Do anthropogenic global warming (AGW) 'skeptics' have any scientific data to support their skepticism?

The problem is they generally can find one or two papers that will support their position. That there may be half a dozen subsequent papers following up showing there was an error in the original paper (e.g., the MSU2 tropospheric temperature record, corrected by Fu et al., but *still* trotted out as demonstrating a "huge problem") or that the original analysis provided an overly simplistic picture of the problem (e.g., the original studies of Lamb concerning the MWP, originally thought to be a synchronous hemispheric warming yet which subsequent, more detailed analysis has shown to very different than that, with warming in different regions in the hemisphere experiencing warming decades after others). But the skeptics reject any sophistication of the data as "manipulation to obtain a desired result." They similarly reject any advancement in understanding for the same reason.

They are not skeptics, because a true skeptic would accept that science progresses, and that as understanding of a subject increases, the picture can become more certain AND more complex (see note 1). These "skeptics" instead use any uncertainty to throw the doubt on the entire subject.

Anyone wishing to see the relevant scientific literature on what I am talking about above need only read the IPCC AR4 and the NRC tropospheric temperature reconcilliation document. It's all out there in very reliable sources. Objections that the IPCC and NAS are somehow biased are stupid and pure right-wing paranoia. The same people who make those claims probably use loaded terms like feminazis and environazis straight off of right-wing talk radio.

note 1: (A good example of this is hurricane intensity, where the interplay between shear and SST is difficult to predict in terms of cyclogenesis, and intensification is very poorly modeled at present, yet available analysis indicates that warmer water will lead to stronger tropical storms, so a reasonable person ought to be concerned about the subject, despite the uncertainty (a professional guess on my part is that we will see maybe fewer storms on average, but they will do different things like two cat 5's following the same track in the same season and storms rapidly intensifying in unusual situations). But this uncertainty in what will happen to tropical storm intensity and frequency does not imply that people are unable to predict with reasonable accuracy what will happen to climate.)

Edit: Jorge, before you call me a liar, I suggest you read the IPCC reference below. You probably won't, because you don't want to know, but those who do will see I am not lying. I'm repeating something from an authoritative document. This is what I mean about you skeptics not willing to look at the details. You all are getting skewered, and I mean just completely raked, intellectually because you can't understand the science and the progression of understanding. I'm obnoxious but in terms of the science I am rock-solid. A lot of climate science is simply common-sense extrapolation from basic physics, which is why guys like Hansen were convinced 25 years ago.

Eric: The problem with posting a rebuttal to the nonsense found in your links is that you won’t bother to read it or respond. The article that you keep linking time and time again is mostly make-up garbage with a few half truths. Again, I challenge you to account for a few of the errors in your “article”.

See previous question and answer:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiHZF...

Edit:

Netidol: Your list of Right Wing Think Tanks is hilarious. This is hardly the place I’d look for credible scientific information, right?

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists IS the only major dissenting scientific organization on climate change.[1] However, the AAPG is in the process of updating its current statement on global warming because the "current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members."[2]

It's funny that a 'doctor' would consider NASA and the IPCC to be 'liberal sources'. Funny as in you're a joke. I used to be in denial just like you. It's time to admit that we were wrong and accept AGW.

Larry - As long as your temperature didn't drop to -173 C, you can rest assured that the greenhouse gases were present doing their job.

Dana, those of us that read the scientific literature have long known there's no science to support the doubters. They're weapon of choice is confusion and obfuscation, not the presentation of any superior theory. It's the same tactic used by young-earth creationists in the 80's, as they sought to discredit the theory of evolution (along with every dating technique used by science).

You identified correctly, the one crackpot Russian (his own National Academy of Sciences doesn't consider him credible, so I'm not sure why he's the hero of the doubters around here) who still claims it's all the sun. The sun was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis 10 - 20 years ago, but the past few years have conclusively shown that it's only been a minor factor the last half of the 20th century.

I know most doubters don't read links to credible scientific journal articles or respected scientific research organizations, but here are a few nonetheless:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/10/3713

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003.../2002JA009...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/ab...

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a...

Just because the source doesn't support your conclusion doesn't mean it's a bad source, Dana.

Just because a scientist doesn't support your conclusion doesn't mean he's not a "reputable" or "legitimate" scientist, it doesn't mean he's a "crackpot," and his nationality (actually I thought it was Hungarian) is not relevant.

We've put up plenty of science.

And it's not just one cold month.

Those who have attempted to re-write the MWP out of the climate history have never explained how a single example of the countless events to which Lamb pointed happened if not for a warmer climate.

Some have falsely dismissed these events has having been limited to Europe or the North Atlantic - but it's well-known that that was not the case. Even you asked a question about the droughts that forced the Anasazi to leave their homes in 1270.

I almost don't like answering this one Dana... but you asked, maybe it's good to know this for ourselves...

A few things first...

The only true body of Science listed here is the AAPG, however, they have dissented and are no longer on this list, but I'm including them because of their many years of GW skepticism and contribution to it. The rest will link you to the very sources that skeptics refer to for this "junk science" (junkscience.com, there's another source)

Before I post this list, below is the list of all the MAJOR scientific groups and organizations and their official positions on Global Warming...

Scientific opinion on climate change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

Also... it doesn't help that the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Ranking Member is also the most outspoken critic of Global Warming in government (what's up with that??). You can even see the sharp contrast of this (compare to the obvious opposing views between Majority and Minority on the same home page) the EPW official website... http://epw.senate.gov/public/

Inhofe, who is scrutinized for believing the earth is only 6,000 years old and once stated in a Senate floor speech that "Global Warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" also put together an "official" Climate Guide distributed to the media all around the country and claimed to have compiled a list of "over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/la...

If you find this to be pretty bizarre having someone like this in such a powerful position with relation to Climate Science and our government... you might find this news story interesting... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/11/opinion/...

Generally, most Skeptics just get their information off the web... like these sites for example.

Global Research... a source for skeptics.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=the...

GW Skeptics guide to scientists supporting global warming "hoax"

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20861

However, die hard skeptics will refer to this list (nearly as complete as it gets, if you had a comparable list for non-skeptics, it would take a month to read it)...

Advancement of Sound Science Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advancement_of_Sound_...

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (remove from list, dissenting organization)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_...

American Enterprise Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_I...

Cato Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_...

Competitive Enterprise Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterpris...

Cooler Heads Coalition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooler_Heads_Coalitio...

Fraser Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute

Friends of Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science

George C. Marshall Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_In...

Global Climate Coalition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalit...

Greening Earth Society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greening_Earth_Societ...

Heartland Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

Heritage Foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation

High Park Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Park_Group

Information Council on the Environment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Council_o...

Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Trade%2...

International Policy Network

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Policy_...

Lavoisier Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavoisier_Group

National Center for Policy Analysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_P...

Natural Resources Stewardship Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Ste...

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongovernmental_Inter...

Reason Public Policy Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Public_Policy_...

Science & Environmental Policy Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%26_Environme...

Science and Public Policy Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Po...

Scientific Alliance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Alliance

Western Fuels Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Fuels_Associa...

================

Edit:

Benjamin: I think that’s the point… credible Science opposing the existence of Global Warming, recent climate change and/or Anthropogenic Global Warming (one in the same but not all skeptics dispute them all now because it’s becoming more obvious even to the most hardened skeptic that something is happening, but to the end, they will say human activities aren’t causing it. I just found out that Newt Gingrich even change his position and believes AGW now.)… is not easy to find. These “Think Tanks” as you call them, are among the best sources for GW/AGW skeptics and are heavily tapped for information and other links and sources aiding in their efforts to try and “debunk” GW/AGW. Meaning, you’re not going to get far going to credible Science websites for this stuff. That’s the point I think Dana is trying to make here.

BTW – you quoted that “the AAPG ‘IS’ the only major dissenting scientific organization on climate change”… I don't believe they are the ‘only' major scientific organization, but rather, they were the 'last' of them to take the position that GW is real and that humans may have something to do with that. As for the “updating its current statement” clause… they had that clause in there ever since they decided to change their original official statement which empathically objected AGW and fossil fuels role in changing climate in general. What do you expect, they’re the AAPG! Of course they are going to do their best to not flatly admit burning fossil fuels is altering the climate. Perhaps if they didn’t actually work for the oil and automotive manufacturing industries, they would be more open to the views expressed by other organizations, instead, expect their view to closely parallel whatever Exxon-Mobil says. Anyway, I have my doubts they are the most objective and reliable source regardless of their 'official position'.

The problem is that every time we do offer evidence you attack who said it, where it was said, instead what was being said.

If in somebodies blog they back up their claims with references to scientific articles or web sites, what is wrong with that.

Anyways here is a study that examines all scientific literature. If you are not satisfied with the study, you can look up their references.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...

Yes I have evidence many years ago we had climate changes too and man had nothing to do with it. Therefore any smart person could infer the same would be true.

You mean other than the numerous time I have shown you were science was dead wrong? Sorry but you aren't qualified to set the standards of scientific proof.

Its common sense dana.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap....

If the atmosphere were warming because of radiative forcing from co2, why would there be such a significant warming in one area of the globe? Why not everywhere evenly?

Also, I have recently heard the GISS doesnt use very many temperature stations in northern russia because of accessibility. How do they determine there was such a warm anomoly in northern russia if they only use data from such sparsely distributed temperature stations.

Is there a map of all the locations that temperature readings are taken from, that the GISS uses? Because one map I saw only showed about 10 stations in the entire area of northern russia.