Out of curiosity, what metrics would disprove global warming? (for an academic expert, of course, not for us plebs who seem to be paying more and more every year to heat our homes during the fall and winter.)
Out of curiosity, what metrics would disprove global warming?
The term 'global warming' is not the right one to be discussing. What politicians and activists are pushing is the idea of man-made global warming or man-made climate change. The idea that humans are the number one cause behind the changes we're seeing in the global climate.
As for your question - I doubt anything would suffice. Certain people are too entrenched in their belief systems to even consider the data.
I know, right?
My assumption is that the very gradual drift from using "(anthropogenic) global warming" to "climate change" will continue. Then, when icebergs are clogging our harbours and our daily commutes look like an episode of Ice Road Truckers, the MSM will continue gaslighting the public with statements like "We never said it was getting warmer, we said the climate was changing. ...and that it's almost as worrisome as the twelve million killed at Auschwitz."
On the admittedly rare occasions when the topic comes up for me in the real world, I make it a point to stop whomever uses the term in mid sentence to clarify what it is they mean. If they say, "climate change" I ask whether they mean man made climate change, so they can't get away with conflating the two terms. "Climate change" and "anthropogenic climate change" are two entirely different things.
Trying to disprove the existence of "global warming" (by that they mean anthropogenic global waming) is like trying to disprove the existence of Bigfoot. You can offer all the evidence you want that says "no Bigfoot" but fanatics are still going to believe in Bigfoot, and they are going to justify their belief on the basis of fake evidence that has been generated to support their belief.
(post is archived)