Other Answers (13)

• I think the recent news of major portions of the antarctic ice shelf falling apart, combined with the parts that have fallen off over the last year or so, were proof enough for me.
  
  And I think a lot of the site out there have proven the point, it%26#039;s just that certain people don%26#039;t want to believe the point. Much like the so called 9/11 experts who keep trying to prove it was all some great and wonderful mass conspiracy. Some of the foil hat wearers will believe it and the remainder of us with a measurable IQ won%26#039;t believe it. Unfortunately the foil hat wearers like to squawk a bit and continue to get press.
  http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102...
  http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102...
  http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/...
  http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...
  http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...
  http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...
  
  Non-scholarly links:
  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
  http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12...
  http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climat...
  http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/...
  
  Edit:
  Wow Cindy, you are quite the speed reader. Just over an hour ago, I post a link to 7 peer reviewed journal articles and 4 fairly extensive non-peer reviewed web-sites on global warming and you somehow manage to get through all those and declare with great certitude that none of us have provided even a shred of evidence. Hmm. Or is it possible that you don%26#039;t even read the evidence we provide? NO, I%26#039;m sure that%26#039;s not the case ;-)
  
  EDIT - definition of atmosphere...
  
  %26quot;the gaseous envelope surrounding the earth; the air.%26quot;
  
  You know, the stuff you breath is part of the atmosphere. Atmosphere just doesn%26#039;t mean above a certain elevation, Einstein! Please, stop before you embarrass yourself more.
  
  Here are just the ones beginning with %26quot;Me%26quot;:
  
  Meehl, G.A., et al., 2004: Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings in twentieth-century climate. J. Clim., 17, 3721–3727.
  
  Meerkötter, R., et al., 1999: Radiative forcing by contrails. Ann. Geophys., 17, 1080–1094.
  
  Melillo, J.M., et al., 2001: Nitrous oxide emissions from forests and pastures of various ages in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Geophys. Res., 106(D24), 34179–34188.
  
  Menon, S., and A. Del Genio, 2007: Evaluating the impacts of carbonaceous aerosols on clouds and climate. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.
  
  Menon, S., A.D. Del Genio, D. Koch, and G. Tselioudis, 2002a: GCM simulations of the aerosol indirect effect: sensitivity to cloud parametrization and aerosol burden. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 692–713.
  
  Menon, S., J. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, and Y. Luo, 2002b: Climate effects of black carbon aerosols in China and India. Science, 297, 2250–2253.
  
  Menon, S., et al., 2003: Evaluating aerosol/cloud/radiation process parametrizations with single-column models and Second Aerosol Characterization Experiment (ACE-2) cloudy column observations. J. Geophys. Res., 108(D24), 4762, doi:10.1029/2003JD003902.
  
  Meyer, R., et al., 2002: Regional radiative forcing by line-shaped contrails derived from satellite data. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D10), 4104, doi:10.1029/2001JD000426.
  
  This one is nailed down solid. As well proven as anything in science ever is.
  
  But it%26#039;s not 2+2=4. It%26#039;s proven, like all science, by hundreds of scientists working on small pieces. It%26#039;s serious science, and demands serious study. Not reading right wing blogs. If you want to see how all the pieces fit together, read the IPCC report above, which does precisely that. Warning it%26#039;s 1000 pages long.
  
  Which kinda shows how silly the %26quot;no proof%26quot; argument is.
  
  EDIT - I (and others) post peer reviewed scientific articles (in droves) and the response is one article from a right wing website. I am content to let people make their own judgments about which is more credible. Note that the asker still claims we have provided %26quot;not one shred of proof%26quot;. Can anyone POSSIBLY agree with that statement?
  
  I love how the deniers here destroy every shred of their credibility. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/gree...
  http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/ga...
  http://www.weather.gov.hk/wxinfo/climat/...
  
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
  
  http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-900...
  
  http://astro-canada.ca/_en/a3200.html
  
  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
  
  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...
  
  http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/UIR....
  
  http://www.ilt.fraunhofer.de/eng/100053....
  
  http://www.amacorp.com/medicallasers.htm
  
  http://www.prclaser.com/laser101.shtml
  
  http://www.powerlabs.org/laser.htm
  
  http://www.ilt.fraunhofer.de/eng/100049....
  
  http://www.rp-photonics.com/lasers.html
  
  http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/iraf/rvsao/em...
  If you go to the above link... you%26#039;ll see that today%26#039;s temperature is 7 degrees warmer than the average.
  PROOF ENOUGH
  We are DOOMED!!!
  DOOOOMED I SAY!!!!