Yet you deny one of the primary tenets of science, that it is never done and new, more accurate information is constantly being added. Doubt is at the core of Science itself. The cartoon simply illustrated your willingness to "have faith" that the people who tell you these things are correct, rather than actually reviewing the information, pro and con carefully yourself to come to a conclusion based on actual empirical data. People thought a lot of stupid things in the 1890's, the fact that the concept has existed for a long time in no way serves to validate the premise.
OK, you want to take the actual empirical data route?
How about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyIdwDbtcGs
Or is NASA lying and making up satellite data?
The evidence is out there. For fucks sake I live right on the water and I can tell where this shit is headed. I've visited glaciers. As long as you're looking at the actual planet earth it's evident.
Carbon dioxide traps in heat.
The percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has grown by about 60% during the extremely short timescale of human civilization.
Here is the data for the last few years.
It's been hottest year after hottest year after hottest year. You can doubt all the data of the thousands of meteorological stations across the earth but you can't doubt visible net ice loss.
That shit can be seen from space.
You will always attack my arguments, trying to find holes in them but you can never attack the science, not successfully at least.
Yes, if climate change was not a problem, if we had a solution for it I'd say burn baby burn, let's go drill for some oil, count me in. But we're shooting ourselves in the dick if we continue down this path.
Edit: On the NASA study on Antarctic Ice mass.
You pointing out the Antarctic Mass gains study is predictable. The very scientist behind it knew that idiots would spin this the wrong way.
The study is about long term snowfall over 16,000 years and how we interpret data.
Even according to the study you posted here, the rate of increase in ice mass is falling and Antarctica is projected to go well into net loss in 20 to 30 years.
And Zwally's conclusion was as follows:
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
You brought the Antarctic study up, predictably enough, now are you willing to take the analysis of the scientists to it's logical conclusion?
If the Antarctic is actually gaining mass (which is still up in the air until we get better data from ICE sat 2), that means that when it starts contributing to sea level rise (rather than taking away from it) we're going to be in a much worse scenario.
If in total there was no net ice loss, the sea level would be stable.
The same scientists that you trust to interpret the most tentative of data to challenge the total mass gains/losses of Antarctica take the much more solid, easy to measure data of sea level rise for granted.
If you really based your opinion on the data you would do the same.
Of course the scientific consensus is different than that study and the net ice loss of the Antarctic is about 120 gigatonnes a year. But that's only According to NASA.
I'm sure the nuance is killing you.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
I've been interpreting the data for the last 5 years. There's a lot of things we don't yet understand. There's a lot of unpredictability left in the system. But there's also things that are self evident. A self evident fingerprint of anthropogenic climate change.
Increase the CO2, Increase the global temperature. Humans burn fossil fuel, 2ppm more CO2 is in the atmosphere the next year.