Why do deniers think that non-scientists are better at science than scientists?

That's denial - you accept any information which supports what you want to believe. If some right-wing think tank tells you the sun is to blame, then they're more reliable than the tens of thousands of climate scientists saying humans are to blame. Those guys are obviously just part of some elaborate conspiracy to raise taxes, or something like that.

There's no logic to it. There's no valid reason for rejecting the scientific evidence and expert consensus in favor of misinformation and political propaganda. Trust me, I've tried to understand it for years. I've tried to get the deniers to explain their reasoning. It's nothing more than denial in action.

You may want to open your experiences up a bit. If you are saying you can not find any scientist who does not believe in AGW, then your eyes are closed really tight. Many of the IPCC's scientist do not believe the lie. Some of the top scientist have publicly come out against the theory. Others used to believe it, but changed their minds after they started to do work in the field.

Also, what I find are many people site blogs/articles that reference the actual study. This means you may need to click another link to get to the actual scientific article.

Also, your arguement goes both ways. I also get tired of hearing outrageous claims from AGW supporters such as, "50/50% chance the North pole is ice free". No science here, just some bodies statement. Then the statement gets transmitted world wide. How about the polar bear fiasco? Politicians are trying to get polar bear endangered (may already have happened) because of a picture a lady took of 2 bears on an ice floe. The bears were fine, but the news picked up the story as they are all dying. Bunch of BS. One big difference, AGW supporters want to enact laws based on no science. "Skeptics" just want to openly debate the issue and get the facts out, as we know the facts are on our side.

I think that it has to do with (1) the weather trends in the US, Europe and Russia since Autumn 2007 (the scientists can tell you what should be happening, but it's not happening and they don't know why), and (2) "climategate" and similar gaffes on the part of the IPCC. Yes, think tanks espousing the skeptic view are often funded by industry groups - just like organizations espousing the view that man-made global warming is real and justifies massive new taxes and government controls are typically government entities or funded by government grants. You have to apply the same standard to both sources of funding, which means that it's healthy to be skeptical of everything you read and to make your decisions based on what you see with your own eyes rather than what various "experts" tell you to see. This lesson can be applied in any area. For example, most doctors will tell you that the supplements they sell at GNC are at worst dangerous and at best (and most likely) "expensive urine" - i.e., ineffective. I've tried them and some are useful with adverse side effects (creatine / headaches), some are useful with positive side effects (PowerFULL and arginine / girth and longevity), some are useful without any side effects (B vitamins, whey protein, BCAA tablets), and some don't appear to do anything at all (various). I believe my own experience and the people who have achieved the results I want (guys who can lift more and have more muscle mass), not some "expert" who couldn't bench half his weight.

Your statement implies there is a scientific consensus on AGW, this is simply false. See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p... for an explanation on how there is little concensus.

http://mclean.ch/climate/What_consensus_col.pdf

I suggest you watch "the great global warming swindle" which has many top scientist in there field quiestioing AGW.

Than there is the NIPCC which consists of cleading climate scientists:

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf

Then there is the International Climate Science Coalition who are fighting IPCC's stance:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

Then there is the Manhatten Declaration (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.p... here are the signors at the declaration:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.p...

Then those who signed since:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.p...

Then there is the climate realist declaration which currently has 1,100 signatories

Heres a paper from Dr Vincent Gray one of the leading IPCC reviewers detailing the issues with the IPCC and their conclusions:

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/warmingsca...

Former NASA modeller exposes IPCC errors:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Hey-Nobel-Prize-Wi...

As you can see with just a few sources there is no concensus, and a huge amount of scientists oposed to AGW. Many still keep quiet over concerns of funding loss, or being involved in smear campaigns. Many scientists who have spoke out have been accused of working for oil companies falsely, some have received death threats - See the great global warming swindle.

View it online:

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warm...

Chapter 9 of the IPCC was produced by only 44 scientists, most of which worked together or had co-authored with each. Most were climate modellers rather than climate scientists and most have conflicts of interest i.e. they work for the Hadly Centre modelling climate change.

The AGW skeptics do not simply base their argument on emotion, or blog posts from nobodies, they have actually done research on both sides and have realised there is no concensus. It is only the politcally driven science groups that purport AGW as that was their object, to prove a link could exist.

Anyone who suggest there is a concensus on AGW is completely wrong and has done little research on the subject.

There are now many scientists now forcasting global cooling for the foreseable future.

"Do not guide the truth but let the truth guide you"

And I dont know how many times I am going to have to say this but AGW is still an un-proven theory, even the IPCC aknowledge a link between man made co2 and warming has never been proven, as its almost impossible to prove. How can their be a concensus then?

"when all men think alike, no one thinks very much"

So, should we cite wiki or tamino? Will that make you feel better? There are thousands of scientists that dispute AGW, just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it's not happening. I have cited close to a thousand "peer-reviewed" (I know you alarmists like that word) publications that disputes AGW. I've even cited publications from scientists at the NOAA and NAS that disputes the AGW theory. The only sites I see listed by the alarmists are NASA, NAS, NOAA, wiki, and tamino. All of them sites have been debunked based on agendas or credibility.

Fact is this, the days of the global warming scare are almost over. Thank God too, America can't let you whiners ruin this country.

You have to understand that most scientists believe that man is not responsible for global warming it's just that if they say we're not to blame, they can't get any funding. I recommend reading this website:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

Part of it was written by a climatologist who specializes in sea levels so you can't say this was written by an idiot. I do rather like the irony in you question when you say we don't listen to scientists when believers base their theory on the preaching of political extremists (i.e. Greenpeace), Al Gore and other politicians. A better question would be 'Why do believers think they know more than scientists?'

This is a ridiculous question. There is a lot of scientists that dispute the theory of AGW or at least don't believe the alarmist's claims that the world is going to end because of this.

The link I provided will most likely be attacked as somehow discredited, but it is simply citing, or giving you a link to information, not creating it.

So, you tell me. Is there really absolutely no scientists, 0, that question the predictions of doom?

Also, you go after sites with the "cute" names, but the fact is they are simply citing the information and never claim to be the ones that conducted the research.

To the extent a textbook presents man-made global warming as ipso facto, that reflects on the textbook. The textbooks used to refer to warmer climate during the MWP. Now they don't. That also reflects on the textbook.

It would appear that the problem is solving itself however. Summer 2008 basically never happened. The people who insisted that a few days of July weather in May meant global warming and predicted more similar weather can insist now that September weather in July and August also means global warming and that it's really "climate change" but nobody's buying it.

Hansen is a scientist who will stand in front of a national audience and say with a straight face, that within the decade we will see a tipping point that by the middle of this century will see sea levels rise by at LEAST a meter! thats 3.28 feet. That's what your text books are preaching, do you honestly believe that sea levels will rise 1 feet in 15 years? because that's about what it's going to take for your prophecy to come true.

If you do, you are delusional, the exact same cycle was occuring in the 1930's the same shrinking glaciers, the sudden rise in temperatures, big storms, shrinking polar ice and droughts and then it started cooling, just like it is now. But you expect everyone to believe this time, it's different, even though we can't prove it, we are right this time.

Yeah, ok, riiiiiight :o

.

.

Text books repeat what politicians want you to hear.

I dont have a problem with scientists, I simply dont trust politicians.

There is another issue, which is that scientists are morons outside their field. If 15,000 physicists say the sky is blue, I am going outside to check. That isn't their field.

The IPCC met in 2007 (their fourth report), and decided that humans are likely to be responsible for 1.1-1.4 degrees of warming this next century, not a big deal.

The UN met, and doubled those numbers, to fit their political rhetoric, plus repainted the scale of the "problem" if the earth does warm that much. The scientists might be right and might be wrong, but the politicians are lying sleaze bags who are just looking to line their pockets and increase their power over people.

We live in an age where the media is bent for economic benifit. We react to what we want to believe and there is always somone with a degree who will support a hypothosis for a price.