Another issue that's problematic is that when you look at the archaeological evidence, the earth has actually been through several heating/cooling cycles. I mean, the last glacial period was fairly recent, we know the earth is warmer now, and we strongly suspect it was warmer before the glacial period.
Furthermore, no proper experiment is possible to explain why the earth is warming at the current rate, if the rate is natural or caused by humans, etc...
Questioning the human causes of climate change doesn't automatically lead to creationism, it's simply a rational question to ask.
Putting it another way, environmentalists defend that we can't change anything about the environment to such an absolute extreme, that I smell religious-like zealotry.
Fortunately, the solution is a couple of decades away, through electric transportation, coupled with solar/wind renewables. No CO2 but also no "pristine Earth" nonsense.
The questions you ask are legitimate.
HN has no particular attraction for fundamentalist Christians.
For the record, I'm pretty anti-corporation, but for different reasons. I feel that given the problems people face in their individual lives, communities, and even in broader society, and the earth as a whole it comes down to, what can we change easily today, what can we change with a minimal impact tomorrow, and what directions can we take to accomplish a given set of goals farther into the future.
First, what are the negative impacts of global warming? Can these be addressed in a more localized level? If they need to be addressed globally, how can that be prioritized and accomplished?
Second, have the issues and solutions been prioritized by impact:cost analysis?
Third, given impact:cost analysis and prioritization, are there smaller steps that could have a larger impact:cost ration that can improve a problem in the near term that could have a higher priority?
It may seem really insensitive to take a step back and look at things objectively.. but the "OMG, my grandkids won't ever see real trees!!!" approach is just as polarizing and ineffective as a whole as the religious nutters.
Totally OT as it is, what are you getting at here?
[1] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-proje...
[2] http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2157446...
Criticising models is not the same as claiming that anthropogenic global warming is false. Indeed, Nate Silver makes the point that climatologists are their own greatest critics -- they collectively know the limits of their models better than almost everyone else.
So I'm not really sure why he's in your comment. If you've read what he writes, then you'll need to be building counterarguments to much of what he wrote on the topic; "models have problems" is just part of it.
Cherry picking two measurements of temperature data does not make for a convincing rebuttal against the overwhelming independent lines of evidence summarized in (among other places), the IPCC reports.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/
The figure that was removed shows that measured temperatures are falling outside a 95% confidence interval from the multi-model mean.
This does not mean the climate will not warm, that C02 is not the major factor (or at least a major factor), but it does mean the models that are used for 100 year projections have failed after after 15 years and are running too hot.
It should be cause for celebration. The highest warming scenarios are considerably less likely.
This also does not mean that an emissions tax and spending on R&D on low emissions energy sources is unwise. But it should be factored into cost benefit analysis of climate change response.
Ultimately response to climate change is a public policy problem and is not just based on scientific data and projections.
Really, the response boils down to one question, how much is each of us willing to pay per year to respond? $10, $100, $1000, $10000?
But seriously: you're cherry picking one set of mean global temperature data, to dispute one graph in one IPCC report, for one line of evidence (of many). And your argument isn't rigorous or statistical -- some guy hand-drew some lines over the graphs, and asserts that it doesn't fit the data, even though the observed data lands pretty cleanly in the range of the models. And even if the models are off here, it doesn't invalidate the hypothesis of AGW. You can't win, even if you make a good argument here.
The reason nobody but climate denialists read these arguments is because they're pedantic and facile, not because there's a vast scientific conspiracy against you.
Furthermore, global climate models are tools for a particular kind of research, not the basis for the theory of global warming--which predates electronic computers by about 40 years.
Evolutionary theory cannot reliably predict complex outcomes either. For example, despite the relative biological simplicity of a flu virus, scientists struggle to predict the strain(s) that will be most virulent each year. But I never see posts on HN holding this failure up as proof that evolution is not believable.
> [...] we provide a number of illustrative examples and highlight key mechanisms that give rise to nonlinear behavior, address scale and methodological issues, suggest a robust alternative to prediction that is based on using integrated assessments within the framework of vulnerability studies and, lastly, recommend a number of research priorities and the establishment of education programs in Earth Systems Science.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000037493.8...