well, there are various approaches and i have no idea which is most promising in your case.
don't get me wrong, there are many (imho) quite convincing arguments against manmade global warming or climate change and without going into the
partisan madness that's been going on in this forum for years, i think it's safe to say that proof lies in the eye of the beholder.
in other words, there are discrepancies in temperature and CO2 graphs, exploiting these require good and comprehensive material and they can be
dismissed by discrediting the scientists behind the graphs. a graph is only as good as the data used to create it and who's going to verify.
therefore i'll stick with the more easily understood anomalies (ie. bits of data which do NOT favor climate alarmism), but beware that none of these
arguments rule out manmade global warming (can't prove a negaitve, can you?), merely put things in the perspective of past climate changes.
the first and rather well known:
Greenland was once warm enough to allow sustained Viking settlements to exercise at least limited agriculture. fishing surely helped a lot too, but
these conditions aren't met even today, so claims that our current temperatures are 'unparalleled' are simply invalid. if they doubt that, well
simply ask how the name 'Greenland' stuck. it is in fact a dead giveaway. i would not bother with links, because if someone denies it there's
little if any hope that an article or two will sway them.
Glaciers in the Alps routinely reveal remnants of trees. the simple explanation is that the glacier floor once was covered by forest, the climate
be able to resort to the claim that these mountains were not as tall a few thousand years ago, but that would be rather bizarre,
seeing as C14 radiocarbon dating reveals a supsected age of only 6000 years.
if you're willing to nail them down on it, then print the .pdf 8at least 2 copies, one for yourself) might be ignored or denied.
Antarctic sea ice development. an increase by surface of 8% since 1978 has been recorded, see
. this claim might easily be disputed, so i'll give more links on the same subject. i
frankly don't know how to use them to any effect, but afacs, the data is correct, otherwise the climate alarmists would be all over it.
a NASA source, most certainly the most valuable of the bunch.
(only partially visible without subscription, unfortunately): nrd.nationalreview.com...
they will most certainly counter that local (but Antarctica is an entire continent, don't forget that) trends do not make a global indicator. this is
on its surface correct and can be used to your advantage by pointing out that heatwaves and freaky weather certainly make headlines - as long as they
conform to the GW paradigm - cold spells are only useful in , say Europe, where a decline of the gulf stream can be used as an excuse 8i]and be
attributed to GW.... please not that such a construct allows them to be right at all times
IMO, the real issues lie in the solutions proposed to 'combat' global warming. biofuels, especially are a real problem and if you can find the time,
i advise you to read the following thread, it's roughly 1 1/2 pages long and deals exclusively with biofuels.
credits for some of my sources on Antarctica goes to member boatphone
PS: if you still have time, please ask some more questions maybe i can clarify or expand