What percentage of man-made global warming doubters do you think understand the basic science?

I don't think many understand science in a quantitative way, and if you don't have any feel for numbers then you don't really understand it. Still, I'd say perhaps 10% understand the basic science, but have so many preconceptions that they can't get past their denial.

In response to your first respondent, who I know doesn't understand basic science (sorry, but that's clearly true from all your responses), it's not such a bad thing to believe in what scientists say if you don't understand science, but it is a problem if you don't understand science and still try and deny science--if you don't know science you shouldn't be voicing opinions on whether it's true or not.

EDIT: It's amazing how someone like Charles M can manage to lose all credibility in his first sentence. Saying things like that just make Dana's question seem reasonable. I see that he goes on for several paragraphs, but did he say anything useful in them? I don't know, because he lied in the very first sentence, so why should I read more? If doubters want to make points with their arguments, perhaps they shouldn't start with lies.

Oh, and I should say that if he really doesn't think he's lying, then he does know nothing about science. I'm sorry to put this so bluntly--but blatant lies need to be called out.

Firstly I do understand the science, I have three science majors including maths, chemistry and biology. I have also been retired long enough to actually read most of what is about. The report of the Panel took a month to struggle through.

I would have to say that there are very few people on this planet who are capable of understanding the science of climate change. Even Climatologists can be ignorant of the effects of Solar winds and even sunspots despite the links that have been made between sunspot activity and rainfall in various studies. They simply do not have the time to work and do the necessary reading.

Most people of course do not have the reading capacity and background knowledge to understand what they read.

You ask for an opinion so I will give one:

1) There is a very small percentage of the "doubters" who understand the science.

2)There are so many who simply accept AGW without question that the percentage of those who have any real understanding of the science is even smaller.

In fact the absolute number of those who understand most of the science probably favours the doubters, which is really to say that they do not accept all of it.

That constitutes doubt.

Please note that I am referring to ALL of the science, not just the pieces!!

It is likely that you mean something different.

The problem with the explanations is that they are quite incomplete and most likely misunderstood by the people delivering them and so create more doubt.

Why don't you understand that observation is a part of science also?

The climate has been cooling since 1998. Yet supporters of this weak theory just came out after the fact and said it was expected. (Might have been more credible if they had said that before the data came out)

They claim that CO2 is a cause of AGW when a closer look at the data sets indicates that it is more likely a result. Warmer temperatures release CO2 from the ocean.

Not a single claim made by the supporters of this theory can use it to make any accurate predictions closer than a generation away when they are not likely to need funding anymore.

The biggest single reason I refuse to accept this theory though is because the supporters will not allow any conflicting evidence to be examined. It is automatically dismissed as being "bought and paid for by big oil". A real scientist tests all evidence not just the evidence that he knows will support his pet theory.

I do not think believers understand basic principles of science. Jan Veizer in a paper called Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle wrote:

"Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (Basically what he is said is that the sun drives climate, and when temperatures and the sun's activity move in opposite directions it is due to noise from the PDO).

Last year the PDO shifted from warm to cool, the sun's activity decreased, and temperatures dropped. Basic science principles state that empirical evidence takes precedence over theory. For the time being Veizer's theory is correct. If temperatures start to rise again, then he will be proved wrong.

Another reason why he arrived at this conclusion is that he listened to his head and not his heart:

"Personally, this last decade hasbeen a trying period because of theyears of internal struggle between what I wanted to believe and where the empirical record and its logic were leading me."

I suggest you do the same.

Extreme weather and regional climate has been the emphasis for both sides. I also find myself dismayed with those examples. Though when the dynamics are highlighted and not listed as a isolated relationship. I can relate just a little more readily. And yes I know the difference between long term climate studies opposed to short term events.

Anyway I will let the question stand as a refresher.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climateresearch.html

I can't speak for other 'doubters' on YA but I think I have a fair grasp of the science involved, to the extent that's possible without advanced degrees in each field of climate science. And I think that the dire predictions are overblown. If I'm wrong and they are not overblown then nothing we do can possibly affect the disastrous outcome the IPCC, James Hansen, Al Gore and others predict. Doing all we could to stop producing CO2 would only delay the temp rise by a few years according to the IPCC and that effort would likely cause tremendous disruption.

The sad part is that I think most skeptics agree that we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels, they pollute, they're becoming scarce and hence more expensive and they're provided by countries hostile to the West to varying degrees. Rather than trying to curb CO2 emissions by cap-and-trade we should invest in ways to actually develop and deploy alternatives such as wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear and others, then use these alternatives to power electric cars with advanced batteries or capacitors.

If the majority believes that CO2 is really the villain then we should devise means to actually remove it from the atmosphere rather than just trying to limit emissions. Anything less than that will still lead to global catastrophe if you believe the IPCC reports and the premise of AGW. I don't believe it's in our best interests to tie ourselves to the UN or any other international body and let them dictate how much energy we can use, thereby deciding how prosperous we can be. Few countries want the US to prosper and many would much rather see us in decline. Giving them the tool to bring that about is very unwise.

There are valid questions about AGW theory, CO2 saturation, ice core data, questionable temp monitoring stations, data being 'massaged' by James Hansen and others and the fact that the change in temp in the past 100 years has not been steady but CO2 emissions have been. My biggest concern is the effort to pretend that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age never happened (Mann et al) or was limited in extent. I've never seen such a blatant attempt to rewrite history and in order to succeed they'll need to burn tens of thousands of textbooks written before they began this effort.

Since my debate days I've known that the first side to begin name-calling or personal attacks has ceded the debate. Skeptics on YA rarely do this but we're routinely lumped in with Holocaust Deniers and savaged as idiots who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old or some other specious attack. If we really are in a long-term cooling phase, a'la the Little Ice Age or worse, I sincerely hope we can increase temp by adding more CO2 since fatalities from that event would dwarf anything the IPCC predicts from a warming trend.

CharlesM, could you post links to the chart and defective computer program 'dissection' you mention?

All I can say is that understanding the science and agreeing with it seem to be two different things. The science in this case is obtuse, the product of a relatively new field, and is interpreted as being a referendum on the activities and very intelligence of mankind. I think it's fair to say that genuine skeptics and doubters understand the science as well as anyone. But deniers use science as it pleases them, to substantiate or refute their own position. They can turn science on or off, stand it on its head, as it were, water it down, pull it out of context.

One tactic used by hardcore deniers (I've taken to calling them "mules" because they're so stubborn!) is to keep themselves "private" on this site and to block those they don't wish to hear from. I daresay perhaps it's time for some of us to do the same, as there are 3 or 4 who will weigh in on a question just to register their opinion, as if we'd somehow forgotten. If they offered anything new, or actually answered the question, I wouldn't mind in the least. If they relied on science, instead of using the bits and pieces that suit them, I would welcome their say. Instead, they seem to feel compelled to go on the record and remind us that they're skeptics/doubters/deniers/mules. It's actually a bit weird, if you think about it.

I have a family member who denies the problem. We've "agreed to disagree" on the issue, which means we keep the subject off the table, at least for now. I honor this agreement, but I continue to read, research, and listen to comments on this site by those who want to discuss and inform, whatever their beliefs. The doubters you mostly refer to, I believe, are totally inflexible in how they present their argument. Can the same be said of you, or me, or others on the AGW side of the fence? I feel that if someone presented a scientifically valid argument against AGW that we would be capable of digesting it and following up on that material through other sources. But such questions rarely materialize.

Many doubters, here and elsewhere, do understand the science, they just want a smoking gun they can wrap themselves around. Yet the smoking guns are there, if one can understand and interpret the science. Percentage-wise, the doubters here who reflect that reality are few and far between.

Dana the problem is the hypotheses called AGW has no science to support it in any way. Because somebody wrote a defective computer program that produces a weird looking graph does not mean there is any real science to back it up. Several very good programmers have duplicated Hansen’s program and in doing so discovered the errors in it, His output chart from the program is what convinced me from the first day that it was phony because it literally rewrites well documented history as if it never existed. The only reason their has been any support for his lies at all is because Gore and some of his cohorts decided to use it for part of his campaign.

Every single argument that is used in support of AGW is non scientific because the model has many mathematical errors in it and is therefore unable to produce results unless an added assumption is made that is not in the original data or calculations. I am far from being a math whiz, but even I am clearly able to see that the Hansen chart is a product of some serious mathematical errors and that because of how GISS has manipulated the data there is no way the truth will ever be really known now unless GISS and Hansen are cut out of the loop for 10 years or so to gather uncorrupted data that can be charted correctly to see where we are and where we are going.

The corrected US chart shows the truth and the recent foul-up shows just how untrustworthy any piece of data that has been through Hansen’s hands really is. It is pretty much obvious to any body with a decent education that the world right now is generally cooler than it was in the late 30s and the 40s. So it is pretty obvious that all the charts and graphs supporting the lie of AGW are based on very buggy computer programs that are producing exceedingly inaccurate data results.

So until uncontaminated data can be put into a tested and validated program it is going to be very difficult to get any person to believe in AGW anymore. Last I heard another thousand or more science professionals have agreed that the Hansen graph is false and the corrected one that shows 1934 as hottest is correct. Hansen did lie and the evidence is going to be overwhelming against the supporters of the AGW hoax within a few months. Mann and Hansen might even end up in prison with Gore on fraud charges from some hints I have heard.

The science behind it is basic - the "believers" are typical leftist elitists who think they're smarter than everyone else. As a physicist, I know the science, but I don't like the hype and politics behind it. If it was like the coming Ice Age theory 30 years ago I'd say "live and let live" since the UN didn't try to tax the life our of economies. We just waited for the theory to change - it sold a lot of books, made a few people rich, but didn't destroy nations. If you want to voluntarily change your life to a green one - have at it - we all want clean air. But when you step in my yard, be prepared for a fight.

I would estimate and that is all you can really do is estimate. That both sides have about the same percent. The problem is it is a become political and therefore name calling and personal emotion become part of the debate,of which both sides have. No matter how you label skeptics or believers it has become less about science and more about agenda.

Good question. Star from me. I like that it has drawn out a few doubters, and although some didn't attempt to answer your question, others really thought about it, and attempted to give a limited response without making their position more vulnerable. This is good because it signifies that some people are still willing to think outside their little box for a minute, drop their guard long enough to consider an alternative argument, and then discard it to retreat back into their box. This is good because many doubters never leave their box, as you've explained above, and sometimes I feel like I'm,talking to a robot programmed to repeat. Unfortunately, in today's society of bright colourful boxes, subliminal messages, and corporate spin doctoring, this is not far from the truth. This is good because there's still a few who can be saved, woken up to all this and educated on how to think independently. Problem is that waking a single person up takes so much effort, and the colourful box will keep imprinting long after the teacher believes the student to be saved, just incase they relapse into mindlessness.

What scares me more than the potential effects of climate change in the future is that everything we are seeing here with these doubters is intentionally fabricated by a relatively small group of physical people, and a relatively large group of "separate legal entities". If they have this much power now, to manipulate real people into believing what they say no questions asked, through the power of the subconsious messages, what will become of our society when everything comes tumbling down. I mean, assume for a moment that climate change is not the end of the world, or the end of humanity, but that it will have a devestating effect on global economy, trade relations, competition for resources, military leaders being voted into political power, and possibly the end of democracy in the western world, how long do you think its going to take for those in power to realise the effective nature of these tehnologies and use them to sell business propositions that keep them and their friends rich, and keep the poor in the gutter with the extreme weather to suffer through. If I was a cold, heartless, white, catholic man I probably wouldn't hesitate either.