Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

The little ice age, first and foremost, was not a globally "abnormally cold period"That is irrelevant. If one area is colder than usual when a mean temperature is taken, then the mean is affected. That is a mathematical fact. The mean of 3,3 and 3 is 3. The mean of 1,3 and 3 is 2.34, a 22% decrease. Hence, any variation, anywhere on Earth will alter the mean.There is, unfortunately for you, plenty of consistent evidence.Such as? I searched your sites and found only papers detailing the ramifications of G.W, not proving it. Perhaps this is an error on my part. To that end, please provide a link to a relevant paper.or whatever term you or anyone else wishes to be calledSceptic, if you please.What I would like to see from disbelievers or denialists (or whatever term you or anyone else wishes to be called) is for you guys to take an article (for example: Nicola Scaffeta's "Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change"), show where it's wrong and move the fuck on.We are getting ahead of ourselves. I am not debating whether people are contributing to climate change, I am debating on whether it is happening at all.It boils down to whether or not you believe those who advocate the theory. I believe that the entire notion is a tool designed to curb the consumption of fossil fuels, which I believe is a far greater issue anyway. The melting of the the Ice caps is the root of the major catastrophes that people see coming. However, 80% of Arctic and Antarctic being underwater, and water being 25% denser than Ice, I theorize that, should the ice-caps melt, sea levels would decrease. If 8 is below and 2 is above, then take the sea levels to be +8. If the ice were to turn to water, then it would shrink in volume by 25%. This would bring total volume from 10 to 7.5, meaning sea levels would be +7.5, .5 less than before. Note that volumes have been simplified, but the mathematical principal remains the same. The issue remaining, of course is the addition of fresh water to the seas, affecting plankton and collapsing aquatic food chains. This is all true and would be unfortunate, but then I don't like fish, so I don't give a shit.Until you can do that or present someone's work who has done that, you have nothing to offer insofar as constructive debate is concerned... There is no such thing as constructive debate. Constructive would imply progress, but I have never seen a debate make any kind of impact on anything. Critics remain critics and proponents remain proponents. This debate is a perfect example: despite all the evidence you have presented, I still do not believe in global warming. Naturally you will make that out to be evidence that I am being obstinate, but look at any debate on this site and you will find that the same people argue for the same sides for the duration of the debate.The only evidence I can offer will be in fifty years time when nothing has happened.I will leave you with this thought: if you are right, and you appear quite certain that you are, then we are all going to die quite horribly and painfully either from the world drowning us or in the subsequent war over resources. There is nothing that can conceivably be done at this point, because the world simply cannot feed itself without oil, and the time it would take to eradicate its use with renewable power would be about as long as you say we have left. So why bother?Also, below is a link to a graph representing temperature and co2 levels over the last 400'000 years or so. You will notice that co2 levels have risen in accordance to the pattern shown in the graph. To me, this says that humans make a negligible contribution to atmospheric co2 levels, but I leave you to make a conclusion.