Does this sum up the skeptics' argument against anthropogenic global warming?

"I choose not to be convinced by the anthropogenic global warming theory, and although I have no valid alternative scientific theory to explain the observations, I'm willing to desperately clutch at straws on the off chance that someone might believe me".

The approach so often adopted by skeptics is just as you described - it's one of picking holes. My approach, as a believer, when presented with an argument from a skeptic is to systematically work through each and every point they make - it's something that I, and others, often do on here. I have never seen this approach being adopted by a skeptic who instead, finds what they beleive to be an error and from that concludes that everything else must be incorrect.

Picking holes is a very weak form of arguing or debating. In any debate both sides present their case, they ask questions of each other, learn from each other, develop their own ideas etc.

If the skeptics have a case then let them present it. To date it's consisted first and foremost of picking holes and secondly of churning out a stream of alternative 'proofs'. None of which have stood the test of time or even received any support from others within the skeptical community. It seems reasonable to suppose that if they had managed to come up with something, that the idea wouldn't have immediately fallen by the wayside and that others would have got behind the idea.

Dana:

The AGW models (which all this is based on anyway, computer model output) all predict the Troposphere over the Tropics must warm at 2 - 3 times the rate that the Mean Surface Temperature (whatever that is - even your great prophet Hansen isn't sure) does. This warming has not occurred. The AGW proponents blame the data, and continue to foist models that don't accurately reflect reality down our throats.

AGW Proponents predict that both daytime highs and nighttime lows will increase as a result of GHG increases. While daytime highs have increased in many places, night time lows (where data exists away from the UHI effect) show no signs of increasing.

AGW Proponents claim that the problem should be GLOBAL, however it is primarily a Northern Hemisphere (funny thing that, most of the population and heat islands are north of the equator) issue. The Southern Hemisphere has shown no warming over the past century on average.

AGW Proponents have NOT proven that "catastrophic" results will occurr if the world continues to warm, nor can any of them agree on how much it will warm.

I won't even get into how much better a WARMER world is for life in general!

The earth was warming slightly. That ended in 1998 and there has been no further increase. It was not AGW. It was natural, and yes, it's stopped. So what's the big deal? The term 'global warming' is understood to refer to manmade global warming in today's lingo. It's manmade warming that has a few lefty scam artists supposedly worried while making billions of dollars. The myth of AGW will stick around until it's no longer needed and then will fade away. The alarmists will replace it with something else that benefits their agenda.

Apparently it's the best they can do.

Origin -

Libertarianism does not protect the environment because it fails to consider the interconnectedness of society and the environment. Some say if the government would just leave everybody alone and let me do what I want, everything would be fine. I once had a far right neighbor. I asked him about some oil stains around a pipe sticking out of the ground. “That’s where I dump my used oil down the old well. It's all natural. It came out of the ground. I'm puttin' it back in the ground.” So, since it’s his land, he should be free to contaminate the wells for half the county?

“the burden of proof on whether the activity causes harm really has to rest with the person asserting the harm” This is EXACLTY why we are in the current predicament. It is infinitely more harmful to allow the genie out of the bottle rather than to prevent its release in the first place. In the former condition the only harm is to delay the petitioner. In the latter case the harm is to everyone, irrevocable and unfixable.

“the only consistency is this Malthusian belief that mankind is overconsuming” Exactly. Cornucopian economists and free market types in general neglect the fact that the economy is a subset of the environment. You cannot have an economy without resources and a functioning biosphere. We live in a closed system. From a purely logical standpoint if we allow uncontrolled population growth and development, eventually resources will be exhausted and the ability of the ecosystem to regenerate will be degraded to the point where it will no longer function.

“"nationalization of thought" “Specifically the treatment of prior climate shifts - the elimination of them to produce a hockey stick” Complete red herring. The theory of Global Warming is over 100 years old and, like evolution, has withstood the test of time. The criticism of the hockey stick was taken, the data and analysis was checked, and the result stands. Only conspiracy theorists believe that scientists make up data and conclusions to fit the prevailing dogma. There is far more evidence to support the opposite claim, that reactionary governments suppress science in order to maintain the status quo.

“How can any intellectually honest, open-minded person not be troubled by that?”

This is nothing more than an emotionally charged statement of a conclusion that follows from flawed reasoning.

“And I have little patience for changing stories” A rather sophomoric misunderstanding of the scientific process.

"I do not find it necessary to prove an "alternate" theory"

Yes, you do.

Translation: "I don't know how science works"

Jell-O -

I am not even a tangent; I am a fragment floating in intergalactic space.

Mikeb420 -

Non answer

Larry –

Previously debunked non answer.

edit1:

Origin L #2

Believe it or not, I'm a Jeffersonian too. But I know things he didn't know. Time works that way. Rights are not unlimited (even Jefferson didn't think so) just as resources and the biosphere are not unlimited. There are a fixed amount of "rights" in the world. To give rights to one person you have to take them away from someone else. Your right to use up resources and pollute in an unlimited fashion is taking away the right to at least some resources and a clean environment for everyone else, especially future generations.

edit2:

Mikeb420 -

Ok, fine. Nonsense + Previously debunked non answer

rwcrufle-

non answer

Lawrence-

non answer

Yes, and even if a "hole" is found in the theory, it won't be of the type that would require reworking the whole framework of climate physics. Atmospheric radiative transfer is correct for instance, ocean CO2 chemistry is understood, large-scale ocean dynamics is understood, global atmospheric circulation is understood. The things that are less understood such as cloud physics, while being important, do not invalidate the basic premise that CO2 affects the radiative balance of the atmosphere and that global climate is extremely sensitive to this.

Edit: I just saw the tail end of the first post. In a nutshell it typifies one of the basic problems in dealing with climate change. People have mostly lost track of the subtle and critical distinction between rights and privileges. Everyone has a right to work and to live in a private space, to live in a 5000 ft^2 house 30 miles from where you work and commute to work every day by personal automobile is a privilege.

Rights are good, they are the cake. Privileges are icing on the cake. The problem is that everyone eats the frosting first. But have you noticed that if you eat too much frosting, you start to feel queasy? It is time, perhaps, to admit we have too much icing.

Yea, it sounds like when people observed that feathers fell at a slower rate than large objects that gravity must be proportional to weight.

Ok, there were minor discrepancies with the theory, but most people believed this at the time, so others should just accept it as being true. It was the most accurate theory at the time to explain the observations.

Wasn't it rather silly to study gravity further to come up with a better idea? Science should stop when the popular vote is high enough to say what is indeed the truth.

HAHA! Your interpretation is brilliant! Brilliant to the extent of a high-schooler repeating 9th grade.

The observed data of no warming for the past decade, only a 0.6 degree temperature rise during the last 147 years (but answering how technology has played an important role in accuracy doesn't suffice as a reasonable argument), the constant warming and cooling since The Little Ice Age in approximately 30 year cycles, polar bears drowning and dieing at an alarming rate (even though polar bear population has increase by 25%), etc (I could go on and on, but there is no convincing an alarmist).

Scientists have come up with a better theory, the Earth is in a natural warming and cooling cycle that is most attributal to solar cycles of sunspot activity. Afterall, the "scientific consensus" is the Little Ice Age was caused by a lack of sunspot activity.

Dr. Blob- yes it is. just because you refuse to accept them as answers, doesn't mean they aren't. They are some, of the many, arguments scientists are giving to the IPCC claims. There are many more.

Captain Bear- grossly exaggerated claim. There is no consensus in science and there sure as heck aren't 3,000 claiming they believe in your AGW religion. Last the IPCC claimed, it was 215.

Well, if skeptics wont accept the consensus of AGW theory by over 3000 scientists, yours and mine wouldn't make much difference either.

Minor discrepancies in the AGW theory?

Yeah, like CO2 drives climate.

If CO2 drives climate, we should have had run-away warming 450 million years ago. Instead, we got an ice age that lasted over 20 million years.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/T...

In the ice cores, every time the temps peaked and then started to fall, the CO2 was still increasing.

http://www.socialtext.net/data/workspaces/wired-ma...

Hehe....yea, from what I've seen on these Yahoo message boards, that's about it!

Dana, you really like pushing the skeptics buttons, don't you?!