... but everybody agrees that the world is warming on a global scale, just not if its manmade or not, isn`t that right? So..no you cannot be a global warming skeptic because it is an empirical fact, or so I heard again from unspecified sources. Average temperatures are rising slowly but surely, the northwest passage will be shipable soon and the polar caps are melting, which actually makes the people in greenland happy...
Wow. You really are completely unwilling to look at the data too, aren't you?
First of all, it is virtually impossible to derive any kind of confidence from a regression analysis when your known data subset is a subset of an unknown subset of another unknown subset from an unknown and indeterminate population. The temperature data sets we have are "valid" within a small time window and only within that time window. Of more reliable interpretation (though once again within a very small time window) are the sunspot and sunspot group counts for the last few hundreds of years. But once again the sample period is a statistically meaningless set of data for any kind forward trending or regression.
There is as much STASTICAL and SCIENTIFIC evidence for "global cooling" as there is for "global warming". Anthro-historically speaking, more evidence points to extra-terrestrial influence (solar mostly), though the terran magnetic core flux changes may play some role as well as far as geo-thermal internal heat reaction go. The polar ice caps are changing, but not melting en-masse. The continental ice sheet depth in Antarctica has been increasing rapidly over the last couple of decades. The well publicized future ice shelf collapses on that continent are frequent and normal (geologically speaking) events.
The fact that there is a chain of volcanoes erupting for the last five years on the North Atlantic seafloor near the artic couldn't possible have any effect on the ocean temperatures and the north polar ice cap size, could it?
As for the 'starving polar bears'? The fact that their population has doubled in the last decade surely wouldn't put any strain on their food supply.
My point in all of this is that various 'facts' are use to contstruct an argument that shouldn't really even be raised to the level of a hypoothesis, much less a theory, and certainly not give the label of a "fact based on empirical data," when in actuality there is insufficient data to form any theory one way or the other.
First you draw a hypothesis. Then through experimentation and repetition, you form a theory. If you find even ONE result which contradicts your theory, you reduce your theory to a hypothesis, and start over. There IS NO such thing as a scientific fact, only theories which have yet to be disproven.