What information does a 'Sceptic' or 'believer' need to change their mind?

The most straighforward way to change my mind would be for someone to explain where the physics of AGW is wrong, and provide a physically plausible alternative explaination for the recent rapid global warming. Nobody has even come close to fulfilling these 2 requirements. All these piddly little "global warming is natural" and "global warming has stopped" arguments disregard fundamental physics and statistics.

Alternatively, you want to statistically prove global warming has stopped, here is how you do it:

graphically: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/bet3.jpg

in detail: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

Many times I've said I'll gladly take this wager, but there don't seem to be any denier takers for some odd reason.

Simple: I would need a prediction of temperature rise from the Global Warming Liars that actually turns out to be accurate, thus demonstrating that they truly know what they’re talking about.

The Global Warming Liars talk as though the science of Global Warming is straightforward and settled. They give the impression that it’s so simple, only a fool wouldn’t accept it. Just look at Dana’s answer as an example: “explain where the physics of AGW is wrong” he demands. He goes on: “…provide a physically plausible alternative explaination[sic] for the recent rapid global warming.” And adds that: “Nobody has even come close to fulfilling these 2 requirements.”

Well, if the science behind Global Warming is so well understood and entirely settled, why is it that not one, I say again, NOT ONE of the models that the Global Warming Liars rely upon predicted the current cooling that we are experiencing? Quite obviously, something is going on that they didn’t account for.

So, “explain where the physics of AGW is wrong”, Dana demands. Well, the current “physics of AGW” predicts that temperatures should be going up, but they’re going down. That’s where the physics of AGW is wrong, right there!

To quote a post I recently saw from a 'believer' - "Nothing you can say will change my mind".

Blind/fanatical belief/scepticism isn't based on fact, so facts are not the way to change their mind. This type of opinion tends to be based more on emotion such as "Green guilt", righteousness or anger towards deniers/propagators.

Global Warming is pushed by the media so much that it just gets ingrained in to peoples heads. This kind of social influence is probably the only way to change their minds.

The same approach is used in political campaigns to give the people the 'feeling' that someone would make a good president, so they don't need to look at their policies.

What happens when they are proven otherwise a decade later? Simple, it is forgotten about. Anyone remember 'Global Cooling'?

No amount of evidence or proof will change the mind of a skeptic. Skeptics are caught in an infinite loop of disbelief. No matter what is put before them, they will not change their mind. They are addicted to the feeling they get when a logical person calls them stupid. It's their way of proving that they control things, that they play god. Other's perceived knowledge is always dispelled as delusion to the skeptic, since they don't believe anyone can know anything.

A believer on the other hand just flits from one belief to the next. When one presents "proof" in the form of "evidence", all it has to do is make sense and those people will believe it.

Partial Apathy is simply the way to go. Apathy toward the skeptics, apathy toward the believer, with adaption toward any and all actual. So what if it could be CO2, or methane, or too much vapor or too little vapor, or pollution, or whatever else is being blamed as the reason for the evidence of warming? So the earth is changing? We can take steps to change our habits like we did when the ozone hole problem occured. We can do what we can, but that may or may not alter the warming.

As for me, I choose to continue driving my car as long as it lasts. I choose to plant my garden as I've always done, isnce the increased CO2 will make my plants bigger and healthier. I choose to buy extra clothes if it gets colder. I choose to alter my ability to adapt to changes because of my knowledge that change is the only constant.

Skeptics and deniers alike, will keep changing their arguments just to resist change. They began by saying global warming isn't happening, then saying it's not caused by mankind activity, and now they say that even if it's caused by man there's nothing to be done about it. Maybe you will seem more credible if deniers stop flip-flopping.

We try to explain climate change to deniers in simple easy-to-understand language, but then they'll ask for scientific proof. When confronted with proof, they're baffled and say "well I'm no scientist..." All in all, the theories and science behind climate change is not something that can be taught or learned from internet forums or wikipedia articles. Those of us that are smart enough to trust the words of thousands of researchers around the world, understand the importance of conservation and sustainability. While others, who like to think they know more about AGW because of online discussions than Ph.D holding climatologists, will carry on perpetuating their own ignorance.

The thing is, global political bodies as well as many industry leaders DO acknowledge the reality that is climate change and its threat to mankind. They are the ones that will make the drastic changes that can affect our future. Online skeptics taking up forum board space are the least of our worries and can be left to their own self-destruction.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the planet is getting warmer, after all, it's been doing it for the past 25,000 years. No, it's the CAUSE of it that people are dis-agreeing about.

The "believers" think that is all down to man and his industry, the "sceptics" say it's a natural phenomena. Which of course it is.

I need a climate "scientist" to make a prediction that comes true.

My prediction... cooler climate for the foreseeable future. Reason? Sunspots still at zero... a cycle is delayed. Forecast:cold.

http://www.spaceweather.com/

All I need is mainstream scientific opinion, and I have that from NASA, NOAA, the National Academies, IPCC and so on.

You misunderstand us, we agree that global warming is occurring, we just don't think that the handful of carbon we pumped into the air has anything to do with it.