The Barnyard

Breaking temps from the 1930.

And yet folks in Seattle have been wearing coats for the past week bc of cooler than normal temps.

I think it feels great outside. Give me this over temps in the 20-30's everyday. My pool is calling.

Why do you suppose that is?

Bc if you look at the global temps for the past 2500000000 plus years, this isn't even a bump. Blaming temp changes on man, when they've always changed, is like blaming squirrels for the changes.

I'm saying that the earth has warmed, and cooled, on it's own for billions of years. Including a LARGE portion of time before human existence. Is there absolute evidence that the earth wouldn't be warming on its own? Should we actually be in a cooling period and human activity is the sole reason for temps from the 1920s being broken?

No, it's not a this or that answer. The earth has always had temps rise and fall. To say human activity is causing the movement now is a stretch IMO.

Might pollutants have a very small impact, sure.

Since you like questions - if it weren't for human activity, would temps be falling?

Of course temperatures would be changing. That doesn't mean we can overlook the amount of evidence looking at us in the face. Human activity is unquestionably having an effect on the climate. Consider:

-We are putting out record numbers of pollutants and greenhouse gases
-Greenhouse gases are known to cause an increase in temperature

The fact that NO serious climatologist has published ONE peer reviewed study dismissing human activity in favor of the Earth natural cycles to explain rising temperature should tell you something.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

-97.4 percent of climatologists who have published perr reviewed studies in the field say that human activity is a "significant contibuting factor" to global warming

The article concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

After the cold winter two years ago it's called climate change.

No, its called Climate change because global warming has other consquences besides just rising temperatures.

Bc they can't give concrete evidence as to how much impact human activity is having. I'm sure there's an impact, but if you can't look at the 2+ billion years worth of fluctuation in temps on this earth and not see that the impact could very well be extremely minimal.

If you can't provide hard evidence as to the amount of impact, I'll lean on 2+ billion years worth of evidence. Scientist once said the earth was flat. But, I'm sure you'd have called anyone that disagreed with them as a bullshit stance.

No scientist has proof that supports your claim. Many and more support mine. The verdict is in so the speak, the only thing left to decide is the sentencing.

FWIW, there hasn't essentially never been scientific consensus for the flat earth theory. People have known about a curved or sphereical earth since the ancient Greeks. That whole line was something spread by protestants in the 1800s to discredit Catholics as backwards, and then adopted by atheists to discredit Christians.

There's no scientific evidence that temps have always fluctuated and that the current rise isn't even noticeable on the overall graph?

Or, are you saying there is, in fact, hard evidence that human impact is measurable? If so, please, do share.