A. Well there's a whole bunch of Phytoplankton hanging out in the water fixing our pollution.
That's really interesting. Do you have a source saying that the phytoplankton effect is enough to reverse or even diminish the effect though? I know there are lots of plankton but I don't know if there are that
B. Last winter was pretty cold. Even this summer (in Florida) wasn't all that hot.
My mistake on clarifying: myself/scientists talking about global
temperatures, not local, fluctuating, US ones. Also it would be remiss to fail to link the relevant xkcd.
C. Humans (at least right now) don't emit enough greenhouse gasses to even scratch the surface.
Is this conclusion found in data?
First off, no one is going to read all 8 of those links, jussayin.
Not with that attitude! (Seriously, I just put them there to avoid the claim that I was pulling that stuff out of my [censored] and so anyone can verify my sources if they desire).
Secondly, we (ie. conservatives) don't say that temperatures aren't changing or that "climate change" doesn't happen, we just make the argument that it A) won't last, B) isn't caused by humans, and C) isn't significant enough for us to dramatically change our policies.
I guess I tried to cover this in OP. Are your arguments supported by data?
Furthermore, Antarctica wasn't always under Ice as we can see from the Piri Reis map where a Turkish cartographer accurately mapped the land form in the 15- or 1600s before Antarctica had been generally discovered and (the kicker) before it was covered with Ice. Therefore, the earth does have it's warm spells (even before the industrial revolution) and it didn't hurt us that much.
Most scientists would rebut your arguments by saying that previous cycles destroyed a great deal of life on the planet. It might not have been particularly deadly because humans did not have as much infrastructure on the coast, but that doesn't mean it won't be deadly now.
I don't know your opinion on God, but many Christians hold to the belief that God created a universe that can correct itself.
I'm a Christian, but I think this is a terrible philosophy to hold. The world is fallen, you wouldn't murder someone saying that God will just immediately correct it, would you?
Also, its hard to take those who proclaim climate change seriously when they are voicing their opinions that the world will be a frying pan in 10 years.
Al Gore is an anomaly. Do you have any reason to equate his arguments to the dat apublished by the eight internationally-recognized independent agencies that I listed in the op?
Also, don't confuse our arguments with the idea that we support pollution. The US has significantly cleaned up it's air by introducing helpful regulations. However, more recently these regulations are doing more to harm our economy then to improve the perceived threat of "climate change."
I agree the regulations are not doing enough to alleviate climate change.
Furthermore, the term "denialism" and "denialist" for describing those who hold contrary beliefs (based upon evidence I might add) is derogatory and does nothing to improve the quality of this post.
Is it possible to see the evidence against global temperature decline that you hold your belief to? I would very much like to see it I did not mean to offend by using "denialism," it just appears that way when 97% of scientists follow a similar conclusion and individuals refuse to concur.