As a Skeptic of AGW, why do you try so hard to obfuscate the peer-reviewed science?

As a skeptic of AGW, I don't want global policies implemented which will have no effect on the intended purpose and will have several large negative side effects for many and large positive effects for a few. Why would you want that?

And you should really dig into those leaked emails and reassess the credibility of the peer review process as it applies to climate science. That's one of the reasons that arguments from authority is a logical fallacy.

Obfuscate - To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand:

Skeptics aren’t the ones who try and confuse the issue, it’s those pushing AGW who hide data, destroy data, and threaten those who question AGW.

All skeptics want is the original data, the data collection methods so the work of those push AGW can be checked. As we have seen from the leaked e-mails, those pushing AGW have discussed, if not acted on deleting data so as it can’t be released. It gets much worse, and I won’t go into the whole thing here, but when there was a story out on how man wasn’t responsible to AGW it took the skeptic s less than day to debunk the report as false. So who is trying to obfuscate the issue it certainly isn’t the skeptics.

EDIT

“The scientific basis for AGW does not rely on the temperature record…”

The theory of AGW basically says that certain gasses, CO2 among them can trap heat inside the atmosphere of earth. They use the temperature record to try and show a correlation between those gasses and the increase in temperature. In order to do that you have to have a temperature record and in good science you keep your original data, your notes on your data collection methods, etc. That way when the skeptics want to look your work over the can see for themselves a true relationship and not.

“The theory of AGW explains the physical basis for that warming. The theory is constructed on physics behind the greenhouse effect…..”

The problem is that without the original data you can’t check the theory. I could explain the rise in temperature as just the rebound from the little ice age, heck I could probably even come up computer program that would show that, I could give you numbers that would explain that, but if I don’t give you access to the data, show you which data set I used, how that data was collected, and the computer code, you couldn’t check my work.

Since it’s been admitted that they have tossed out the original data set, that tell me one of two thing, one there were very sloppy, or two they are trying to hide something.

In either case all their work is now suspect.

You have to be in total denial to just ignore the fact that the people feeding you this nonsense have been caught lying about it. It is precisely the data from the last several hundred years that has been manipulated by these politically motivated hacks. In case nobody clued you in, the hockey stick was nothing but a fantasy. He even detailed how he distorted data to produce. How thick would you have to be to trust that data? There is nothing about our current warming that is out of the ordinary. There is nothing about CO2 that has been shown to cause significant warming. It is all a fairytale and those behind it are shown to be liars.

number 1 three isn't 100 years of physical science in climatology

number 2 is that the best data we can get is from satellites and they've only been in orbit since the 60's

number 3 using temperature data in urban environments is totally unreliable

number 4 temperature data in rural ares shows no warming

Wow...you haven't followed any of the climategate news at all, have you? The emails show that not only have the AGW scientists stifled peer reviewed research, but the research institutes they worked for, as well as a couple of governments had as well.

So how does that equate to us skeptics trying to obfuscate peer reviewed science?

"Obfuscate"?

The crowd you are addressing doesn't know how to read those big fancy words that appear in scientific journals.

If you want real answers from a denier, your question must contain one of the following: Al Gore, polar bears, climategate, global cooling, water vapor, ice age, hockey stick.

Avoid phrases like: absorption spectra, diurnal temperature range, orbital forcing, black body temperature, atmospheric optical depth, cryosphere, ice-albedo feedback.

And never, NEVER, use a number that has an exponent. To quote Barbie, "Math is hard!"

Because the peer review system is an Integral part of the entire climategate con. The only way to scientifically review science is through the process called the scientific method. Peer review is now and always has been throughout history a deliberate method of falsifying science so quasi scientific frauds could be more easily perpetrated on the public and industry. Peer review was deliberately designed as a way to perpetrate scientific fraud on society in order to keep the church in charge of science then as now. The scientific method was developed by engineers and real scientists as a method of testing and validating whether something was truly scientific or not.

Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_200...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.h...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....

http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmosphe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

Peer reviewed science?

Did you sleep in this last week? It turns out these guys have been cooking the data.

At a minimum I gain the smug self satisfaction that I wasn't one of the idiot lemmings that fell for this scam.

There can be peer reviewed reports on both sides of a controversial issue. Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't make it so. I know that Spencer and others have had peer reviewed papers. Why is that you choose not to believe them? Is it because you are blinded by your bias? I suggest that you bother learning some geology. After you learn that climate is variable, and that recent (last couple hundred years) variation is within historical norms, and don't follow CO2 very well, you will realize that peer review isn't that important. I would rather learn the science and make my decision based on facts than try to stick my finger into the air to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

I leave that up to the scientists who have a position to promote. Global Warming is man made and heaven forbid we should let any scientists say otherwise! Right?