Why do AGW deniers make political arguments while believers make scientific ones?

Essentially because the AGW people don't understand science and don't understand the difference between political issues and scientific ones.

In the political realm, any position that is taken can be debated--and there is no "final arguement" that negates further debate. For example, a policy such as the new mandate for increased biofuel production can be debated endlessly: is this the best approach? What are the costs? should we leave the issue to the market? Such political questions involve value choices (e.g. conservative support of free markets versus liberal views tha tstate action is jsutified in the name of the greater good, etc.).

But that is NOT how science works. A scientific arguement plays out as part of the process of accumulating data (evidence) testing hypotheses, etc. At theend, the question (any scientific question) is settled based on a body of confirmed evidence that precludes further debate--the facts, once determined, simply ARE. No "(rational) debate ispossible because it would require taking a position that contradicts known facts.

Those who understand this (global warming "supporters') rely on the science first, because its a scientific question, not a political one and second, because they know they will be proved right in the long run--because they already have been proved right.

The AGW proponents don't grasp this distinction--and mistakenly continue to think the issue can be treated as a political debate, which it can't They are trying to equate apples and oranges. It won't work.

For their own political reasons of course. They are really scraping the bottom this time to come up with In.a.hole and his 40 men. against a consensus of over 200 nations, 3000 plus scientists that proved AGW was caused by the emission of CO2 and other pollutants by the burning of fossilised fuel. With men like Inahole in the Congress or Senate, there is no wonder that America is going down the chute.

It frustrates me that we have this appearance of debate but the skeptics can't seem to show what they base their objections on. Exactly what do they offer beyond the same old favorites (e.g. solar cycles) which have more holes than swiss cheese?

The scientific process values challenges to theories, and that process makes theories stronger or replaces them with better ones. The genuine scientific papers which challenge and refine our understanding are critical. Hopefully the flood of noise won't drown out the few valid skeptical papers which can help advance our understanding.

On the Anthropogenic GW supporting side, I've outlined the Carbon Cycle report's chapters below. It has a 40 page list of scientific references, each page typically consisting of 20+ papers, each often by 6 or more authors. That's well over 800 different papers referenced, involving thousands of scientists, even allowing for some possible duplication. Exactly what and where is the alternative theory?

Why do AGW supporters make outrageous emotional statements like: "Save mother Earth, save the polar bears, you must hate earth if you don't BELIEVE in AGW." I think both sides get emotional and political on this. The scientific "proof" you say that AGW believers use simply states observations and then claims to know the causes those observations. NEWS-FLASH, no one is arguing about the recorded events of the past couple hundred years. Discrepancies are in the claims that the IPCC and others make about what caused Global Warming.

Let us see a CLAIM made by the IPCC 4th assessment report.

"Anthropogenic forcing has LIKELY contributed to recent decreases in arctic sea ice extent and to glacier retreat."

(directly from page 665 of IPCC 4th assessment report.)

Answer this question: Why would we listen to their predictions when they're only 66%(definition of likely according to the IPCC) sure we're causing this?

Answer: They have not proved that the symptoms of the Earth are due to human activity. Therefore it IS NOT SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS. Otherwise they would have said something along the lines of this:

"Anthropogenic forcing HAS contributed to recent decreases in arctic sea ice extent and to glacier retreat."

Dana 1981, Master of Science: I want you to provide me a link to this claim that the IPCC is 99% certain humans have caused this recent warming please. (from the fourth assessment report.)

Your problem is that you don't recognize that Bravozulu is 100 per cent right. The paranoid seldom see their own paranoia. Your idea of "scientific" arguments are simply those that allow you to maintain your paranoia.

Typical leftists. You describe your opponents as doing what you do.

Oh, right. 'They' are not only wrong, but stupid, while 'we' are right, and smart. LOL.

The truth is, it IS a political ploy, and most AGW 'scientists' are speaking outside of their area of expertise.

Actually, most of the arguments I have seen on both sides are largely political, but I would say that by count, there are more scientific arguments proposed by skeptics than by proponents. Of course, your use of words like believers and deniers indicates that you are in the political/religious area rather than the scientific one.

Most of the Global Warming lemmings quote their prophets, rather than any scientific data. How about this scientific data, our records on temperature trends cover less than one hundred years in millions of years of planetary climate history. There is no way we can know if any temperature change we observe is a trend or a blip. If you were as well versed in scientific data analysis as you pretend, you would know the difference. Our meteorologists cannot predict the weather for tomorrow with any real accuracy, how can they predict the weather for the next millenium? Temperatures on most of the inner planets are going up slightly, this would indicate that the output of the Sun itself is going up. I suppose you would blame that on greenhouse gasses. In addition, the argument IS a political one. The question is whether or not we allow a bunch of lemming-herders, (Gore, et al) manipulate a gullible public into surrendering more power and money to the governments in the name of something we have no control over and may not even be happening in the first place, An average rise of less than a fifth of a degree celsius is NOT a trend.

Sorry, but when it comes to your little enviro-religion, I AM a doubter. That doubt is based on scientific data, not a blind faith in a manipulated establishment.

The GW doubters are often motivated by fear of big government and/or loss of economic prosperity. Likewise some GW zealots are motivated by fear of catastrophism. Neither of those groups have reasonable arguments or evidences for their position.

The moderate (GW is real and we need to address it) crowd are the ones who actually have scientific knowledge and rational reasons backing up their positions. That's why they can post cohesive arguments and participate in rational discussions.