Funny, the "GW"s
What's a GW? here never address my question. I guess if it hits the heart of their theory, it should be convieniently ignored.
We haven't had global weather data collecting abilities since the existence of wide scale weather satellites.
Actually, we have, called thermometers, we have had them since the 1700's. Also, people used to write things down on parchment long before then. Less than 40 years of data.
You need to catch up on what is actually been happening in the real world before you start to argue. By pure pysics and real science, it's impossible to guess the temperature of anything before recorded measurements beyond a margin of error of many degrees.
I agree with you here. Unfortunately the arguement isn't over a few degrees here and there and just the fact that the temp is going up right now. It is a little more in depth than that. We can see major climate changes in the past and the fact that from even the data that we have collected in just the recent past, we can see our impact on the climate as it is now. Yes, we can see that there have been major climate changes in the past, the arguement is that we are speeding the changes up, which, they do have data to support.
We have no data on any level of historical refraction, cloud cover, water vapor concentrations, solar activity, snow cover, etc.
Most of the written data that main stream science has followed has showed the major difference in what has happened in the recorded past to the present. By that, I mean that people have written down the major storms and what the weather was like in the past. We can take that into account. Then there is the scientific data taken since there have been thermometers way back in the 1700's. Now before that everything is based upon "Theory's" which even as a science guy, I don't put too much faith in because a scientific theory is just like believing in a god. It is a faith of sorts and not provable, otherwise it would be known as a fact.
Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 0.1% (1/1000) to 0.3% (3/1000) of the global climate model. That is it's net effect on our weather.
Even if you were right about the ammount in the air, your idea that it will only have a very small effect because of its tiny ammount is complete ignorance. It only takes 300 mg of cyanide to kill a full grown man quickly. So, lets say the unfortunate mand weighs 180 lbs, that is 81646626.6 milligrams compared to just the 300 it would take to kill him. Get how that relates? Small ammount, big consequences? This isn't disputed, though its conveniently ignored now.
I really wish you would list your resources on everything you have to say. Untill then, seriously, it is just your opinion. You want to talk shit to the rest of us who argue against what you believe and want us to list our sources, but you apparently don't have to? No offence, but if you can't debate with the big boys, maybe you should just stay out of it. Or, I guess you can delete all of my stuff like a little child, your call.
Please explain how you can come to a valid scientific conclusion using reasonable scientific method and factual basis that carbon dioxide is the source of "climate change". Been doing that this entire time.http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...mperature.html I'm all ears. You are only proving that you are in fact, not all ears. Fact of the matter is, if you don't address it, I'll delete the rest of the BS responses. How do you call the responses that have valid evidence BS? Especially when you yourself have not given one shred of evidence? If you ignore the hard question, you have no standing whatsoever. Also please elaborate on why the US needs to expend trillions of dollars in the next coming decade to address this, and how the money will help. With climate change being a real factor, we need to come up with ways to figure it out to bring our influence on the eco system down. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it isn't real. Also, please address why "global warming" is an overall negative change from the status quo. If you are asking that question hypothetically as in, if global warming is real, how is it bad? I would have to ask if you were joking and my second question would be if you actually know anything about what it is that the actual arguement of global waming/climate change is really about. 
