riiiiight.can you not show us any evidence ?

Being that I have already demonstrated that the most cited dataset used in papers that the IPCC cites was destroyed after years of refusing to be audited, and the second most cited dataset is full of errors, do I really have to demonstrate more evidence?

Ok, here is the most accurate remaing dataset ... The satellite temperature record:

The Earth's temperature is increasing at a rate of 0.1 degree every century, this means we will hit the temperatures that the IPCC predicts over the next decade in a couple centuries from now.

The evidence is blatant, you're refusing to hear it.  You disregarded Happy's example of demonstrably innacurate data as "just one country"...even though the climate network in question (USHCN) happens to be the best ground sensor data in the world.

Meanwhile there are further disconnects between reality and the models.

What you see above is what the MODEL PREDICTS the atmosphere should look like (not next week, not next month, not next year, right now).  This represents a "fingerprint" of heat caused by "trapped" heat from the greenhouse gases they aspouse are causing the warming.  This is an example of one model but literally ....every .....single....last...one of them produces this "fingerprint".  It's the hallmark of a greenhouse warming - if we didn't see this in the models then we would have to look for a new explanation - this MUST be happening for GW to be real.

Above is what REAL DATA shows is going on.

You don't get much more blatant than this.

Your first paragraph is spot on but I disagree somewhat with your second.

Based on recent climate data (over the last 1 million years or so) there is a strong correlation between increasing CO2 levels and incresing temperatures which cannot be ingnored. Although these previous increases have been caused by natural cycles, if rising CO2 levels drive temperatures to rise (as can be interpreted from the data) then a sudden increase in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) from humans could cause a large increase in the Earth's temperature. This causation is not yet unequivocally proven but does provide evidence that it may be the case and that therefore that global warming is a very possible threat.

^ He did.

In any case, there are medical researchers who doubt the safety of some highly tested foods and chemicals. To say that theres a unanimous opinion that even something like starch is good for you would be a stretch, or even whether or not bananas are 100% safe to eat. You can always find disention, so to say that every climate scientist is in agreement is a completely false statement.

The problem is that evidence used to link C02 as a major driver of climate is based on low resolution data while supporting high resolution claims.

Or to put it another way we understand that water can absorb C02 and its ability to do so is directly affected by its temperature.  Lower temperatures allow it to absorb more and higher temperatures allow it hold less - thus at higher temperatures the ocean "outgases" C02.  We know that there are massive reservoires of C02 in the oceans based on this noncontroversial and well understood mechanic.

Equally understood is that greenhouse gases can trap heat, this is irrefutable and easily proven in a lab.

The sleight of hand comes when you then try to say greenhouse gases can signicantly warm the planet as a whole in the concentrations seen at the present and possible in the near future.

This is where that older low resolution data comes into play, what this means is that there is a sizeable MOE in comparing temperature to C02 in proxies used to research these values in the distant past.  Which came first is the subject of some uncertainty but we already have a demonstrable and incontraversible mechanism for explaining how temperature could drive C02 on the scales required...we don't have such a mechanism for C02 driving climate however.  In fact what we have for that is a series of models, made by modelers who readily admit they are prone to error and misleading predictions.

Well I've found something positive about climate change...

Link

...The British wine industry will have never had it so good lol.

... and what if the correlation between the rise in CO2 and temperature comes from increased temperature causing increased CO2 output? What if the correlation between the rise in CO2 and Temperature comes from both being the effect caused by some other change to our climate system?

There is a natural process where the ocean sequesters carbon dioxide for long periods of time and releases it that is not well understood; and it is highly likely that or lack of understanding of what drives this process is the root of the correlation between historic CO2 and temperature levels.

^ meanwhile the french are f----ed. Australia's wine regions are drying out also.

Which brings me to the bleeding obvious point, why are glaciers and the polar caps melting? Why are birds, in the United States, migrating further north.

@Sqrl and Happy Squirrel, Show me the source. I want to see where exactly you got those figures. Im still waiting for PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH. It can't be so difficult can it?

I don't understand what the fuss is about CO2, so many more potent gases cause climate change. Methane is 50 times more potent than CO2 and when I was doing my BSc I briefly studied a chemical that is 17,500 more potent and the amount we produce is rising exponentially year on year... and that chemical isn't even recognised or studied often.

The real problem is that we have no way of quantifying the effect humans have on climate change. It occurs to me when I read these debates that it's foolish to deny that man made emissions are effecting climate change, because they are. The real debate should be to what extent they are effecting climate change. Does mankind effect climate change in a small/unnoticable way (that's what I think) or are they effecting climate change in a large/we're fucked way?

Had to get that off my chest, it's just my 2c.