Can any global warming skeptics make a scientific argument?

The biggest problem I see in recent work on anthropogenic climate change is a seeming lack in negative feedbacks.

Negative feedbacks are those processes that work to stop a process form going forward. One such case may be found in cloudiness. If the planet warms form GHGs, that would increase evaporation (and bring more warming since water vapor is a GHG - a positive feedback) but more water vapor in the atmosphere could also lead to increased clouds which may (depending on type) reflect more of the sun's energy back into space (a negative feedback). So far most of the research finds positive feedback after positive feedback. I find it hard to believe that a complex system as stable as the Earth has all these positive feedbacks with so few negative ones to counter the change.

And Mr. Jello, you are confusing weather and climate. Not that you care...

Sorry Dr. T. There is no analog for present conditions so you cannot use the historic record to refute AGW.

It's the uncertainties of the science that makes me skeptic. The fact that models used in the IPCC report do not agree. A difference of 1degree Celsius to 6 degrees Celsius. That's no agreement at all. That's basically garbage in garbage out. How about John Christy from the university of huntsville doesn't feel it is catastrophic. Also the fact that the Medieval Warming period was actually warmer than today, so I guess all the fires that people burned for warmth caused global warming then to. You could farm on Greenland so it had to be nice and warm for a long period of time for that to happen. How long will it take the tip of Greenland to thaw out again?? You don't know b/c you don't know what effect extra Co2 will have on our climate. Like I've said previously, cut pollutants, get less dependent on foreign oil, and find renewable resources to use all for creating a better life. Not curve the temperature. It just seems funny how this comes out a little bit before elections. There is a plan and an agenda, that the pros just don't see. There's people who have based there lifes work on making long-range forecast (year at a time) using the sun. There's new studies that suggest that sun did not die down 20yrs ago but it now starting to die down. Which refutes previous studies. That's one set of data that doesn't fit into your book. When I get on to my home comp I'll post the link. The debate isn't over. In science the debate is NEVER OVER!!! Things are always changing, you may think this is fact one year then the next year find out that was not the case. I guess I don't like scientist or politicians running their mouth saying the debate is over. Even if it was, why would the pro's care if we debate it or not, if there wasn't more to be found out!!

I'm just amazed at how the axiom "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." plays out continuously on this subject.

People on both sides can, and do, argue anecdotal data back and forth all day on this subject. A comprehensive review of ALL data shows a statistaclly significant effect of CO2 on global warming. (And given the relatively short time of data collection and great variance in weather patterns, this is really significant. )

Every argument against GW that I've seen has been based on biased data or limited and localized data. And none have shown any statistcal significance in their results, only throw doubt on GW, a much easier thing to do.

I am a research scientist and have studied this for decades (as a hobby). A thorough overview and understanding of the data and statistical evaluation of such (especially of type 1 and type 2 errors) leads to no other conclusion than man-made GW IS occurring.

The uncertainty of the effects is natural given the variation is the system but ALL conservative models show "scary" consequences. We can hope that our self-correcting system is adequate to prevent these but should we?

Every day there are fewer and fewer doubters, just as surely as the planets surface will slowly warm up over this century the ranks of AGW skeptics will thin out and the last of the recalcitrant nations will ratify the Kyoto protocol,Australia's new PM Kevin Rudd will ratify Kyoto in Bali probably before Christmas(details still a bit hazy i had my doubts because he was strangely silent on this during his Election campaign but today he announced he will definitely sign the treaty) that leaves only America who have not,but even if the Americans do not ratify the Kyoto treaty nobody can deny the sea change in thinking from the solar panel powered Christmas tree in Manhattan to small and big businesses all over the states who do care and are cooperating with each other in planning and designing and have a positive and realistic outlook on GW.

On the contrary. There are many experts who disagree with the AGW theory. Many times people on this forum people have provided links to their scientific reasoning as to why they do not believe in the AGW theory and asked to comment on these articles or speeches. Most people follow the alarmists golden rule: Do not discuss the science, attack the man (question his motives), repeat the mantra.

There are many sceptics on this forum who are ignorant of the science. But the same thing hold true for the believers. I have personally asked many believers some scientific questions and they do not know how to answer. They just say, well of all the experts say it is true, it must be true, and they quickly change the subject.

As for saying it is political in nature, we are providing an answer to the motivation about as to why would people lie.

Why CERTAINLY! ------- read this article with the backup data of temperature variations over the last few million years --------- and then make your case that humans are DEFINITELY responsible for the current "slightly" elevated temperatures (less than 1 degree) which is NOT in dispute.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

Kind of strange that the temperature would increase 20 degrees Fahrenheit without the intervention of mankind and just as quickly DROP 15 degrees. The oceans were ACTUALLY HOT HOT HOT long before mankind developed any industry-cars- or pollution.

Easily, Dana. 2 main points that are scientifically based, that punch major holes in the AGW theory:

CO2 rise has always followed Temp Rise. all through history, CO2 rise is a RESULT of Temp. rise, not the other way around. Ask any geologist- temperatures come up, which results in an increase in growinglevels of CO2. Increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing temps. AGW argues that CO2 levels increasign causes temps to rise. not true. never has been.

Also, CO2 is the smallest of the 4 main green house gasses. The others (Water Vapor, Methane, Nitrous Oxide) are all represented in much higher levels (CO2 makes up less than 3% of green house gasses). to achieve "Damaging" levels of CO2, humans would have to emit roughly 1600 TIMES the amount of CO2 we are presently emitting. Water Vapor makes up the lion's share. All 4 are naturally occurring, and a rise in 1, the smallest one, cannot cause the effects that AGW proponents claim.

There is one indisputable rule in physics and that is "Nature never lies", i.e., experimental data rules. If one constructs an hypothetical model and that model is incapable of predicting experimental outcomes or reproducing observations, then the model is qualitative, at best, or pointless, at worst. No matter what, data rules.

So, discard the models and go to the data. The Vostok ice core data (reference) shows that global temperatures vary semi-cyclically over time. It also shows that changes in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have never preceded changes in global temperatures. Further, it shows that global temperatures have plummeted in the presence of the highest concentrations of CO2.

Additionally, if one focuses on the left-most portion of the referenced plot (the "present"), the earth began warming from the most recent glaciation about 20,000 years ago. As is consistent with all other warming periods, carbon dioxide levels began to increase shortly after the temperatures started to rise.

These observations prompt some conclusions:

1. The earth will have another ice age; it is a natural occurrence.

2. Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has no effect on global temperatures.

3. Elevated atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide do not inhibit global cooling.

4. Carbon dioxide levels have been rising for approximately 20,000 years.

5. The current AGW models are expressly inconsistent with these observations and, therefore, they fail the most important test---they claim that nature does lie.

6. Since the AGW models are incapable of reproducing the historical data, they are, at best, qualitative and, at worst, pointless.

----

Yeah, Ken. Thermodynamics and physical chemistry no longer apply. The universe has reorganized itself into something different because, otherwise, AGW proponents would be wrong. Is that it? Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound?

Bob, let me say this real slowly so you can absorb it. In every incidence of historical global warming, the warming starts first and then the CO2 follows. Once the CO2 begins to rise, both the CO2 and temperature rise together. That's right, in every case, CO2 and temperature rise together. In fact, most recently, CO2 and temperature have been rising together for about 20,000 years now. You can put the blinders on all you want, but there is absolutely no physical evidence that supports the AGW theory.

They are being paid billions ONLY if they predict doom. It is you who is the denier. It isn't a hoax. It is exaggeration of data and assigning a known outcome to flimsy data. The man made contribution is less than a degree assuming that nature doesn't have mechanisms to stabilize the temperature. The fact that people who are members of the GWDC (Global Warming Doomsday Cult) refuse to acknowledge that warmer nights, longer growing seasons and increased efficiency of photosynthesis might actually have beneficial aspects show how it is nothing but a religion of doom. The last such religion had its members hand out cool aid.

SO the ANSWER to YOUR QUESTION IS THEY WANT a CARBON TAX to tax evil OIL Corporations DEM Senator DODD. that means trickle down to you $8.00 a gallon Gas Higher food prices TRUCKS deliver food run on FUEL,higher electric they will build NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS its a low carbon foot print . "This is the problem with all this environmental claptrap . . . it's a convenient excuse for politicians to just start taxing people. Some of these guilt-laden, middle-class liberals think it's somehow good: 'Oh, that's my contribution to the environment.' It's not. You're just being robbed--it's just highway [bleeping] robbery."

90% of France runs on Nuclear .SO the ANSWER to YOUR QUESTION IS THEY WANT a DODD. that means trickle down to you $8.00 a gallon Gas Higher food prices TRUCKS deliver food run on FUEL,higher electric they will build NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS its a low carbon foot print .Carbon Tax will go to build these also if you donate to Blue Sky thru power company the $ goes to build new nuclear plants they say its clean low carbon foot print,Be careful what we wish for