What evidence would be sufficient about climate change to convince ?
March 16th, 2010 | 
Author: Hi, thank you for answering. Please read these specifics ! I should be very very specific – I would like to know what EVIDENCE you would need to see that would convince you that global warming/climate change is happening and that we are causing it.
Specifically I DO NOT wish to know why you do NOT believe in it. Sorry for the CAPS – it is just that people like to answer their own question – not the one I have asked. Thank you again.
Posted in 
Tags:
An actual correlation between human emissions and temperature. Or… better yet, the "climate scientists" could consistently make predictions that come true, and they could stop lying, and they could stop trying to make people panic, and they could stop advocating government control to fix it.
Normal, accepted Science does it for me.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page1.php
The evidence summarized in the link below is enough to convince me, and should be enough to convince any intelligent, rational person.
Ask expert Al Gore. He’ll be glad to show you his degrees in climatology, meteorology, etc. He may tell you that he’s just too modest, tired, busy or forgot where he put those degrees.
It’s not happening. The head of the Climate Research Unit even stated that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0hhNSvkmp
Never accept someones wiki post as truth, especally since they wrote it. This is a foolish, self serving post, a rant that proves nothing except the authors own opinion.
Demonstrate to me that the warm periods throughout history were anthropogenic in nature. Or even less restrictive…demonstrate that the earlier warming periods were caused by living creatures.
I used to be a sceptic, but many years ago I was convinced by the accumulating data. You will find a summary, with links, here:
There is an excellent summary of the situation in December 18 SCIENCE, free download
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5960/1646
That’s … sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5960/1646
Presidential Address:
Reflections On: Our Planet and Its Life, Origins, and Futures
James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University
An outstanding, well-referenced, review of the situation. It’s all there; history of the global warming concept, role of solar fluctuations, the actual temperature record with ranking of years, the extent to which predictions since 1995 have been justified and indeed amplified by events.
And where that’s taking us.
Like you, I would like to know what it would take to convince the sceptics, especially people who *in the complete absence of evidence* accuse thousands of scientists in a dozen different countries of lying.
And gross misrepresentations like "It’s not happening. The head of the Climate Research Unit even stated that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming" are enough to convince me that some sceptics are just not interested in the truth, and will never be convinced.
Edit: If you don’t like ecohuddle, try http://www.skepticalscience.com/
First the data and data collection methods would have to be opened up for all to see. That way independent people can check the accuracy of the data, and know which station were left out and which stations were included. Also that methods for reconstruction past temperatures (tree ring proxies etc) needs to be open so it too can be inspected.
Seconded the methods on how the data was used what assumptions were made when the data was combined.
Third the code for the climate model need to be released so too can be independently check.
What I’m really saying is that the people pushing AGW need to do good science. I’ve seen too many cases where those pushing AGW refuse to release data, data collection methods, models, etc to reviews of their work. We now have Climatic Research Unit (CRU) admitting they no longer have the original data but only the homogenized data set and we are told to trust them. Even after the release of the e-mails where they talked are destroying data. Without the original data that they used nobody can check their work.
If those pushing AGW would release everything and let the (dare I say it) skeptics try and tear apart AGW. If that were to happen we would soon have an answer, but those pushing AGW refuse to be open.
And trust us doesn’t cut it anymore.
I second Peter’s answer.
Although I would caution that (1) just because we’ve gone from whether rough correlation = causation to the fact that there isn’t even much of a correlation anymore doesn’t mean that a return to a rough correlation would prove AGW, and (2) they’ve gone from predicting specific outcomes to predicting "change" thus avoiding accountability and giving them – in their minds anyway – the ability to point to any "change" and declare that it proves them right.
You’re never going to convince the jokers on here with a political axe to grind that anthropocentric climate change is, indeed, occurring. All the scientific evidence in the world won’t work, because they view scientists as charlatans and witch doctors. They are similar to proponents of so-called "intelligent design" in that they are constantly searching for ways to legitimize their political/religious agenda with science…even though they neither understand nor respect science for what it is. Their repeated posts are annoying and transparent, and they’ve obviously completely taken over what should be a legitimate forum for discussion about global warming. I think the best thing to do is to just IGNORE THEM. It’s not like Yahoo Answers is a peer-reviewed scientific journal or anything.
That said, I would tell someone legitimately looking for evidence to consult the Mann Curve, which was presented in a graph to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001. I would also tell them to consult the National Research Council’s Surface Temperature Reconstructions of the Past 2,000 Years, which accounts for the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age but also shows how dramatically the temperature change of the last century is when compared with millenia past.
your establishment makes it very clear that man causes climate change, that is all the skeptics are arguing about, and then there are people who misinterpret this to make it seem like skeptics are denying that the climate ever changes. Hello, no one denies that: summer, winter, spring, fall. All we deny is that man causes this. You global warming/climate change believers don’t realize that the founders of your movement do not think the sun causes climate change, man causes it, so that legislation will be pushed to curb greenhouse gases by placing a tax on carbon. They will tax companies who pollute, and the biggest companies can pollute the most.
here is some research material
http://www.prisonplanet.com/sunspots-do-not-cause-climate-change-say-scientists.html
evidence that hasn’t been fabricated or tampered with. Differentiate between natural GW and AGW.
Why are the antarctic and arctic ice currently at normal levels(according to nsidc). The disappearing ice caps were used as proof of AGW. Now that they are within normal range is that proof gone as well? Was it just part of a normal cycle? History and analysis of ice cores say the ice caps have been growing and shrinking at sometimes extreme rates since the beginning of time.