Man-made global warming proponents and skeptics - how do you feel about your cohorts and opponents?

Yes, as a sceptic, I get intensely frustrated when sceptics start saying things like "temperatures are like three degrees lower this year" without quoting any data or "even NASA admits 1934 was the hottest year on record" when that's talking about America.

But what is even more annoying is when they say things like "everyone forgets about the very thing that warms us: the sun" as if they're making some huge revelation not one of the thousands of climate Phd's have thought of.

Another frustrating habit is repeating the same old mantras "global warming stopped in 1998". Well, maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but thats IRRELEVANT!

Attacking Al Gore and co. and "liberals". As a Brit, I don't understand how political standing can have an effect on one's opinions on science.

AGW proponents are guilty of this too, especially the old "pollutions from ur cars r eatin the ozone layer, which caused the earthquake in China" nonsense and hugely exaggerated claims about natural disasters. One thing I have to say, is you know who you can trust with AGW proponents, unlike a certain gelatinous doctor I could name, because at least their claims, whether or not you agree with them, are backed up with empirical evidence, which unfortunately sceptics don't do enough of.

Therefore I urge all sceptics to say goodbye to their unsourced outlandish claims and start citing good evidence for a change.

I get equally frustrated at both sides. One extreme side keeps worrying that GW will bring on the end of the World. And the other side using Al Gore as an arguement. How many times do we have to hear his movie was a farce and he didn't deserve his Oscar or a piece of the Nobel Peace prize. (Now that I think of it, he did deserve the Oscar, since all movies are made up anyways and as for the Nobel Peace prize? Only time will tell on that one, but so far I feel more harm has come than good.)

The problem is we are focusing on the wrong issues. We need to start looking at the things we need to do now. (I'm not talking about what individuals need to do, but what we need to do as a World.)

1.) Move people away from the Rain Forest and protect them. And hopefully find away to start replanting what was lost. - This to me is the only thing that governments should do.

All other businesses that I've checked out on the internet over the last few months have been working on alternatives fuels and some even appear to have been doing it far longer than people realize. - Believe me the private sector is more efficient when running things than the government ever will be.

Dana I have always been skeptical of the models mainly. I do not like the Al Gore is an Idiot argument.

While yes we are 37% of the way to a doubling in CO2; That effect will be 6.3 *ln(380/280)=.1.9 W/m^2 6.3*ln(560/280)=4.37 That is about 45% of the effect of doubling CO2 has already been seen. Some people object to this equation, saying it is to linear and we are already up to 60-80% of the effect. Up until 1940 the effect of CO2 would have been less than .05 deg C. If we say that .2-.25 of this increas is natural. This leaves us with .4-.45 degC from CO2. (some of this could also be from natural causes). Is it not a good estimate then to say the temperature in the year when CO2 doubles will be .4 deg C *1/45%= about 1 deg C. Or about .5 deg warmer than we are now.

I have actually taken the time to model the climate of the last 40 years then project it to the future. Their is also a less publisized division in the proponents that do not feal we will have catrostrophic results.

As an engineer I know a few things about power and the use of power, I really get short when propenents support things that will or could actually hurt the environment.

Actually Crazy Conservitive was correct, The earth will only emit so much energy in the wavelength obsorbed by CO2. Once all that energy is absorbed, it will no longer have an effect. You can argue this will have at leathal doeses of CO2 etc. but theoretically he was correct.

By the way just as many propenents of AGW fail to grasp the science. Like Al Gore. You get feelings from both sides. Currently, while I do admit it makes some since their is no links between extreem weather and global warming, etc.

Being a "Denier", I obviously feel that the scientist representing teh natural causes are more truthful. In general, these scientist will attack data within reports, but not the scientist who promotes it. Unlike the pro AGW side which attacks the scientist personally, but not the data. If they had science on their side, they would go after the data, not the person.

I also see a lot more distortion and censorship coming from the Pro side. The IPCC does not publish the scientist who did their studies, trying to get their methodology is next to impossible, and they attack critics as opposed to promoting their science.

If you want to see lies, I think only Al Gore's movie has been in court and found to be a political piece, not a scientific documentary. Also, look at Mann's famous Hockey stick. It was either gross negligence on his part or out right lying when he came up with that graph. we could also look at NASA and how they have consistently adjusted their data higher in recent years, and lower in years past.

As for grasping the science, I see the pro AGW hiding behind models which have never predicted any future climate. They have all said the temps are to increase, but in reality, the temp has been on a downward trend for the last several years.

Basically, I have yet to see any scientific study which supports the man made cause to global warming. I do see a lot of AGW proponents either lying or telling half truths about the available data. Maybe they could start by telling the public that water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas out there. That would be a start.

I reviewed the link and Bob is in fact incorrect. At some level of CO2 (I do not pretend to know what that level is), adding more will have ZERO greenhouse effect. Also, there is a diminishing return on increased CO2. reference page 22 in the following link

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Ma...

or this link

http://www.carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/200...

Final point, I have noticed the Pro AGW supporters love to use real climate as a reference guide. Yet, Michael Mann perpetrated one of the all time hoaxes on the IPCC Third report with his "Hockey Stick". This along with the fact that the IPCC has no credibility based on your own criteria (those with a specific motivation, whether it is oil or IPCC, can not be trusted as valid data), seems to invalidate most of the pro AGW studies. Sorry, your side made that rule (I attended Al Gore's slide show and even they advocated not allowing studies from agenda driven sources. Of course, they meant "big oil"), I am only here to make sure that it applies to both sides.

I don't feel there are many skeptics who qualify as 'worthy opponents,' someone who can stand on the science to corroborate his/her argument. I'd love to argue a point and concede it! To have a skeptic do the same, when I can document the facts of a particular point I'm making. Somewhere in the give and take of a dialogue lies consensus. I love it when a question clicks and people pour out great answers. It doesn't happen often, but it does.

There are people here who claim to be skeptics, but haven't budged one way or the other in eons. That's not skepticism, that's denial. I'm sorry, but I've got a tremendous list of sites with an incredible amount of information. You look impartially at what's out there -- I'm still finding great sites as my parameters narrow and improve -- and there's simply too much information to say, "Well, I don't know." They're sitting on a fence that doesn't exist.

As for proponents, there's a number of people on this site who I sense are knowledgeable and dedicated and frustrated at the flaws and limitations we're faced with. The desire for meatier questions, fewer insults seems to permeate questions and answers alike.

There's some neat people on this site though. I like how each voice comes through strong and clear, with a peculiar insight that makes their answers unique and valued.

Obviously, there are some AGW believers that are well-educated but a lot aren't as well.

Some skeptics (I've only seen one) seem to have actually looked into it-unfortunately, he seems to be focused on anything that says there could be x reason other than humans-very one sided research. Then there are others who seem to be of the mind that if they 'yell' louder than the opponent and stick their hands over their ears, it will just 'go away'.

How come the media completely ignored the fact that NASA has retracted its claim that 1998 was the hottest year on record?

How come the media has completely ignored the fact that

According to NASA's newly published data:

* The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;

* The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;

* Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and

* Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.

??????

NASA's ground based temperature records for the past 120 years, which have been the basis for most of the claims that global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate, almost entirely due to human actions, have now been corrected to show that much of the warming occurred before CO2 emissions and concentrations began to rise significantly.

I think that governments(including the UN and Al Gore) are more corrupt then corporations so why should I side with the greenies? And the environmentalists have there bad self interests so I don't think of them very well...

That, along with the science which shows that global warming has plateaued and that CO2 isn't the cause...

Its doesnt really matter its too late. The real problems of peak oil and population have overtaken globalwarming. If one doesnt get us the others will.

Wow, I missed the question from your first link. It's very refreshing to read comments from a real skeptic (vs. the political ideologues around here that don't understand basic science). Kudo's to Bob326 for being intellectually honest.

If we had more Bob326's around here and less of the (I won't name them) kooks who confuse the simplest of science/math, and continually make derogatory statements about "liberals" or "Al Gore" we could actually have some useful Q&A around here.