How can global warming skeptics here have any credibility?

Unfortunately, most skeptics on here follow this meme:

"It is only a theory!"

You see, they interperet this to mean opinion. Of course, any scientist will tell you that a theory is tested hypothesis with data to back up said hypothesis that has been peer reviewed by other scientists.

Then you will have the skeptics who will claim it is some world wide conspiracy that the UN, NASA, NOAA, ESA, RSA, etc. for name recognition or some other ludicrous idea. Huh? The moon landing was a hoax so JFK could be transformed into Elvis Presley!!!

Then you will have skeptics who will use some sort of discreditied scienctist to back up their claims. Well, if the scientist has been discredited you shouldn't really use his/her findings to back up your own hypothesese. But then they'll go back to the conspiracy theories.

Lastly, you'll run into what I like to call the religious skeptic. A religious skeptic who uses faith instead of logic to back up their claims. Their "religion" is that humans aren't contributing to global warming. These are the ones where you can post links upon links, and explanation after explanation about global warming and they just won't read or listen.

In the end, it's doubtful you'll change any minds here. Humans don't really like to think far into the future. You can be sure when a chunk of Greenland ice the size of New York breaks off and cause a tsunami they'll change their minds, but until then it's wasted energy.

~X~

A much more dangerous problem is Global Terrorism.

Global Warming is a relatively insignificant problem compared with the threat of Global Terrorism, especially when terrorists get their hands on nuclear weapons and detonate those weapons in Cities in the United States.

A number of terrorists have stated that their goal is to obtain nuclear weapons and detonate them in Cities in the United States.

Those terrorists will probably be able to obtain nuclear weapons either from Iran or North Korea in a few short years.

When this happens your life will change for the worse, much worse, in ways that you cannot even imagine.

The worst case senario for Global Warming will look like a paradise compared to what the world will become when the terrorists get their hands on nuclear weapons, and that will almost certainly happen within the next ten years at the latest.

Yes, we probably cause Global Warming, however we should be concentrating our efforts to stamp out Global Terrorism. We should not permit ourselves to be distracted by relatively insignificant issues such as Global Warming until we have eliminated the truly dangerous problem of Global Terrorism.

If we do not stamp out Global Terrorism now, we have no future. Global Warming will be completely irrelevant.

How about the credibility of the IPCC

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archi...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/...

How about the continuous use of the hockey stick graph by people who support global warming:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Wikipedia can be changed by anybody who has a political agenda. Other sources please.

The global warming swindle has its critics, so does an inconvenient truth.

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

People who reject the sun spot theory only account for the solar varience. It does not take into account the solar winds and cosmic rays which affect cloud formation, which have a colling affect. Positive feedback from co2 lagging temperatures, a theory not proved. The mid century drop in temperatures due to sulphates? In the graph below I see no correlation between sulphates and temperatures.http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate...

What is more, despite the high levels of sulphates and low co2 in the early part of the century, temperatures rose, why?

I can give you quotes, but quotes just represent the opinions of that man.

If you want us to believe the oreskes article that no one opposes the theory of man made global warming in peer review articles, then how about these reports.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%2...

Frankly Bob, I couldn't care less how much credibility that I have with you. The "science" of global warming is by no means settled (ever here of the scientific method?), despite what you, the media, the UN and the enviro-whackos want to believe. There are plenty of respected scientists who disagree with you and your ilk about the causes of climate change. For you to claim that there is scientific consensus is simply wrong.

While I believe that conservation and sustainable development are very important causes and should be encouraged, I am disgusted by the tactics that people like you are using to try to force it upon others.

By the way Bob, why don't you fill us in on what you are doing to help the environment? Are you actually doing something or are you a hypocrite like Al Gore and most celebrities?

The proper name for global warming is "climate change" as some parts of the earth get excessively cold as a result of greenhouse gases. Climate change does not just cause warming, it causes erratic weather patterns in general. Even though I believe in climate change, however if you want make a stronger argument don't use Wikipedia or those other sources that you listed, USE SOURCES FROM GOOGLE SCHOLAR, if you want a stronger argument, those sources that you listed are not proven through scholarly research, thesis's, and publications. As for Wikipedia it's written and edited by ordinary Joe Schmos like ourselves. Just want to let you know before someone with opposing viewpoints to yours criticize your sources and make your argument week. To get to Google scholar go to google.com click link on top that says more, then click scholar. After that then search for sources supporting your argument.

Because it's a Theory !!!! That's it !!! There is NO proof!! Only opinions . not to mention The experts that dispute Global Warming out number the ones who do more then 20 to 1 And the few that agree with the Theory aren't qualified to get grants because there is no curve to compare data ! So the bottom line is: One would have to question the intelligences of someone who is not skeptical .And as far as Al Gore goes If you watched his movie you would see not 1 scientist was in the movie so you are gonna take the word of Al Gore? Pleasssss!

Thank you for refuting many global warming skeptics' main points by providing credible sources.

The problem is that most people (on both sides) aren't really educated about the science behind global warming. It has become a partisan issue rather than a human issue, and people like to argue about it without really having any real basis for their claims. Conservatives have this idea that since Al Gore was the one to bring global warming to the spotlight, they feel they global warming is part of the "liberal agenda" and that they must oppose it in order to be true conservatives.

So no, they don't have much credibility. As I like to say, just because they don't understand the science, doesn't make it incorrect.

... And we talk about the antarctic glaciers that are GROWING every year, despite the melting of the ice shelf. Try looking at other sites besides your own pet sites.

Wow, if ignorance is bliss, there are some happy folks using this website.

there is no doubt the globe is getting warmer...the issue is why, and the truth is there is no absolute proof of why.