What's Wrong With Skeptics? They Make Science Better.?

The mere fact that climate predictions have been adjusted down with each of the IPCC revisions, shows that skeptics are doing their jobs. My guess is that before the ink is even dry on the last of the AR4 to go public, that there will be a need to adjust them down even further.

However, if skeptics simply rolled over when alarmists declared that the "debate is over", who knows what type of policies they would be lobbying for today.

To be fair to the scientists, very few of them are publicly making the wild claims or declaring their work irrefutable.

Just remember that beyond climate effects and predictions, climatologists have ZERO expertise in the areas of economics, industry, sociology/psychology...or even the newly created pseudo-discipline, climate engineering.

A better example than Gallileo of modern scientific skepticism is provided by Alfred Wegener, who first proposed the theory of continental drift in the early 1900's. Wegener got a few key pieces of the theory wrong, the reaction to the theory was nearly universally hostile, and much of the criticism was leveled on the key things Wegener didn't get right (and ignored the vast body of evidence showing that in essence continental drift was dead-bang correct). However, as the decades went on, more and more scientists became convinced Wegener was basically correct because his theory fit the known facts, and they refined and corrected the details into what we now all know and love as the theory of plate tectonics. (The interesting thing is that there are still "skeptics" out there who don't believe the theory, and come up with all sorts of silly theories that make no sense physically, violate fundamental physical laws, or are simply delusional.) Discounting the crackpots, the people who held out the longest against continental drift were the old guard, who couldn't admit they were wrong in 1915, not the visionary thinkers.

The theory of anthropogenically-induced climate change parallels Wegener's experience, with the initial proponents who claimed man's activities were altering the radiative balance of the atmosphere and that would have dramatic effects on global climate were loudly denounced by many many of their mainstream scientist colleagues. However, over the years most of these "skeptic" researchers have admitted they were wrong and agreed that the initial reports were correct. Mike Wallace at the University of Washington is an excellent example of this pattern.

Where the similarity between Wegener and plate tectonics and climate change breaks down is that plate tectonics was a purely academic battle, there was no economic benefit to be had one way or the other if continents were in fact moving around the surface of the Earth. In that sense, the skeptics could propose valid criticisms of the original theory (plate tectonics), which had to be addressed and remedied before they would accept it as correct. In contrast, climate change is a vastly important economic issue and therefore political problem because energy use is central to modern industrial life. The scientific issues are not addressed in an academic context, where problems in the theory are identified, researched, and then when new understanding is gained the theory is refined to incorporate the new results. Instead, what we find is that past shortcomings of the models and theories (e.g., previous models incorrect parameterizations of the various aerosol indirect effects) are continually brought back as evidence that there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change. Furthermore, people who are threatened in one way or another by the idea of climate change will latch on to any silly idea saying the whole theory is wrong. A great example of this is Alexander Cockburn, who is a climate skeptic because he hates nuclear power and conflates dealing with CO2 emissions with a crash building program of nuclear reactors.

In this sense skeptics are playing a counterproductive role because they distract from the advancement of understanding. They continually bring up things that have been buried scientifically or are clearly not in dispute from an objective evidence standpoint (e.g., the rise in global mean temperature, even Christy admits the data is correct: for god's sake, move on already) rather than focus on things that are true unknowns (e.g., is the net radiative forcing by clouds positive or negative?). If you were true skeptics, out to help refine the theories, I would say more power to you. Unfortunately, most of you skeptics are not, you're just angry that you got out on the wrong side of the issue way back when.

Skeptics can just be naysayers, like most unfortunately, but they can also help science. If you indeed are a skeptic like Galileo Galilei, good for you. But, if you just doubt & naysay just for the fun of it, you are no help at all! He made his own science, & didn't just say things about the current science!

The question regarding some peoples status is not whether they are skeptics or not. It's more a question of denial, refusal to see scientific evidence, and ulterior motives. I believe Galilei did it because of science, to see what was true. Most skeptics on this site, refuses to see the evidence, opposite of what Mr. Galilei did. I think that any skeptic, with true intentions, has his statements met in a scientific way.

Edit.

No, I see skeptics something entirely else. I don't mind if they disagree with me. What I want is a scientific response with an intention to share, and/or learn. I value those responses whether they have a similar view to me, or not. The other kind of skeptics that I was referring to are those who let political, or financial, motives determine what they see as facts in the issue. They often, in my experience, bring in those political aspects, which I prefer would be debated in the politics section, in the arguments.

a skeptic is someone who understands the scientific fact:

human activity produces greenhouse gases which effect the climate

however, a skeptic thinks that other possibilities are creating most of the warming. A skeptic is someone like Michael Crichton.

A denier is a closed minded individual who doesn't understand science and who thinks that there is no way human activity could possibly effect the climate and natural forces are completely to blame for the current warming. A denier is someone like senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK)

There's a difference between being a skeptic and being an a**. I think you may be teetering on the line.

And to Patrick: I just want to let you know that Inhofe doesn't speak for the whole state of Oklahoma. In fact, Tulsa became the 500th city to sign a pact among American cities with similar goals as Kyoto.

Healthy skepticism is not only fine, it's the proper attitude that good scientists are taught to adopt -- especially about their own work.

But when there is a mountain of evidence supporting one position, and a molehill on the other side, there comes a point when it would be perverse to withhold one's provisional assent. Beyond that point, a skeptic becomes a crank, on the same level with creationists and flat-earthers.

There's skepticism, and then there's the "call for perfection" as a method for stalling needed action. Skepticism is fine, as long as it is not simply a dodge to impede essential change.

"Everyone has an agenda (except me) about global warming." -global warming skeptic

this is what's wrong with skeptics. they even deny their own agendas.