Can the global warming deniers come up with any argument that doesn't say scientists are stupid?

Sure. They can come up with arguments that only imply scientists are stupid. Like saying "climate has changed in the past", which if scientists hadn't considered long ago, they would have to be incredibly stupid.

However, I'm not sure AGW deniers can come up with an argument that doesn't at least imply scientists are either stupid, lying frauds, or both.

My take, Dana, with all honesty, is that you are not critical enough of the other scientists in your field and their theory. You must know that there is nothing wrong with denying a theory that observations don't support (AGW). You are too trusting of the theory and I sometimes wonder why you don't see that temperature today is nothing out of the ordinary, and that radical wild variation in climate is perfectly natural. I don't think scientists are stupid, in fact, quite the opposite. I think very smart people are capable of coming up with good reasons to support BAD theories, ESPECIALLY if certain outcomes mean that the funding of their research and jobs will continue. The data really, really, really does NOT support a crisis at all. In a previous post you made clear that you EXPECT ever increasing disaster (food & water shortages, etc.) I really think you should keep an open mind to what John Cristy and others are saying. All the best to you.

I think Dana1981 has hit the nail on the head - they can imply scientists are stupid without actually saying it.

Like that traditional old denier argument "CO2 rises have always lagged temperature rises, so CO2 can't cause climate change". Yeah, thanks, it never occurred to anyone to look into that!

However, I think the main claims used by the deniers are actually along the lines of:

either a) scientists don't think climate change is a problem, it's just an environmentalist hoax

(which implies the general public is too stupid to look up the official statements of almost every relevant scientific body on the planet)

or b) scientists are all lying about climate change to get research funding

(on which logic presumably cancer is a hoax too)

Yes. They can say that they are arrogant. I don't think any scientist is stupid. I know what it takes to be one. The MCATs are brutal and science has a very high standard of excellence. The greatest minds of all time were scientists in my opinion: Benjamin Franklin, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, etc. However, they aren't perfect. Many of them have huge egos.

I also don't underestimate that they have to make a living. The moment they openly say that they really don't know much of anything for sure is the day that they begin to not put food on the table.

Just look at it this way, we have studied drosophila for 100 years and still only know only 14% of the genome. I don't think anyone would ever have allowed the mass extinctions that proceeded us given scientific information but no history involved. Scientist don't opt for extinctions, but in the long run we wouldn't be here without them.

In the long term, scientists aren't stupid at all, but they don't have a time machine.

I think Tom has basically answered your question as it is an argument that doesn't say scientists are stupid...

However, I recognise what you mean: There are many responses in this forum that seriously underestimate scientists and researchers to the point of implying stupidity.

Most of these are based on ignorance - misunderstanding the theories, mindlessly repeating what others have said without independent reflection, confusing terms (e.g. weather and climate) etc - and then projecting that ignorance onto scientists: In other words, calling them stupid.

Bob and Adam do you not recognize that it is not a scientific position supported by scientific method but a religious/political position because they firmly believe they are saving the world by forcing them to reduce populations and resource usage. Most if not all the supporters of AGW/GCC do so because they believe in the doctrines expressed in the book limits to growth. Because they believe in this the same as an evangelical believes you have to believe as they do to go to heaven they will alter data and lie to the world to achieve these resource use reductions.

So I face your mistaken faith in this political lie with the real truth. Look up beyond the atmosphere and realize where the writers of limits to growth looked at the ground beneath their feet and saw only limits, those like myself that have vision look up and see unlimited plenty, all we need is the courage and resolve of pioneers to go out there and get it. But instead the faithful believers in limits will quiver in cowardliness in their caves in fear of those flickering lights while those such as I are challenged to go out there and use their resources to improve the lives of all!

Bob, I don't think that calling anyone stupid helps in any argument, it is in fact a sign of weakness. With that said, I made a rather long post to Dana's question here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Alzgn... that does not call anyone stupid. Further, I will continue my argument about here, but use the CO2 record.

CO2

Historically, high levels of CO2 follow higher temperatures, and not the other way around. Showing graphs of the CO2 record along with a temperature record for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years is misleading if not dishonest. They make people believe that CO2 caused the higher temperatures when in fact the higher temperatures came first http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/News_and_Information/n...

The cornerstone of the global warming theory is the CO2 record largely derived from ice cores. The accuracy of these ice core records is questionable. Ice deep in polar ice caps and glaciers is under a tremendous amount of pressure, up to 300 atmospheres or more. When and ice core is taken, and brought to the surface, it is exposed to one atmosphere of pressure. This great reduction in pressure causes tiny cracks to form in the ice allowing the trapped gasses to diffuse. Diffusion will be inward as well: the atmosphere surrounding the ice core samples as they are brought to the surface will contaminate the samples, giving a reading that is close to current atmospheric conditions. According to Brooks Hurd, an expert analyst of high purity gases, the net result would be relatively constant levels of observed CO2 with lowered maximum levels http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/AIGnewsNo...

Hurd’s conclusions are supported by a study done by botanical palaeoecologist Friederike Wagner on leaf stomata. The study shows that there was a much greater variability in Holocene CO2 when studying fossilized leaf stomata than when glacial ice cores are studied. His work also shows greater maximum concentrations http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/19/12011.pdf

In other words, leaf stomata records show historically higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today as well as a much greater variability than what shows up in ice cores. AWG alarmists seem to ignore evidence contrary to their beleifs.

This like my post in Dana's question is too long, but I hope it demonstrates that skeptics are not just a bunch of brainless conservative Rush Limbaugh disciples.

They can not deny hard facts.Global warming has been projected after serious study by various scientists comparing temperature data all around the world for the last hundred years. It is also based on the status of ice caps in the Arctic and the Antarctic regions.

If any body says that there is no global warming it is akin to the statement that earth is not a sphere but flat.If these people are serious their argument should be based on facts and figures.

do some more research...total amount of carbon 'we' put in the air doesn't even amount to 1 percent...global warming is a myth...has there been some climate change..yes..but this has been happening forever. This global warming thing was hot many many years ago and has now resurfaced...think about it...its a good money maker if it takes root(for some).

They can come up with arguments saying scientists are dishonest. That's different.