What "theory" do global warming deniers support?

There is no denier consensus. In fact most deniers disagree with most other deniers. The ones who say "it's the Sun" are in disagreement with the ones who argue "it's just a natural cycle". The ones who say "it's not warming" are in disagreement with those who argue "the warming is natural". The "warmer is better" folks are in disagreement with all other deniers, as are "climate sensitivity is low".

The reason they all contradict eachother and can't agree on an alternative explanation is that they're wrong and AGW is right, pure and simple. If there were any remotely plausible alternative theory, the deniers would jump all over it. For a while they were all over the galactic cosmic ray theory, but it's fallen out of favor since it's been all but disproven by recent research. The favorite now is "global warming stopped", which won't last long since 2009 will be among the 3 hottest years on record, and 2010 may break the global temperature record.

The only thing they agree on is that AGW must somehow be wrong, but since none of them has a good reason for why it's wrong, they all constantly contradict eachother in scrambling for some sort of justification for their denial.

Ottawa Mike claims "the logic fallacy I find here is that the IPCC seems to have "picked" CO2 as the the main culprit and now we are in a position where somebody has to prove that it's something else."

No, physics tells us that CO2 is "the main culprit". But yes, if you want to disprove AGW, you have to explain what else could have caused the warming if not CO2, because the physics supports CO2 as the cause. What you would have to do is to explain where the physics is wrong.

I understand you have a difficult time determining what "the main culprit" is, because you're not a physicist. But climate scientists do understand physics, and are convinced that CO2 is the primary cause of the recent warming. The fact that you're not convinced doesn't mean the scientific evidence isn't convincing to those who understand it.

I support all (well most) theories, including man made changes because each has some substance. Here is my bucket list:

1. Ocean circulation. The PDO seems to be the dominant ocean current and thus seems to have the most effect on climate. It appears to be in a 25-30 year cycle which does correlate with past temperatures. I do not believe it is the overriding cycle but it significant enough to need to be accounted for.

2. Solar activity. There are several factors in this category: Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), sunspot activity and solar wind/storms. There are two fairly stable cycles of 11 (average) years for sunspots and magnetic activity has an overlaying 22 year cycle. The overall variation of the sun's energy output is beyond my comprehension. I do know that the MWP and Little Ice Age correlate well with observed sunspot numbers.

3. Cosmic Rays. The science in this area just had another boost of credibility with the latest study of Henrik Svensmark. His basic thesis is that more cloud formation occurs when cosmic radiation is higher and more clouds results in greater albedo and thus has a cooling effect. His latest paper mentions aerosols but I haven't read it so I'm not sure how that is correlated. As well, we do know that higher sun activity produces more magnetism which tends to inhibit cosmic radiation and thus cloud formation. This actually highlights that a small increase in solar energy not only increases UV hitting the earth, but there are other positive feedbacks.

4. Man. Obviously man is having some impact on the environment and also the climate. CO2 increases are the most popular aspect but I am coming to believe that land usage is a very underestimated human factor. That includes clearing land for agriculture, deforestation for other purposes and building steel, concrete and ashpalt jungles. Maybe even jet aircraft have some effect.

5. Earths orbital and axis eccentricities. These are likely the very long term cycles that cause us to go from glacials to interglacial periods. I believe they are not a factor over hundreds of years as far as trends.

I'm not denying anything. I'm simply skeptical that we can take all the theories about natural cycles and man's influence and reach a conclusion of "very likely" man is resposible for the recent warming. I mean that just seems like jumping the gun given what we don't know.

And the logic fallacy I find here is that the IPCC seems to have "picked" CO2 as the the main culprit and now we are in a position where somebody has to prove that it's something else. That's the essence of your question, right?

How can anyone say that CO2 is going to cause 4 degrees (or whatever) of warming if they don't know what the climate would be doing without any human influence? I mean if the natural cycle was 4 degrees of cooling over the same time period then we'd want that warming wouldn't we?

As far as I can tell we have been told that the earth with warm up 4 degrees by 2050 and that it's bad. It's just not adding up for me. I'm not even sure I think it's bad. You put sea level rise at 18 inches and similar hurricane activity and what have you got that's so bad? But that's a whole other post.

You cant deny that global climate is getting warmer, its easily tested and easy to prove or disprove. I think the debate is whether or not we are the cause of it. There is no tangible way to prove a single source or a major source for the warming. Obviously the sun is a source because thats where our heat is generated, without the sun there is no warming period. Sure volcanoes are major sources for green house gasses, sure cows produce methane and yes there are more cars on the road now than there ever has been. It is also proven that climate is cyclical, just ask any self respecting geologist. No matter what the cause is the globe is still warming. I dont see why people argue over the causes. You cant cork a cow or a volcanoe and you cant block the sun nor break earths natural rythms and cycles. Obviously the earth had far more glaciers then there are currently. Long Island, NY was created by a glacier and northern Ohio was a glacial field at one time, but they are long gone. So obviously the earth had become warm enough to melt them.

There may be no reigning consensus among the general public of deniers, but in the federal political system and among skeptics who are public figures, the perceptions seems to have shifted from denying that global climate change exists, to denying human activities as a causal factor. This perception seems to default on the argument that our current warming trend is part of a natural geological cycle. That doesn't add up, though, since our current warming trend has increased at a rate much, much faster than most natural cycle trends have ever indicated exempting certain natural disaster phenomenons (such as volcano eruptions). Oh yeah, and these cycles are estimated in hundreds to thousands to usually tens of thousands of years, because that is usually how long substantial temperature shifts take place on the planet.

There is virtually no question in the credible scientific community as to whether AGW exists. Greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. This is a FACT as established as gravity (hence the name, "greenhouse gas"). It is also a fact that we as humans have engaged in activities that have released a large amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in a relatively short amount of time. Put 2 & 2 together: the world is warming. Now, the extent that we are changing the climate and what effects it will have on a lot of our ecosystems cannot be conclusively predicted. BUT, it would seem, just from observations going on now, that it's happening quicker than we expected and on the whole, a lot of the changes are going to be for the worse.

Dr. Jello, you must be kidding. Re-schooling camps feels like communist, socialist or facist states of the beyond. I could bet Dr. Jello that you're a left wing alarmist who isn't fairly a Dr. or PHD and writes plenty of solutions to those that have no idea with a purpose to set off a reaction or accumulate a flock or on this case set off propaganda in your advantage. Most of the professional AGW lovers in the market who name themselves scientists are instead men and women who've little or no technological know-how historical past. In reality, I as soon as had a dialogue with an AGW supporter and discovered throughout the dialog that his degreed abilities was once in political technological know-how. It was once very obvious in discussing technological know-how knowledge that he didn't and not ever will realise the enormous snapshot. Your final announcement asking if viewers could help executive re-schooling camps for skeptics is nearly laughable and indications you're no longer scientist nor realise the medical system. You do realise medical fraud and are a lemming your self, following for the sake of following with none knowledge of what and who you comply with. The methodologies of your arguments are deficient with even poorer metrics and no I am no longer a skeptic as I don't take significantly whatever AGW proponents spew to the general public. I seem at best info and the info simply don't help any idea the lovers have recounted accordingly some distance. Dr. Jello, you ought to realise technological know-how larger and advertise using good judgment into your arguments. You will then see the whole snapshot, no longer only a few left wing speaking facets that imply not anything.

I am an non-believer.

I don't conform to a theory, but rather deny that the supporter's theory is correct.

Extrapolating data is risky, especially in climate data. Trying to predict the climate in fifty years is like playing russian roulette with your credibility as a scientist.

Also, what about mercury in the oceans, or NOx and sulfur compounds that ARE (not theoretical) problems. Even if we do something about our CO2 production, China and mother nature will more than compensate for us.

I support focus on real issues, not ones of theory.

believe that any time you are back in touch with the natural world, you are doing something very important for your mental health. I don't believe that most people are really built for living in a world of concrete and steel; if we were, I doubt that so very many of would take so much trouble to get out of the cities on the weekends, and go to the lake, skiing, hiking, and so on. This certainly seems to be a need that many of us share, and if we do not work to preserve our own personal favorite patch of the natural world, it won't be long before it doesn't exist any longer. Conversely, I believe when we DO actively work to preserve that special spot, or someone ELSE'S special treasure, that we know somewhere inside that we have done something fundamentally RIGHT, and I believe it contributes to our self-worth and self-esteem.

I could really care less about any consensus the fact is no matter the cause of the problem the solutions simply don't contribute at all to solving the problem, which only fuels skepticism.

As we "deniers" are generally more concerned with the actual facts, we're not inclined to engage in the masturbatory process of forming a "consensus."

Either way, most so-called "deniers" realize that the earth is now at the end of a warming period, and is now entering, or will soon enter, a period of cooling and increasing glaciation, as has happened countless times in the past.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e...

The most often cited: "Its natural cycles".

EDIT: I'm not a denier. This is the argument I always hear. To answer your question, I know which one about as much as they do (which is nothing)