I mean, if you read any of the papers on global warming other then try and use them as blank tablets to hold up and prove your point you'd understand why tempeture increase most definitly would have to be statistically significant to fit current climate theory.

Megaman if you don't want to participate just leave the thread, if you're going to stay then engage on the merits of the discussion.

Actually, even the hurricanes have been called into question.

Granted there was plenty of data on the fact that hurricanes haven't increased in frequency or severity well before this recent run of scandals but it's easier to find links for the recent stuff.

I wasn't the one calling for a liberal witch hunt. Asides, im sure you guys have missed an opposition.

I will just start off from here in the thread.

Ever hear of the straw that broke the camel's back? Because I think this is might be one of those amazing situations where that ridiculous statement may be true. Just as an example I came up with while I was writing the previous sentence, women have periods, they bleed at regular intervals. Now if you stick an IUD up in her, she bleeds worse. Yes, she will always bleed every month in a cycle, but the IUD also makes it worse, more blood, more pissy, you get the idea.

Basically what I am saying is that humans have caused SOME effect, we don't know what it is and since the planet does it every so often cyclically as well we don't really know what's normal or not. If there is indeed a balance between keeping the earth alive, and a destructive loop, and we don't know how much even a little more emissions effect the weather, and our small amount of added CO2 could compound results, and most mportantly the fact we don't have another planet to move to currently I say that we tread lightly until the risk (only habitableplanet we have could become uninhabitable) becomes smaller not to tread lightly, either by being pretty damn sure about our real effetcs, or by finding another accessible planet. Sorry I feel like that sentence turned out to be too long for its own good.

Opposition I welcome, rants about how people aren't qualified to decide for themselves or about how you don't like the thread so you want it locked need to be checked at the door.

As for the behavior of others, if you think someone is violating the forum rules report them.  I haven't had a chance to read every post in this thread yet so you'll need to highlight those issues  you see (while not responding to them in the thread).

No climate models predict that hurricanes will increase in frequency with rising temperature, only that they will increase in intensity (which is obvious if you think about it). That is why there is no evidence to suggest an increase in frequency of hurricanes. 

I am pretty sure there is evidence which suggests hurricanes/storms are getting more intense in the mid latitude regions. Give me a minute to find it.

Last I knew there was no trend in severity either (which I mentioned, see bolded above).

Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., and Avila, L. A. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1697-1700.

Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M.  (2001) Science 293, 474-479.

Well models show that if CO2 emissions are doubled the peak wind intensities increase by 5-10%. 

This is because the land surface temperature rises with increased CO2 quicker than the ocean surface temperature (which lags behind by about 30-40 years). This creates a steeper temperature gradient between ocean and land, which will in turn increase the intensity of hurricanes/storms. 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jyin/IPCC_paper_GRL_Jeff_Yin_final.pdf 

(Really long read, there is a short summary at the end). 

The explanation I would give as to why hurricane wind speeds haven't increased from 1950 to 2000 is because we haven't increased CO2 in the atmosphere enough to see a difference yet (doubling CO2 emissions only gives an increase of 5-10%).