Why are there so many skeptics of AGW on here?

Well I'm not so sure the ratio is weighted towards the sceptics here. (There are a lot of proponents who chime in on some questions but less active on others). I'd say at the moment the more vocal members may be be the sceptics/deniers due to the fact that the more vocal proponents are becoming fed up with having their Q's and A's deleted by those who abuse the reporting system.

Then there is the whole deal about impersonating the accounts of proponents to make them look like they're idiots... a shifty and deceitful tactic by dishonest deniers whose ultimate gain is to just spread misinformation for whatever reasons.

I've also read that one or two proponents are becoming fed up with the quality of questions being asked by deniers. If you look at the last three days worth, you'll understand where they're coming from.

This section could be really great but unfortunately, rather than what it's intended for (to gain and share knowledge) it's become more of a place to put forth petty, worthless arguments (sometimes in the guise of questions) that just wouldn't take place in real scientific discussion.

In the "real" world, these arguments just wouldn't hold up so the best place to spread misinformation, is the internet, much like those people who try to discredit Darwin and evolution.

Of course there are genuine questions and responses here by both sides but lately from my observations, these are few and far between.

Lets, look at the questions asked over just the last three hours by the skeptics:

"The sun it the number 1 cause of global warming, lets block it out.?"

"Is the fear of global warming, nothing more than a manifestation of paranoid feelings and behavior?"

"What is the IDEAL tempreture then?"

"Is global warming a hoax?"

"24 below at the truck stop where I am in Minnesota should I be thankful?"

"It's 20 Degrees BELOW zero outside - Do you still believe in "Global Warming"?"

"It's 20 Degrees BELOW zero outside -- Is global warming a hoax? or is winter here?"

Does anyone see a recurring pattern-these simplistic questions are repeated over and over again, day in and day out. There is no serious discourse or debate being put forth by the skeptics. Nothing new, no interesting inquiries...virtually every question being posted is just without substance. Maybe the skeptics just like reinforcing one another and keep coming back day after day to ask the same questions, make the same comments so they feel better, but almost nothing of substance that adds to the debate is being posted by the skeptics. Why would serious proponents of climate change waste their time arguing with these people? It's completely ludicrous.

There's your answer.

I'll just have to echo the first answerer-the quality of most of the 'questions"-which are really just arguments disguised as questions-posed by most of the skeptics are really low quality and redundant. They don't hold up in the real world and are primarily just entertainment. That's the primary reason I come to the global warming section of Y/A nowadays, just for a few laughs. But they're getting fewer and farther between-how funny is it to read 'global warming can't be happening because it's cold in Poughkeepsie today' over and over again, or 'global warming is a big hoax invented by that fat hypocrite Al Gore'?

Maybe I shouldn't say 'laughs' is the primary reason I come to this section of Y/A-as a layman in science, I did find in the past that the numerous links to research helped keep me up to date and refine my understanding of climate change. I would describe myself as a 'proponent,' believing that the global climate is shifting long term due to natural processes and influenced by mankind's activities, but not sure how much significance the burning of fossil fuels will have on the outcome, or that we really understand all the variables. However, to me this is not a deal breaker as far as the course we need to follow-environmental issues other than climate change, economics, geopolitics and the sustainability of our huge population all conspire to demand that we develop alternative sources of energy, one of the main goals of the GW crowd, so regardless of the implications of man made climate change, we are heading in directions that science says may help to mitigate it.

If the truly skeptical would consistently pose questions and answers truly relevant to the issues-such as a serious discussion of the economic impact of alternative energy or review data honestly rather than manipulating it, I would find this category of Y/A more informative, but the vast majority of the questions and comments from the skeptics do not invite a lot of investigation or honest debate. Therefore, I don't take an active and serious part here in the skeptics camp very frequently. Perhaps others feel the same way, hence the dominance of the skeptics here compared to elsewhere.

I'd also have to say that until the release of recent research and data-through 2008-there isn't a whole lot of new discussion. I'm interested to see what the implications are and how science interprets it. The proponents seem to be waiting for more data and refined research, while the skeptics seem more inclined to rehash stuff that has been discussed over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

In Canada the data is: global warming believers 36%, skeptics 64%. The same numbers apply to how many would like to see the government take action to "solve" it.

Real world data. The attempts to deceive the masses haven't worked here.

Because the deniers here are a dishonest bunch of anti-intellectual wind bags. They purposefully post cherry-picked information (global warming stopped in 1998, no wait 2005, not wait 2007); the wrong information (US mainland data as opposed to global data, or "These same scientists believed that an ice age was emerging during the 1970's"); irrelevant information (32,364 people with a BA in science signed this petition). Their only sources, if there are any sources at all, are columnists, random blogs, and right-wing "Think Tanks" whose global warming propaganda is funded completely by Big Oil. They completely disregard 150 years of established physics (greenhouse gases are tuned to absorb outgoing infrared radiation) and trash scientific literature.

How can this much denial and ignorance be countered? It often seems like a huge waste of time to even try to have a discussion with some of the deniers on this forum. I also agree with Town_Clown that the quality of questions is a huge factor. I mean, how many times can one answer the same questions over and over and over again. I mean come on... winter always comes every year. It gets cold and snows. How does the onset of winter overturn 150 years of established science?

Another reason is that many of the deniers here have blocked those who give well reasoned and well sourced answers. This reduces the quality of answers available.

Well...... a number of years ago.... some Goobers got together and told the world that man was causing catastrophic global warming (remember, just a few years before that it was global 'cooling').

The Warmers offered no credible scientific proof (and still haven't) but expected the masses to swallow the AGW thing hook, line & sinker.

Until there is something morein the way of hard scientific proof, then we are going to have skeptics.

Just remember that there were those who at one time, claimed that the Earth was flat.... that the Earth was the center of the universe.... etc.

The Skeptics challenged those beliefs and eventually made the 'flat-earthers' look pretty stupid. Currently, the Skeptics are challenging the modern-day flat-earthers (Warmers).

they find a support group here, no one listens to them in the real world

There shouldn't be any believers on this forum - this is a science forum! The believers just want to talk about faith and politics.

You may have something Martin. It's difficult to make inconsequential conversation about sex politics religion or catastrophic global climate change.

Much of the AGW data is a lie ,so believe it if U want.

No - This is the real world. You just don't associate with people who have a good understanding of science.

Global warming is a political dogma, not a scientific endeavor.