When you look at the studies that "prove" man has caused global warming, the global mean temperature (I forget the specific term, but that sprung to mind--it's the base temperature global warming alarmists believe we ought to be at) is based on average global temperatures from something like 1950-1970 (I haven't discussed this stuff regularly in years and forget the exact span, but it's essentially a 20-40 year period). This tiny sliver of data for a miniscule number of years is supposed to give us the ideal global temperature for the rest of eternity, and any variations to it can only be caused by man.
I guess you did not read my statement.
The only two scientific principles that prove humans cause global warming are
1) the greenhouse effect, the idea that gases like CO2 and water vapor released into the atmosphere cause heat to remain trapped and warm the earth, and
2) the physics principle that burning hydrocarbons releases CO2.
The reason so many people deny climate change is the exact reason you showed: They think temperature charts, tree rings and ice cores are the proof of anthropogenic global warming. They are not. These two principles alone prove global warming. If CO2 released in the atmosphere indeed warms the earth, and burning hydrocarbons indeed releases CO2, then, by simple logic, burning hydrocarbons warms the earth. If you want to prove man does not cause global warming, then you must prove one of these two wrong, either of which would earn you a nobel prize.
Since neither of these has been proven wrong in 150 years, I assume you mean that you agree man is responsible for warming the earth through burning hydrocarbons, but that you believe such warming is negligible.
This is where those fancy charts you are referring to come in. Ice cores, tree rings, global temperature averages are being used to estimate HOW MUCH warming man is causing on the environment. Your argument (i assume) is that the temperatures we are predicting are not much different, if not equal, to what we are experiencing, therefore the influence man is having on the change in climate is NEGLIGIBLE (not non-existent, remember, unless someone disproves the 150-year-old Greenhouse Effect principle). If you want to use charts and weather averages to debate HOW MUCH influence man is having, I will be happy to do so, since I believe man has a considerable effect. But you are using them to do something they are not intended to do: disprove a basic scientific principal.
Assuming you are correct (that tens of thousands of climate scientists who study this every day of their life for their profession have all, somehow, independently incorrectly interpreted the data), you still cannot use data charts to prove burning hydrocarbons does not release CO2, or that CO2 does not warm the earth. Those are basic scientific principles which are proven or disproven in a lab. That is the equivalent of saying that, if Newton's calculations of gravity were wrong, gravity does not exist. The data charts only tell us (or, more accurately, we think they tell us) HOW MUCH effect the CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere is on warming the globe.
If, however, you still wish to claim that humans are not warming the globe at all, I must refer you to my previous statement. Which is false? Do CO2 and other gases not cause the atmosphere to warm up? Or does burning hydrocarbons not produce CO2? Since either of these can easily be proven or disproven in a lab, do you have documentation of someone disproving one or the other?
Lastly, remember that, according to the global warming cabal, even though a handful of developing nations pollute far more than the US (China, India and possibly Brazil), the US is the sole nation responsible for global warming and should be expected to foot the bill to pay for the sins of everyone else.
Another flawed argument. You are arguing that, because a politician wants the wrong country to fix climate change, climate change must not exist. Political actions have nothing to do with proving or disproving scientific principles.
Barack Obama has incorrect views on many things. Barack Obama believes in gravity. Thus, gravity is false. Obviously, this is incorrect, as is your assertion that the actions of a politician have any influence on the accuracy of a scientific principle.
Again, once we can all agree that CO2 released by burning hydrocarbons is warming the atmosphere (or someone announces they have won the nobel prize for proving otherwise), I would be more than happy to discuss how much effect this CO2 is having on the climate. Until then, I am trying to argue how much an elephant weighs with someone who insists it isn't there. I will also be willing to discuss the Greenhouse Effect with you if you have reason to think John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius were mistaken when they proved this principle in the late 19th century.
It is possible, as one poster claimed, that only God knows. However, 3000 years ago only God knew the earth was round and revolved around the sun. Just because God is the only living thing that knows doesn't mean we can't find out. Imagine if Pythagoras had said "Only God (or, more appropriately, Gods) knows if the earth is round, so let's stop trying to find out"