Do you know the difference between skeptic/denier argument compared to AGW proponent?

Come on Richard, you know the funding of all those scientific groups is dependent upon them concluding that humans are causing catastrophic climate....hah, I couldn't say it and keep a straight face.

I love jim's answer - he doesn't need scientific references, he has original thoughts. After all, he's a geologist so he's already a climate science expert! Talk about arrogance and Dunning-Kruger in effect. That is a perfect microcosm of the denial movement. They think they don't need to research climate science, they can just figure it out on their own (or by reading DailyTech and Watts' blog).

We all know deniers are in denial for political reasons (combined with fear of change). They can babble about how the science is on their side all they want - they're not fooling anybody, and their sources (or lack thereof) reveal otherwise.

I do think there is an important difference. Intelligent design theory does not produce a falsifiable hypothesis, it just says that life is to complex to understand. By introducing an omnipotent creator, (or intelligent agent, as you call it) ID proponents put the process of creation into a black box they are not willing to look into. To paraphrase a famous physicist: the problem with ID is that it is not even wrong. AGW deniers, from different plumage,do produce falsifiable thesis's. "CO2 is just a trace gas, it can't have any effect", "volcanoes produce more CO2", "AGW is made up by communists", "AGW is caused by cosmic rays" etc. are all perfectly falsifiable theories. Most skeptic arguments actually have been falsified. I don't know what you would call the perseverance to hang to theories that are proven to be false. being misinformed? stupidity? willfully ignorant? I do however agree that there appears to be a large group of people in western societies that do not have the faintest clue about the way knowledge about our world is created. The result is that politicians advocate policies that sound right to some people, but are not based on emperical evidence. Sometimes there is no reason to believe that the policy works. Sometimes there is no reason to believe the problem is actually a problem at all. And most of the times, ofcourse, there are large problems that are completely ignored. So that's why half the world is in a fuss about gay marriage and "rogue states" whilst climate change, species getting extinct, and resources being depleted are largely off the agenda.

The global warming denial movement is based on politics, so this shouldn't be a surprise. Global warming deniers target the general public.

bjjetrich states:

"Thing is, your arrogance keeps you from understanding a couple of things: humans don't have control,"

I find that to be quite an arrogant statement (pretty ironic).

"and the huge expense that GWers are proposing as a remedy (sequestering carbon dioxide) is going to cripple economies across the globe."

I find this statement to be alarmist, in that it's not supported by objective analysis.

Einstein said it best. When asked that 100 scientists disputed his theory of relativity, he answered just one, that is all you need to disprove a theory.

The fact remains seven years of cooling at a time is coming at a time when co2 emissions are rising faster than expected, and all of that methane that was under the arctic ice was released. In other words more force is applied by the output is increasing. I would say all of your sources are turning out to be wrong.

There are hundreds of Academies of Sciences all over the world. The fact is that only a small percentage support the AGW theory, the majority do not.

But all of these consensus questions is a psychological attempt to console yourself that you are wrong.

Oh, ouch. Thing is, your arrogance keeps you from understanding a couple of things: humans don't have control, and the huge expense that GWers are proposing as a remedy (sequestering carbon dioxide) is going to cripple economies across the globe.

We aren't just deniers, we're a voice of reason, a moderating force. But go ahead and cut your nose off because you're right and all the big government guys back you up. Cut my nose off, too.

OBTW: Isn't carbon dioxide twice as much oxygen as it is carbon (or nearer 32:12)? Why would we want to bury oxygen? What will that do to this biosphere? You guys are orchestrating a disaster. But don't let that bother you.

Yes, but have you looked at the reports that these scientific organizations are putting out? In the one NASA report it has to make the false assumption that the Earth has not been warmer then it is today since the last major ice age. Just because they are a major scientific group doesn't mean that they are practicing good science. And using the EPA as a source for good science actually hurts your cause. Finally, most of these groups are fighting to keep their grant money so they have to proof what they are getting paid to proof.

I mean when the models that are still being used are bogus and these researchers are not looking into other causes that is very bad science at best and fraud at worse.

Nice piece of work mate, cheers.

Those in the denial camp are hilarious, or at least would be if so much were not at stake.

Report them for ranting, report them for harm to minors, report them for being offensive.

Humans have long memories, we will not forget the public face of this denial.

Their fate awaits them in the future.

Let em laugh now, but millions of starving people in the future may not be so tolerant, and prefer them swinging from trees on hangman's ropes, (death by electrocution is not green enough remember) rather than let them strut around consuming what little remains.

Simply a warning about human nature when circumstances change, and millions have nothing to lose; the will to survive is strong, and without self discipline, our world falls apart ....

Don't you have an original thought. Can't you go out and learn for yourself or do you have to simply list organizations. Frankly I would be embarrassed, but then again, I don't abrogate my thinking to others.

What utter nonsense- I guess instead of ANY science supporting your MMGW fraud and ANY list of scientists that actually believe in your fraud, you post this BS.

Let's see ANY list of non-global warming gravy train scientists proving MMGW- or even supporting the farce.

Come on- after 25 years and billions spent to prove this fraud- give us just ONE piece of science from any of your "sources" that PROVES agw.

None of your sources has ever supplied ANY science to support AGW- none.

The only thing your post proves is the complete media coverup of the majority of scientists willing to put their rep on the line calling AGW FRAUD!

Even your IPCC tools admitted:

There is no evidence that ANY part of the climate change during the last century was a result of AGW.

Here's quotes from your phony consensus:

The "consensus" was actually FIVE UN tools whose corrections were ignored by UN politicians:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

UN IPCC Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, was not pleased by the disingenuous political tripe packaged as science:

“To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

And many more:

Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, also a former expert reviewer with the U.N. IPCC, succinctly summarizes:

“It is all a fiction.”

Another UN IPCC expert reviewer, Dr. David Wojick:

“The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

Climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every draft of the IPCC:

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these projections and estimates. It should be obvious that they are ridiculous.

After reviewing a new study to be released in the Journal of Geophysical Research, “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson of the Hubble Space Telescope Institute summarized:

“Anthropogenic global warming bites the dust.

Hence the MMGW marionettes fake "studies" of anonymous scientists...

Meanwhile, more than 31,000 scientists have signed this petition demonstrating direct correlation between solar irradiance and earth's temp. They- and many others also show that CO2 levels have been more than 400% higher BEFORE fossil fuels.

PR Research: http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview...

Qualifications include: Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,803), Computers & Math (935), Physics & Aerospace (5,810), Chemistry (4,818):

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_s...

700 distinguished scientists have petitioned the Senate calling MMGW a fraud:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

Record_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

!00 more leading scientists petitioned the UN- many of them claimed by Gore to be part of his nonsensical UN consensus:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9...

And your EPA tools are killing millions of Africans with their DDT ban based on similar nonsensical models- yet it seems their manufactured reputation is more important than TRUTH or HUMAN LIVES.

Come on Dana- denying for political reasons??? How many thousand lies and fake studies have you poisoned young minds with Dana? But never ONE piece of science proving MMGW...

Their sources recycle over and over again the same articles with no original source available.

It's funny how even microsoft excel does not allow circular references.