Good source of climate change data

[Welsh cake]

No, you accept any claim which conforms to your preexisting beliefs without challenge or consideration.

No, I disbelieve any claim until I have *sufficient evidence* to believe in it.

I have no physical evidence for anthropogenic global warming that I can recognise, as far as I know and believe, I exist within a natural environment and there is a natural ever-changing climate that is self-evident through my senses, direct observation and memories. The problem with AGW is the surrounding controversy, I realised we as a sentient race, despite all our technology and well-thought reasoning, suck hard at predicting weather phenomenon and other such occurrences. We understand pollutions' effects on the environment to some degree. The consensus made the presupposition that mankind is primarily responsible for global warming and no other factor matters, as a sceptic I doubted the validity of that conclusion based on the evidence provided. Science thrives on repeatability yet I kept going back to the information and attempted to re-examine it yet I still was no closer to understanding it. The statistical measurements given weren't particularly meaningful to me, applying scrutiny I realised while reliable on the short term I appreciated that by themselves they inadequate at making an accurate future predication of our planet’s climate in the long run. From past experience the weather patterns have proven to be beyond our complete understanding and comprehension. I couldn't justify any case for or against human-induced climate change presuppositions no matter how many times I tried to re-evaluate it.

You also reject any claim contrary to those beliefs without due consideration even when they are logical and evidence based. It’s called belief bias and in the case of anthropogenic global warming you have it bad. You also suffer from conformation bias. You favor information that conforms with your preconceptions and reject information that does not without regard for the validity of either source. This type of bias is particularly prevalent in issues where people hold an emotional stake.

What do I believe in that I reject any claim to the contrary?

You see you're making one broad-based erroneous assumption about my default position of disbelief over and over again while ignoring your position stems from social pressure, you, many members of the forum, groups in the public domains, various circles and the scientific consensus as a whole, regard AGW as such a strongly held belief that others like myself questioning you about the validity of global warming are immediately subject to ridicule. Your feelings and mine on this topic matter, positively and negatively, while relevant in a social context have absolutely no bearing on the truth-value or justification of a belief in human-induced climate change as fact. Attacking my scepticism is not going to get you anywhere. You actually need to address your argument, the scientific case for human-induced climate change, instead of me for a change.

You are upset by what you claim are long term negative consequences of the economic policy being implemented by your government. I’m sorry to tell you but what you are seeing are short term and mild compared to the effects of rapid global climate change. Change that can be slowed and even eventually arrested by global implementation of the policies you dislike.

Many scientists are arguing that it's already too late to implement any rectification, so clearly others who also regard this with a high degree certainty don't share your views on AGW. I highlighted what the obvious social implications and political gains of presenting a case for human-induced climate change as opposed to naturally occurring climate change are – they hold us accountable, they get to justify taxing the hell out industry, the economy weakens and inevitably the working-class taxpayer suffers rather than simply investing in safer renewable sources of energy from the beginning as you claim is government is doing, which I'm sorry, is just simply not the case.

I’m beginning to see a trend develop here. That trend is that you don’t have a good understanding of the data you are being shown.

I thought I made that perfectly clear, if not, I apologise.

You are looking for a reason to dismiss the chart out of hand without even having to consider the ramifications it represents. You don’t want to know the only correlation between climate forcing and observed warming is CO2. So you focus on the perceived absence of cooling as a result of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 and claim the chart is worthless.

The eruption was merely given as an example that since the graph does not take it into consideration is notably less reliable than others that I been presented before.

Which has exactly what to do with the paleoclimate record that has been reconstructed from multiple sources, or the fact that nothing we currently know about the sun gives us any indication that it is responsible for the current warming trend?

In Earth related topics such as Paleoclimatology it reveals how much we don't yet understand about how our star works. We've got not only the prospect of long-term solar variations but a faint young Sun paradox and for the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations the sun has been displaying some very strange activity during the recent decades. What annoys me so much is that climatologists agree the sun contributes to climate change, in the past, but then argue that solar brightness is too weak now to explain the recent climate change, I'm concerned by how they discount it, and can't help but feel that's not scientific.

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica

Also

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html

Thank you.

Section 10.6.2 of the IPCC’s 3000 page 4th Assessment Report (AR4) contained a single paragraph with errors about Himalayan glacier melt. The information was not from a peer reviewed source, and it did not meet the IPCC’s standard for evidence. The error was included in the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability section of the document, not the Physical Science Basis portion. The information was not included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers or the Synthesis Report. The inclusion of this erroneous information in the report in no way changes the fact that Anthropogenic climate change is still supported by multiple lines of independent empirical evidence, and nearly every national and international scientific body.

The IPCC does not carry out any original research or monitor climate or investigate weather phenomena, they lobby and mess around with statistics, and therefore they will be discounted every time we have any discussion on climate change. I'll respond this second time for clarity's sake but please, don't make me tell you a third time because I won't.

Now you’re just being an asshole. I’ve been following the global warming issue closely since 2000. I spent a couple of days cooling my heels in Longyearbyen, Norway waiting on some equipment when I was the cognizant engineer for the 50 MB data link between the SvalSat tracking station and Goddard for the EOS Terra satellite. They do a lot of arctic climate research on Svalbard. While I was waiting I spent some time talking to some of the scientists there.

?

I fail to see how. I'm merely responding to a facetious statement with sarcasm. Do I really need to put a smiley after every statement I submit? I disgress, I'll ask you an honest question, how do you differentiate between a natural climate change trend and a trend induced by anthropogenic climate change?