So this entire post is in response to Athena's previous post because I started it before Rocket posted.
Technically, you didn't "discover" it, you found data and extrapolated data from them. I was addressing the data you found. And I'm not sure otherwise what you say you discovered, since I wasn't really sure how to begin addressing what you said.
The thing about the masses is that we're sheeple (people who follow like sheep). We believe what the media says, what the Internet says, what the government says, what religious leaders say, what scientists say without questioning it. So if a group of scientists decide to fix some data to show that the temperatures are rising more than they actually are, we're going to believe them because we believe they have the authority to say that. There was a case a while back where emails between lead scientists were leaked that indicated that data fixing had been done to global warming charts. So it's not unheard of. Here's what I was referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy
. To someone like me who doesn't believe that global warming exists, it looked like the data fixes meant that global warming was false, or at least was evidence of it.
The other problem is that global warming is more than a scientific idea, it's a political one. It wasn't a scientist who came up with the theory, it was Al Gore, a former U.S. vice president. Several years back, China refused a climate bill because it would regulate how much energy a country could use. Some people would ask why this is bad; it's bad because no committee should have the power to tell an entire country how to use their energy and punish those who don't follow. If a country fails to use its resources correctly, it should be the country's problem, not the problem of a committee. But I digress.
It is tempting, and I appreciate that you're not throwing examples my way. And El Niño is a natural occurrence (as is La Niña), so it isn't the result of global warming. And again, the Earth has always gone through times of warming and cooling, so a rise of 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit worldwide isn't a reason to panic.
Unfortunately, I'm not finding much on the solar flare theory besides websites dedicated to proving global warming and blogs, not scientific journals. So I'm going to have to dig a little more for information on that. I did find one website that has some insight on how the sun affects climate and the Earth in general: http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activi ... imate.html
. It wasn't written by a scientist, but it does have links to other articles. I can't find the original website I had found though. :/
The same thing website wise goes for the volcano piece. I'll have to go digging for better information on that besides regular websites. Though, there are a lot more volcanoes than just St. Helens, and some of them are scheduled to blow in the next twenty years. (There is speculation that they could be huge explosions, but I don't think there's enough data yet to say for certain.)
No, it wasn't really your best argument.
But hey, that's the whole thing about learning.
Not sure where the carbon rise thing came from. Was that in relation to my point about the polar ice melting? Or something else? A little confused there.
Unfortunately, elementary and even middle school science teaches squat about how things actually work. Which kind of sucked when I got to high school and science was just like "oh, you thought this was how things worked? Well, guess what, they don't." It was annoying.
I'll look into the plankton thing more as well.
Again, though, if an animal's food source runs out, it moves to another one. One recent example of this is the Pacu fish in South America. They were introduced to give fisherman bigger catches, and then ate all of the vegetative food supply. Within a few years, they started eating other fish. They are omnivores, but they prefer vegetation to meat. But once their regular food source ran out, they started attacking fish and even humans. The Pacu also have human-like teeth. It's kind of freaky: http://www.amusingplanet.com/2014/02/pa ... teeth.html
This is just one example of micro-evolution, an important part of the biology of species on Earth. There are plenty of others, whether man-made or through natural selection. I don't agree with you using the Riley example. Many recent micro-evolution occurrences (such as the Pacu) result from human intervention. It doesn't really prove your point to mention who was at fault, since animals will adapt regardless. The only thing we need to be aware of is how the animals might adapt.
But trees in higher ground would still have water and good soil. In order for soil to be too hot to retain water, it would also have to change consistency. So it would be closer to sand, not dirt. And with the tree argument, you went from global warming to deforestation, which is different. It's something that is bad, but it's a different argument. Also, where would the acid rain come from?
I'm not sure that El Niño and La Niña are bad right now. Again, looking at past events, I think they've been worse. But we've also got better at predicting them and preventing disasters. Currently, they're not bad right now either. Yes, there's forest fires (as there have been every year for the past goodness knows how many) and droughts, but I don't think these have anything to do with global warming. I think this has to do with more direct problems, such as dams in the wrong places and campers being stupid and not putting out fires.
There is one thing I want to mention. Nature isn't predictable. Not always. Should we reduce using things that put out CO2? If it also puts out more dangerous pollution such as carbon monozide, yes. Should we avoid using damaging chemicals? Yes. Nature is always adapting, and it doesn't always adapt in good ways. Is it always the result of humans? No, not always.
I am completely fine with reducing pollution, being more careful with our resources, and being aware of how we affect the Earth. But I do not agree that our decisions affect the Earth as much as global warming proponents say it does. Again, I agree that we should be better stewards, but I disagree on the motive and the methods that we should use. (I'm also a Christian, so I believe that the Earth will end when God wants it to, not because we destroy it.)