Pretty sure the last couple years have been cooler so not necessarily "warming". Climate change, sure. Man made, laughable. The sun had a lot of activity a couple years ago and has been pretty dormant these past couple years (I believe it is getting ready to switch polarity). There are too many people that get paid if they show there is man made global warming. If they say it isn't man made, they lose their job. You consider these people impartial because they are scientists?
Weren't we supposed to have no ice on the north pole by 2013? Instead it grew 29% in a year.
The Earth temperatures change. They grew grapes in Greenland when the Vikings settled there. There are cycles. One volcano explosion can put more crap in the atmosphere than man does in a year. There are huge parts of our global climate that have been ignored in the models. Underwater currents have been one of them but I think I just saw that someone figured out how to model those. It isn't included in the models yet but could be soon.
This is one of the most myopic diatribes I've read in a while, go back under your rock.
You see numbers and facts on the internet, you incorrectly piece them together in a manner that only makes sense to you, doubtful you check sources and guaranteed you have no scientific background.
Sun activity varies, but not nearly enough to explain climate change. Greenhouse gases do explain that, and humans post-industrial revolution have been clearly demonstrated to have contributed those gases responsible for anthropogenic climate change. Google "hockey stick graph" and then understand all the literature surrounding that as a starting point if you're still unconvinced. This is one instance where the scientific community is in complete agreement.
The North Pole isn't exhibiting a growing trend, one data point isn't evidence, don't get your imbecile facts from tabloids.
What are you talking about that people get paid to advance the "global warming"? No one gets paid to forward some conspiratorial climate change agenda. Where would the money come from? If someone came up with any tangible evidence to the contrary, that climate change was in fact a conspiracy, they're be wiping their arse with Rembrandts because the oil industry would throw unfathomable sums of money to advance that research. That should be self-evident to even a half-wit. Look at which scientists lost their job recently. Harper axed all branches of science that generated climate change evidence and understanding. Experimental Lakes Are: shut down. Arctic research station PEARL: closed for good.
Ocean currents have been modelled for years, they aren't a new advancement, but they are getting better. Models are difficult to make due to the meta-analysis required, but the science behind them is solid. Denying climate change because an un-named model of unknown origin was wrong is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But armchair climatology expert TNAngler knows better.
I'm waisting words, I have no doubt I'd make my point more effectively here with crayon.