Any evidence to refute global warming / climate change?

I think we’ve all been looking for this elusive evidence for many years now. We’re incessantly being told that such evidence exists and are constantly bombarded with claims about how climate change has been shown to be false or how it’s due to natural cycles. Yet for some strange reason, no-one has yet managed to produce this evidence; it would almost make one think that it didn’t exist.

I must have asked 2, 3, 4, 500 times for the deniers to validate their claims and as far as I’m aware this has never been done. It’s enough to make people think that the deniers don’t actually have any evidence and are simply lying through their teeth or fabricating ‘evidence’ as they go along. Anyway, good luck in your quest and don’t be too disappointed when nothing of substance materialises.

Here you go deniers, yet another opportunity for you to produce the evidence that you seem to think exists. Let’s see if on this occasion you can actually come up with the goods. - - - - - - - - - COMMENT: TO DAVID David, I think you need to check some of your figures.

Atmospheric CO2 residence period of 15 years? (try 115 years), 8Gt of human CO2 emissions per year? (try 31Gt + 13Gt CO2e), 4ppmv anthropogenic rise?

(try 2ppmv) Carbon sinks removing 60% of human GHG’s? (try 40% max) etc etc Quoted from other sources - Climate sensitivity of?0.5°C or?0.6°C doesn’t add up (where’s the other warming come from), historical CO2 levels up to 390ppmv is contradicted by more reliable evidence (empirical mass spectrometrics as opposed to indicative stomatal data).

AGW is a fact, deniers come up with all kinds crap like this from David: "The carbon cycle does not drive the climate cycle. The climate cycle drives the carbon cycle." Yes, in the natural cycle, CO2 does lag behind the temperature increase.

It is agreed among all climatologists that natural forcing does drive climate. In past natural cycles, CO2 acted as a feed back mechanism, furthering the warming after other variables initiated it. Now, CO2 that has been introduced UN-naturally assumes the same role it has performed in the past.....it raises temperatures.

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling: Sea level rise Global temperature rise Warming oceans Shrinking ice sheets Declining Arctic sea ice Glacial retreat Extreme events Ocean acidification >>Now, Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors, working with the Columbia Climate Center at the Earth Institute, Columbia University, reviewed the suite of skeptic claims "that global warming is a hoax, natural, or good for people" and found no evidence to support these contrarian positions. "Simply put, the science shows us that climate change due to emissions of greenhouse gases is a serious problem. Furthermore, due to the persistence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the lag in response of the climate system, there is a very high probability that we are already heading towards a future where warming will persist for thousands of years.

Failing to insure against that high probability does not seem a gamble worth taking."<< (......More Wishy-Washy Liberal Junk Science?).

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.