as a fact rather than one of the theories. Their message in one of hate, fear, and danger; not a message of dispassionate reason and logic which considers all the evidence.    Scientists who question their wisdom is removed and mocked.  Global warming supporters have settled the facts and have come to a consensus, but they forget consensus is not science.  

“The end is nigh! The world is headed for a global ecological catastrophe! Telltale signs are everywhere and we need to make a change, now!” These are some of the prominent ideas from the 24 June 1974 issue of the Times Magazine.  My attitude towards global warming, or global climate change, is one hundred percent skeptical.   Looking at the data, there is only one right answer to whether global warming exists: “We don’t know.”   My belief is that there is too much uncertainty in our knowledge of weather and climate change to make definitive interpretations on future global weather patterns.

 What has helped install the idea of global warming is the measured increase in global temperatures since the 1980s.   While it is clear the temperatures did rise, this climate trend could have multiple interpretations. Scientists supporting the global warming theory state that the cause of this temperature rise is the increase of greenhouse gases, especially from industrial sources.  However, I believe this is just one interpretation of the data. An examination of global average temperature estimates for the past several hundred years reveals that temperatures have been rising and falling for hundreds of years.   Some scientists suggest that a rise in greenhouse gases may be a side effect of the earth’s natural climate fluctuation toward a season of higher global temperatures rather than the cause. Other scientists propose that the temperatures correlate more closely with the behavior of sunspots than the emission of greenhouse gases While our consumption of fossil fuels has significantly increased, I believe that it cannot be concretely correlated with the increasing temperature.  

Because of the uncertainty of climate science and the variety of interpretations from the data, I believe that it is foolish to decide to follow one theory of thought without concrete evidence.   It is irrational to make political and legal decisions affecting the livelihood of millions of Americans based on one interpretation of climate data, especially if the suggested interventions are unlikely to make much of a difference.  Many people blame the perceived global warming on other human beings consumption of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.   While our consumption of carbon dioxide has increased, the majority of carbon dioxide (97%) comes from forest fires, decaying plants, and volcanoes.  So, if seven billion people in the world (which includes all the factories in the world), why the huge focus on the three percent?   How much of the three percent is America?  

The cost is all too high.   Global warming enthusiasts want us to give up our way of life and many of our comforts for something that may not be happening.   Therefore, our government has no right to enforce businesses and individuals to change their way of life, likely causing many Americans to become bankrupted and jobless, based on one interpretation of climate change data. While minor policy changes may be permissible, such as giving tax credits for “green” construction and business practices, extreme policy changes are inappropriate until we have more concrete evidence that global warming exists. In my life, I will make personal changes to my lifestyle dependent upon the cost of the changes.

Another concern is that I’m convinced the global warming issue is being used as a spearhead for political agendas supporting global governance.  Redistribution of wealth has been a phrase commonly used with environmentalist.  A news story from 18 November 2010 stated that Ottmar Edenhofer said, “climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth,” and “it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”   Americans shouldn’t be forced to pay for climate change that may or may not be happening, especially if climate change policy is being twisted to be used for political aims.  

 It comes down to the question of how does one take control of a county whose population is ingrained on idea liberty? Consensus science holds the key. Through mass media global warming supporters relay their ‘scientific’ message of global warming as a fact rather than one of the theories. Their message in one of hate, fear, and danger; not a message of dispassionate reason and logic which considers all the evidence.    Scientists who question their wisdom is removed and mocked.  Global warming supporters have settled the facts and have come to a consensus, but they forget consensus is not science.  

A Global warming post apocalyptic world....sounds awesome...BRING THAT SHIT ON!
But seriously,even if it is 100% true,and if it happens, humans are very adaptable, a couple of 100 years and we will be forced to change due to evolution :)

" A Global warming post apocalyptic world....sounds awesome...BRING THAT SHIT ON! But seriously,even if it is 100% true,and if it happens, humans are very adaptable, a couple of 100 years and we will be forced to change due to evolution :) "

" A Global warming post apocalyptic world....sounds awesome...BRING THAT SHIT ON! But seriously,even if it is 100% true,and if it happens, humans are very adaptable, a couple of 100 years and we will be forced to change due to evolution :) "

Fun fact about Global Warning. Did you know that on average the Earth's temperature is actually cooler than it should be.

Global Warming is a lame apocalypse, no zombies, no evil robots, no mutant animals, or breaks in the space time continuum. Not even a single god damn Alien, i mean comeon! 

" Global Warming is a lame apocalypse, no zombies, no evil robots, no mutant animals, or breaks in the space time continuum. Not even a single god damn Alien, i mean comeon!  "

People who don't belive in global warming are retarded. 
 I used to be one of you.  Thank goodness i'm not retarted anymore.

if you don't think cutting down huge amounts of rainforests and filling the atmosphere with toxic chemicals is changing the planet.... 
You must be retarted.

"if you don't think cutting down huge amounts of rainforests and filling the atmosphere with toxic chemicals is changing the planet.... You must be retarted. "

"  

“The end is nigh! The world is headed for a global ecological catastrophe! Telltale signs are everywhere and we need to make a change, now!” These are some of the prominent ideas from the 24 June 1974 issue of the Times Magazine.  My attitude towards global warming, or global climate change, is one hundred percent skeptical.   Looking at the data, there is only one right answer to whether global warming exists: “We don’t know.”   My belief is that there is too much uncertainty in our knowledge of weather and climate change to make definitive interpretations on future global weather patterns.

" 98% of climatologists agree we're speeding up climate change.  Who am I to disagree? "

Thing is we can only have a definitive answer on global warming once it has actually happened or not happened. It would then obviously be much too late to take any sort of preventative action. 
So the real question is whether we should take preventative measures based on the best data that we have or whether we should just ignore it and hope that our models are false.
 
Personally I couldn't care less about how much it costs to do something about it now. The world will be screwed either way once we run out of fossil fuels anyway so why not get working on that new tech now?

"Thing is we can only have a definitive answer on global warming once it has actually happened or not happened. It would then obviously be much too late to take any sort of preventative action.  So the real question is whether we should take preventative measures based on the best data that we have or whether we should just ignore it and hope that our models are false.  Personally I couldn't care less about how much it costs to do something about it now. The world will be screwed either way once we run out of fossil fuels anyway so why not get working on that new tech now? "

" @Lyniz said:

"if you don't think cutting down huge amounts of rainforests and filling the atmosphere with toxic chemicals is changing the planet.... You must be retarted. "

if you can't spell retarded, you must be retarded "

People who argue against global warming are missing the point. If you keep pumping toxic shit into the air, if you keep bulldozing and paving over the entire fucking world, if you keep dumping your garbage wherever you feel like, you are fucking with our planet. Arguing over whether any of that causes climate change is like arguing over whether killing your neighbors puppy is why your house smells bad. You still killed a puppy.

There may be actual global warming. The part I don't buy is that it is completely made by us "evil humans". I mean, that is the issue Al and all his friends have been misinforming the public about. Before I relegate myself to living in a cave with no electricity and running water, I want definite proof. The previous proof was amazingly flawed and corrupted. Al Gore even backed out of most of his claims from that massive piece of ego trip he called a documentary. I want undeniable unflawed proof that the Earth is in a long term trend of warming and that it is not caused by anything other than mankind's mere existance on the planet.

Global warming? Then WHY IS IT SO COLD?! AHAHA HURRRR DURRRRR *watches fox news*

" There may be actual global warming. The part I don't buy is that it is completely made by us "evil humans". I mean, that is the issue Al and all his friends have been misinforming the public about. Before I relegate myself to living in a cave with no electricity and running water, I want definite proof. The previous proof was amazingly flawed and corrupted. Al Gore even backed out of most of his claims from that massive piece of ego trip he called a documentary. I want undeniable unflawed proof that the Earth is in a long term trend of warming and that it is not caused by anything other than mankind's mere existance on the planet. "

" @l4wd0g said:

"  

“The end is nigh! The world is headed for a global ecological catastrophe! Telltale signs are everywhere and we need to make a change, now!” These are some of the prominent ideas from the 24 June 1974 issue of the Times Magazine.  My attitude towards global warming, or global climate change, is one hundred percent skeptical.   Looking at the data, there is only one right answer to whether global warming exists: “We don’t know.”   My belief is that there is too much uncertainty in our knowledge of weather and climate change to make definitive interpretations on future global weather patterns.

Then I would wager you know little about the mechanics behind the theory. Do you know how ice cores are tested? Do you know why? Do you know why ice cores are so important? Do you understand the variables? Do you understand the non-variables?   Do you understand the importance of satellite information pertaining to things such as carbon uptake, ozone levels, ocean and wind currents and their factors (such as the Pacific Gyre) and so on and so forth?  To come forward and say you don't believe in something because you don't understand the facts is avoiding looking ignorant for a chance at looking stupid. Just saying. "

" 98% of climatologists agree we're speeding up climate change.  Who am I to disagree? "

" I want undeniable unflawed proof that the Earth is in a long term trend of warming and that it is not caused by anything other than mankind's mere existance on the planet. "

so u think animals are cutting down trees and polluting the atmosphere? "

Global Warming exists, anyone who denies that is a fucking fool. But, anyone who assumes to know the real reason is just as foolish. "

" @Fajita_Jim said:

" @l4wd0g said:

"  

“The end is nigh! The world is headed for a global ecological catastrophe! Telltale signs are everywhere and we need to make a change, now!” These are some of the prominent ideas from the 24 June 1974 issue of the Times Magazine.  My attitude towards global warming, or global climate change, is one hundred percent skeptical.   Looking at the data, there is only one right answer to whether global warming exists: “We don’t know.”   My belief is that there is too much uncertainty in our knowledge of weather and climate change to make definitive interpretations on future global weather patterns.

Then I would wager you know little about the mechanics behind the theory. Do you know how ice cores are tested? Do you know why? Do you know why ice cores are so important? Do you understand the variables? Do you understand the non-variables?   Do you understand the importance of satellite information pertaining to things such as carbon uptake, ozone levels, ocean and wind currents and their factors (such as the Pacific Gyre) and so on and so forth?  To come forward and say you don't believe in something because you don't understand the facts is avoiding looking ignorant for a chance at looking stupid. Just saying. "

You sure did ask a lot of questions. I wonder, do you have the answers?  

" @danimal_furry: @danimal_furry said:

" There may be actual global warming. The part I don't buy is that it is completely made by us "evil humans". I mean, that is the issue Al and all his friends have been misinforming the public about. Before I relegate myself to living in a cave with no electricity and running water, I want definite proof. The previous proof was amazingly flawed and corrupted. Al Gore even backed out of most of his claims from that massive piece of ego trip he called a documentary. I want undeniable unflawed proof that the Earth is in a long term trend of warming and that it is not caused by anything other than mankind's mere existance on the planet. "

so u think animals are cutting down trees and polluting the atmosphere? "

" @evildeadron said:

" @Lyniz said:

"if you don't think cutting down huge amounts of rainforests and filling the atmosphere with toxic chemicals is changing the planet.... You must be retarted. "

if you can't spell retarded, you must be retarded "

     Touché, but I believe my point is still valid.   ps. I'm not an english major. "

" @Lyniz said:

" @danimal_furry:  @danimal_furry said:

" There may be actual global warming. The part I don't buy is that it is completely made by us "evil humans". I mean, that is the issue Al and all his friends have been misinforming the public about. Before I relegate myself to living in a cave with no electricity and running water, I want definite proof. The previous proof was amazingly flawed and corrupted. Al Gore even backed out of most of his claims from that massive piece of ego trip he called a documentary. I want undeniable unflawed proof that the Earth is in a long term trend of warming and that it is not caused by anything other than mankind's mere existance on the planet. "

so u think animals are cutting down trees and polluting the atmosphere? "

You seem to have this idea that all the trees are suddenly going to disappear because we cut them all down, and the earth's atmosphere is in a slow decline. Since 1980, the national average of Co2 content in atmosphere has steadily dropped  http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/carbon.html and I can tell you it's not because of Al Gore. The United States and European Union have for years continued to improve manufacturing technology to reduce pollution, and they will continue to do so until the end of time (or an apocalypse). As for deforestation, it hasn't been an issue for 40 years. There are numerous tree farms where trees are planted and harvest just like any other crop and have a fixed supply. You need to get yourself informed, like immediately.  "

I am for the protection of the environment and all of nature. What I am not for is the constant demonizing of the human race by liberal guilt over every topic under the sun. It is a childish and ignorant tactic.

" Fun fact about Global Warning. Did you know that on average the Earth's temperature is actually cooler than it should be. "

No matter what global warming says, the fact we drive cars powered by small explosions and throw so much shit away is barbaric in this age of technological acheivement

Where are you global warming? Chicago is in need of your help

" @Fajita_Jim: You copped out again. Where are these answers. Back up your claims, sir. "

The only sure thing about climate change are the new carbon taxes we will have to pay. 
Which is part of the reason for smart meters coming out - which were at CES this year - Tested had a video

" @Getz said:

" @Fajita_Jim: You copped out again. Where are these answers. Back up your claims, sir. "

Are you that fucking lazy? Is Google so far from your house you can't reach it with a mouse? WTF, child?  Ice cores sampling allows us access to a record of the atmospheric past. Since snow is mostly air (including its contaminants such as ash, carbon dioxide, radioactive elements, etc.) , as it gets compressed into ice this air collects in bubbles and becomes trapped, creating a semi-permanent record of atmospheric conditions.  The problem isn't necessarily that the mean global temp is rising, it's that it's rising so much, so quickly. It takes thousands of generations of any life form for any adaptive trait to become dominant, and when the climate is changing so rapidly in the space of just a handful of generations, it isn't such a pretty picture.  And it's not just the stuff we put into the atmosphere, it's also that we've destroyed the biodiversity that could deal with removing it. When you burn a tree, you're releasing carbon into the atmosphere that had been removed from it by the tree. Plants don't get their mass from the nutrients they suck from their roots, they get (most of) their mass from the carbon removed from the air. That C in the CO2 that the plant breathes in is what it needs to physically make more plant. Trees are carbon storehouses.  Remove whole rainforests as we have been and suddenly not only have you released thousands of years of built-up carbon back into the atmosphere (not even counting fossil carbon fuels like oil or coal), but you have removed the ability for the planet to remove that carbon.  Ice cores record all of this, and the evidence , factual as it is, is only disputed by people who don't know enough about the subject to form an educated opinion, so they just spout of political talking points, as you have. "

" The only sure thing about climate change are the new carbon taxes we will have to pay.  Which is part of the reason for smart meters coming out - which were at CES this year - Tested had a video "

" @Fajita_Jim said:

" @l4wd0g said:

"  

“The end is nigh! The world is headed for a global ecological catastrophe! Telltale signs are everywhere and we need to make a change, now!” These are some of the prominent ideas from the 24 June 1974 issue of the Times Magazine.  My attitude towards global warming, or global climate change, is one hundred percent skeptical.   Looking at the data, there is only one right answer to whether global warming exists: “We don’t know.”   My belief is that there is too much uncertainty in our knowledge of weather and climate change to make definitive interpretations on future global weather patterns.

Then I would wager you know little about the mechanics behind the theory. Do you know how ice cores are tested? Do you know why? Do you know why ice cores are so important? Do you understand the variables? Do you understand the non-variables?   Do you understand the importance of satellite information pertaining to things such as carbon uptake, ozone levels, ocean and wind currents and their factors (such as the Pacific Gyre) and so on and so forth?  To come forward and say you don't believe in something because you don't understand the facts is avoiding looking ignorant for a chance at looking stupid. Just saying. "

You sure did ask a lot of questions. I wonder, do you have the answers?  
@FiestaUnicorn said:

" 98% of climatologists agree we're speeding up climate change.  Who am I to disagree? "

All of those climatologists get paid to do research on the climate. Their jobs depend on having quantifiable data. They can tell you that CO2 levels have steadily risen at the same time as the Earth's temperature, but they cannot tell you that the two things are linked. Correlation is not causation; a logical conclusion that everyone should but does not accept. What they also fail to mention is that the current trend of rising temperatures started LONG before the industrial revolution, and that it is just as likely that the Earth was going to slowly rise in temperature without human beings at all. Global Warming exists, anyone who denies that is a fucking fool. But, anyone who assumes to know the real reason is just as foolish. "

The climate of the Holocene

The last glacial maximum occurred 15 Ka (thousand years ago). The most recent glacial retreat is still going on. We call the temporal period of this retreat the Holocene epoch. This page discusses the climate changes within the current interglacial period. I am leaving in a lot of information about how human civilizations were affected by these climate changes, but we will not have time to discuss the human impacts in much detail. I will point out what you should know for the exam.

Note from the class handout (labeled Figure 7.1 -- global temperature variations) that global average temperatures over the Holocene period have been quite small compared to the ice age cycles, especially over the last 10,000 years. However, even these small variations in global average temperature have been significant in terms of their effects on human development and civilations as described below.

Temperatures of the Last 18,000 years

Warming of Earth and glacial retreat began about 14,000 years ago (12,000 BC). The warming was shortly interrupted by a sudden cooling at about 10,000 - 8500 BC known as the Younger-Dryas. The warming resumed by 8500 BC. The younger-dryas event is significant because it shows that even during an otherwise tranquil period (the current interglacial), rapid climate shifts can still occur. You should know the important points listed at the bottom of this Younger-Dryas Page

By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period either the Climatic Optimum or the Holocene Optimum.

During the climatic optimum many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region. 6,000 years ago the Sahara was far more fertile than today and supported large herds of animals, as evidenced by the Tassili N'Ajjer frescoes of Algeria (right).

You should be familar with the name, timing, and significance to human civilization for the Climatic or Holocene Optimum. Interestingly, you will notice that events labeled "optimum" correspond to relatively warm periods

From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea level today.

A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.

The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD, although Global average temperature remained relatively warm until about 600 AD. From 600-900 AD (The "Dark Ages"), global average temperatures were significantly colder than today. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.

The period 1100 - 1300 AD has been called either the Little Climatic Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum.

Hvalsey church, in southwest Greenland, is the best-preserved artifact of Norse Greenlanders, who mysteriously disappeared in the 15th century.

The cold winters of the little Ice Age were recorded in Dutch and Flemish paintings such as Hunters in the Snow by Pieter Bruegel (c. 1525-69)

During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels.

A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s. Horrendous floods devastated China in 1332 (reported to have killed several million people).

A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. During this period occurred the abandonment of settlements in the Southwest United States, including those in Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde. Tree ring analysis has identified a period of "no" rain between 1276 and 1299 in these areas.

From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age.

During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1 degree Celsius lower than today.

Extreme weather during this period might have played an important role in the genesis of the Black Death (bubonic plague).

The Little Ice Age was not continuously cold: the 13th-14th centuries were cold; followed by an interval of more favorable conditions; then a return of more severe weather mid 16th-mid 19th centuries.

During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

You should know the information and points made below about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. For theses events we have very nice written historical records.

During the Medieval warm period (1100-1300 AD), global average temperatures were only 1°C (or less) warmer than in 1900, but in Europe:

•              The Vikings established a colony on Greenland

o              Farming was productive on Greenland (has not been productive again since that time)

o              At end of period, the Viking colony was lost to sea ice expansion

•              Grape vines were grown in England

•              Wheat was grown in Norway (64° North latitude)

During the Little ice age (1550-1850 AD), global average temperatures were only 1°C (or less) cooler than in 1900, but in Europe:

•              Re-advance of glaciers down mountains (valley houses in Swiss Alps were covered)

•              Canals in Holland froze for three months straight. This rarely occurred before or after this period.

•              Agricultural productivity dropped significantly, even becoming impossible in parts of northern Europe.

These events provide evidence that:

1.             Even seemingly small changes in global average surface temperatures can be quite significant, especially on regional scales

2.             Natural variations in climate have occurred in the recent past. In these examples, the changes occurred over 200 year periods.

" @Lyniz said:

" @danimal_furry: @danimal_furry said:

" There may be actual global warming. The part I don't buy is that it is completely made by us "evil humans". I mean, that is the issue Al and all his friends have been misinforming the public about. Before I relegate myself to living in a cave with no electricity and running water, I want definite proof. The previous proof was amazingly flawed and corrupted. Al Gore even backed out of most of his claims from that massive piece of ego trip he called a documentary. I want undeniable unflawed proof that the Earth is in a long term trend of warming and that it is not caused by anything other than mankind's mere existance on the planet. "

so u think animals are cutting down trees and polluting the atmosphere? "

You seem to have this idea that all the trees are suddenly going to disappear because we cut them all down, and the earth's atmosphere is in a slow decline. Since 1980, the national average of Co2 content in atmosphere has steadily dropped  http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/carbon.html and I can tell you it's not because of Al Gore. The United States and European Union have for years continued to improve manufacturing technology to reduce pollution, and they will continue to do so until the end of time (or an apocalypse). As for deforestation, it hasn't been an issue for 40 years. There are numerous tree farms where trees are planted and harvest just like any other crop and have a fixed supply. You need to get yourself informed, like immediately.  "

Err... the link you posted is for carbon monoxide (CO), not carbon dioxide (CO2). CO is caused by incomplete combustion, and has dropped steadily the last decades because of catalytic converters in cars (that help convert any leftover CO to CO2 by combining it with oxygen). The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently on the rise, showing no signs of slowing down anytime soon.

Anyway, here's a chart that shows the average temperature change and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere the last 400,000 years:

There's a close correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the average temperature change on Earth. Now, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but it does support the green house effect theory. Also worth noting is that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are around 390 ppm, which is outside the range of this chart (and higher than they've been at least for the last 800,000 years), and that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently rising with about 2.20 ppm per year.

Let's take a look at another chart:

Looking at this, there's really no doubt (in my opinion) that the major contribution to the CO2 increase comes from human activities. What else could be the reason for the sudden increase in CO2 levels around the time we started using coal and oil? Did we suddenly get a massive increase in volcano activity that just happened to coincide with the industrial revolution?

Will the recent massive spike in CO2 atmosphere levels affect the average global temperature? I think there's a lot of good evidence that says it will. But, in my opinion, the important question is this: Are you willing to risk that it won't?

Also check out this video from ted.com: James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss. I wouldn't necessarily call this "proof" of global warming, but it is a great video nonetheless with a lot of great photography.

Damn, I didn't know the OP was such a renowned scientist. 
 
Maybe come back when you're able to back up anything you're saying. 
 
(I'm kidding I don't want you to come back. Please don't come back.)

Didn't Wikileaks already leak shit that said the government knows global warming is bullshit? 
 
Ya know, because global warming is bullshit.

" Didn't Wikileaks already leak shit that said the government knows global warming is bullshit?  Ya know, because global warming is bullshit. "

I hope you're joking, but if not: No. Just no.

Wikileaks released some documents that showed the U.S. government engaging in some questionable practices in order to manipulate countries to support the relatively weak Copenhagen accord. The details are not really important in this discussion, as this is pure politics and has nothing to do with the science behind climate change.

Or it's possible that you're referring to the so-called "Climategate", which was apparently a manufactured controversy where leaked documents and emails (not published by Wikileaks) seemed to imply that climate scientists were cherry-picking data points and manipulating the results. Even if the scientists in question are cleared of all charges and wrongdoings, the truth never catches up to the lie, so there's still a lot of people out there that still believe this, I guess.

Or did you think of something else?

@FiestaUnicorn said:

" 98% of climatologists agree we're speeding up climate change.  Who am I to disagree? "

" @GlenTennis

@FiestaUnicorn said:

" 98% of climatologists agree we're speeding up climate change.  Who am I to disagree? "

I love how people insist they know more than a scientist. "

"  Thank goodness i'm not retarted anymore. "

" Global Warming is a lame apocalypse, no zombies, no evil robots, no mutant animals, or breaks in the space time continuum. Not even a single god damn Alien, i mean comeon!  "

" @Dany said:

" @TheDudeOfGaming said:

" A Global warming post apocalyptic world....sounds awesome...BRING THAT SHIT ON! But seriously,even if it is 100% true,and if it happens, humans are very adaptable, a couple of 100 years and we will be forced to change due to evolution :) "

ehh....humans won't evolve withing100 year to conform new situations. We would adapt quickly as you said and those adaptions will not carry through to next generation even the next hundred generations "

Evolution is NOT a gradual process, it happens with leaps and bounds. "