The real fight isn't proving that the data is there, it's proving that people should even look at the data. Climate Change Denial doesn't come from a scientific place and it doesn't have a scientific answer really.
Unfortunately, science is extremely hard when it comes to climatology. If you are too close to datasets and hypotheses without experiments, you end up with situations like last week's election.
And worsening that challenge is the fact that knowledgeable people tend to be utterly un-interested in endlessly discussing discredited, unsubstantiated or nonsensical theories, only to find the listener is simply not listening anyway. An understandable preference.
But the result is surprise at the number and influence of climate change deniers when they suddenly emerge in force.
this happens outside climate science, why should it be different because Climate ?
See the physics lady critical of the Higgs boson project: http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-lhc-nightmare...
"I hope that this latest null result will send a clear message that you can’t trust the judgement of scientists whose future funding depends on their continued optimism."
in this case translate optimisim for Climate Pessimism
They will have a ready source of funding from the fossil fuel industries, presumably.
Second, the theory that the warming trend is due solely or mainly to manmade CO2 emissions has not been proven. The sunspot theory is viable as well. The nice part of this is we're approaching a solar minimum in the next ten years, so if that camp is right, we should be able to measure considerable cooling.
If cooling occurs rather than the predicted warming, will that be enough to satisfy scientists? Or will we face new theories based on manmade climate change that explain it away?
The sun's heating and cooling cycles happen much more slowly than the current climate change. We can see the average increasing even over the past two decades when the data is quite reliable. We can see that the average ice at the poles is decreasing. There are certainly ups and downs but the long-term trend is clear.
You could at least do the bare-minimum and read the evidence at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Seriously, that's the absolutely least you could bother doing before running around posting nonsense.
less than 40 samples ( years )
i have read all the literature and it is not convincing.
we've been warned variously about ice extent, ice age, ice thickness, time of refreeze. Most have shown 'recovery' from any perceived low points, so the alarmists have to switch to a different measure continually.
but again we only have 40 samples and then ice core measurements.
ice core measurements are prone to both the sins of commission and ommission. commission in cherry picking "just so" locations like ice shelves for thickness measurements. and ommission for conveniently ignoring samples that dont fit your agreed outcome