Global warming exists.

I will start by thanking the CON side for their response. One does not "declare" facts. CON's arguments are false memes without substance. 1. No Global Warming CON: "There hasn't been any global warming since 1997." (DECLARATION) There is no substantiation for this claim. it is patently false. It also shows the CON side either did not look at the video or did not understand it. CON: "It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?" The CON side "declared" a meme, "there is no global warming" and asks a rhetorical question based on the false meme. 2. No Scientific Consensus CON:"There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man" (DECLARATION) Again a declared meme, and false. I have shown that of all peer reviewed articles written the last thirty years over 99.7% of them concurred that global warming is happening. Simply stating there is no consensus means nothing. The only argument presented against consensus is a propaganda document called "The OISM Petition." Almost everything about this supposed propaganda document is suspect. CON references this here: CON: " Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming." Now to sign on to this document one has to state one was a "scientist." That includes Medical Doctors, Materials Engineers, etc. While these are certainly complex fields, being a Medical Doctor does not give one special insights into Climate Science. On top of this, the number of scientists are inflated for propaganda effect. This document is very much like "100 authors against Einstein," a document, signed by two real "scientists" and a number of others. Einstein"s response was telling, "if Relativity was False, 1 author would be quite enough." Consider this from:http://www.skepticalscience.com... "At this point it"s literally impossible to know because the names and degrees on the (above) list cannot be verified by anyone outside the OISM. We can only take the OISM"s word that they"re all real names, that all the degrees are correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility." ... "Ultimately, The OISM petition will continue to rear it"s ugly head until its fabricated credibility has been thoroughly demolished. Social conservatives and libertarians, each of which has their own ideological reasons to push the OISM petition, have been effective at keeping the "30,000 scientists reject warming chicken-littleism of IPCC" meme circulating throughout conservative media outlets, even as climate disruption-focused media have worked at limiting the damage from the OISM petition. But given the fact that the science supporting a dominantly anthropogenic cause for climate disruption is overwhelming, it"s only a matter of time before the OISM petition wilts in the heat." There is a worse part here. This is a propaganda document propagated by propaganda sites on the Internet. More than this, the CON misses that even this validates the PRO side. CON writes: " Over 31,000 [unverified] scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming." But these same people make no claim that Global Warming is NOT happening. They say humans aren"t causing GW. Now the fact that they address that humans are not CAUSE of the problem implies that they recognize that the problem exists. "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication and peer review." http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Arctic Ice misconception Again, a short term trend presented as Climate science. This example almost invalidates CONs entire argument as it shows two extreme problems with CON"s reasoning. The first is that he only addresses arctic ice "EXTENT" not its MASS which is a much more significant measurement. "Just to clarify, not only is the Arctic sea ice extent decreasing, but just as critical, the mean thickness of the Arctic sea ice pack also has precipitously decreased. In fact, although not quite an ice extent minimum record year, by February, this year was already a minimum record year for the amount of thick multiyear ice present in the pack. " Secondly he falls into the trap which was displayed in the Degrasse video above. Citing a statistic over six months shows a marked lack of understanding of the basic science involved. 3. James Hansen"s "Prediction" "James Hansen made his statement in response to a question by Bob Reiss, a journalist and author, in 1988. He did not predict that the West Side Highway would be underwater in 20 years. Bob Reiss reports the conversation as: "When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio""n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm." James Hansen reports the conversation as follows: "Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount." SO the quote used is out of context and DOES NOT says what CON purports it to say. Again, this calls serious question into CON"s selection of data sources and ability to validate data. USE OF SUSPECT DATA SOURCES. One of the most disturbing parts of CON"s arguments is his reliance on Propaganda sites for information. Data on the internet is highly suspect and requires a measure of data validation. It is easy to find "evidence" for almost anything on the Internet. It is not easy to find AUTHORITATIVE information on the Internet. To give an Hypothetical example, it is as if we had been debating the Israeli-Palestians conflict and CON only referenced HAMAS websites. Dr. Roy Spencer http://en.wikipedia.org...(scientist) "Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems " created by GOD'S INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND INFINITE POWER AND SUSTAINED BY HIS FAITHFUL PROVIDENCE " are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"" This is HARDLY a SCIENTIFIC authority. Invoking "intelligent Design" (Myth) is mixing Religion with "science" and hardly lends credibility to the Dr. Spencer"s authority. I suspect, as do most others, that Dr. Spencer"s reliance on ancient superstitions has more to do with his work than does the science. "In 2011, Spencer and Braswell published a paper in Remote Sensing concluding that more energy is radiated back to space and released earlier than previously thought. Spencer stated, "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans." The paper was criticized by mainstream climate scientists.Kerry Emanuel of MIT, said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback. The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, later resigned over publication of Spencer and Braswell (2011),stating, "From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. [...] the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view ...but that IT ESSENTIALLY IGNORED THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS OF ITS OPPONENTS. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal." Wagner added he, "would also like to PERSONALLY PROTEST AGAINST HOW THE AUTHORS AND LIKE-MINDED CLIMATE SCEPTICS HAVE MUCH EXAGGERATED THE PAPER'S CONCLUSIONS IN PUBLIC STATEMENTS" Continuing to the GlobalResearch Link, this is NOT a reputable organization. This site is set up and run by Michel Chossudovsky, The Western Standard included Chossudovsky on the list of "Canada's nuttiest professors, those whose absurdity stands head and shoulders above their colleagues"; criticizing Chussodovsky's thesis and views " that the U.S. had knowledge of the September 11 attacks before they happened; that Washington had weapons that could influence climate change; and lastly, that the large banking institutions are the cause of the collapse of smaller economies " as "wild-eyed conspiracy theories". Such as Washington's New World Order Weapons Can Trigger Climate Change" - Michel Chossudovsky Here is a GlobalResearch Link about the 9/11 conspiracy http://www.globalresearch.ca... The Vaccine Conspiracy http://www.globalresearch.ca... The Zionist Conspiracy http://www.globalresearch.ca... And of course, The New World Order http://www.globalresearch.ca... As I look over CON"s arguments, there is no attempt, at all, to validate the authority of the statements presented. Global warming has been shown and there has yet to have been a single verifiable argument lodged against it here.