In this question, Linlyons indicated that it was wrong to ask for proof of Climate Change.
Aw, Sage, you are being too demanding. Did Lucy ask for proof when Linus invited her to his pumpkin patch on Halloween? Do snipe hunters ask for proof when they are sent out into the woods with a bag.
Gary F is partially right, there is no proof of global warming, only scary predictions and a model which is continually being revised to account for unexpected events.
Some people--you apparently among them, seem to think that science is divided into things that can be, 100%, without a doubt, proven, and things that are "just theories" and can be ignored.
But, in a meaningful sense, proof *does not exist* in science. I can come up with all manner of absurd-sounding statements (my usual example is "my desk is a shape-shifting alien cleverly imitating a desk") that I cannot *prove* are false. Doesn't mean that I think they're true, just that I cannot, scientifically speaking, absolutely rule out the possibility that they are somehow true statements.
So, what actual scientists tend to go on is, essentially, the weight of evidence. If the available evidence seems to point to something--for example, that the Earth is warming, and it's caused by human activity--then scientists will, once they are convinced that that is the best available explanation, accept it as true until a better explanation comes along.
In the question you linked to, there was an event that scientists were, presumably, saying might have been caused by AGW. Or "was probably exacerbated by AGW", or other wording that basically means the same thing. You were asking people to *prove* that AGW caused it, when scientists weren't even saying *for sure* that AGW caused it.
That's like, say, asking someone to prove that they lost their job because of the general state of the economy, rather than because of one of the many other things that could have caused them to lose their job. Their inability to do that doesn't mean that economic downturns don't lead to more unemployment, it just means that "proof" is a... less useful concept than you think.
So in 134 years of recorded real time temperature readings, 2012 is the warmest year, all of the warmest years have come since 1998, 2013 was tied as the fourth warmest year, and you deniers think it isn't warming. If you can't accept this reality and still need proof of warming, I think it is unreasonable and honestly proof of ignorance to continue to ask for proof
Global Warming ended in 2012, confirmed by our Satelite reports 11/28/2012 and received by another Nation on earth from one Global Team Unit from all walks of life Mike
Sometimes it is.
Do you have proof that you have a serious disease before you pay money to go see the Dr?
>> Linlyons indicated that it was wrong to ask for proof of Climate Change.<<
Linlyons is right since there is no such thing as proof in science - climate science and every other science.
Proof exists only in pure mathematics and logic. Proof is not part of the scientific method, In general, proof is vaguely defined as something that convinces someone that something else is true.
Linlyons was answering a question that asked for something that is not real and does not exist. How else should he respond?
=====
edit --
You're lying about taking physics in high school.I took physics in high school. It was preceded by chemistry, biology, and geology. I had already taken calculus, as well.
I don't suppose you know why calculus would be an advantage in solving all of those high school RLC, friction, and torque problems, huh?
From an agw cultist's point of view ; yes because it's an inconvenient truth that they haven't got any.
No. Refusing evidence is. Creating conspiracies is. Claiming wah no evidence is.
Nothing convinces a denier
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140504012552AAVEzwl
In this question, Linlyons indicated that it was wrong to ask for proof of Climate Change.
