Do you think many of the deniers on here are just trying to be smart-a$$es?

I'll answer your question by picking apart another answer for you.

david b:

"At what point did science close itself off to skepticism?"

The obvious answer to this is that it hasn't.

"Never before has the concerted effort to challenge mainstream scientific thought been met with such petty and pathetic attacks."

I haven't seen very many petty attacks being initiated by those who believe the AGW theory. Actually, I haven't seen any by the likes of Dana, Benjamin, Dawei and Gwen. When they challenge the 'science' promoted by deniers, however, out come the childish names and other insults.

"I agree there are without a doubt many on this forum who spout the "hoax" and "lies" bullshit, but you generalize in a manner that is whole-heartedly unscientific."

There is a distinction between denier and skeptic. The fact that you suggest that the claims of hoax and lies (and I assume conspiracy) are bullshit should put you firmly in the skeptic camp. That means that you aren't being generalized under the label of denier. That doesn't mean that generalizations are not the best practice, nor are stereotypes. The question however was pretty clear in not being all-inclusive of deniers.

"You claim an understanding of science, yet you deny the ability to question findings."

No he doesn't. I don't think that any of us [who believe that AGW is occurring] do. It's the denier camp that tends careless enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I personally do think that some poor judgment was used by certain scientists and definitely some unprofessional personal correspondence, but their findings appear to be sound and I'm sure will stand.

"You tout the concrete results of "peer review" yet you fail to even look at the process objectively."

Deniers are by far and away much less objective in their approach to this subject, and that's sort of the point that is trying to be made here. I personally do look at the evidence objectively. I do think that carbon credits is an economic scam. But I think that Cap and Trade is a good idea (it's proven) and I of course believe that AGW is occurring and is mostly caused by CO2.

"You clearly define and attack those who disagree, you quote a consensus, you question intelligence and you falsely claim an understanding of the scientific method."

Do as you say not as you do, right? Nice try. Very scientific of you...

"You do not understand science."

And again...

"Science is objective!"

Yes it is.

"Science is questionable!"

Yes, and answerable many times. It's not really deniable though. At least without proof it's not.

"Science is uncertain!"

True. So how come so many deniers are so certain that the AGW hypothesis is a lie, conspiracy, cult, etc.?

"Science is an ongoing process!"

Again, why are deniers so certain?

"Science is apolitical!"

Why are 90% of deniers conservatives? OK, I pulled that number out of my a$$, but I'm pretty sure that it's fairly accurate.

"Science is *not* definitive!"

So why do deniers say that AGW is definitely a scam, hoax, conspiracy, etc.?

"Science is *not* a tool to implement policy decisions!"

So...what is? Investment banking theory? I agree that it shouldn't be a tool, but it should certainly be a consideration at the very least.

"Science does not offer the understanding that those who misunderstand it claim that it does!"

Very true statement. No argument here.

"I also am training to be a scientist."

Excellent! Keep an open mind... It's your most important tool.

"The disregard shown for the process by this question, and multiple others on this forum is entirely disconcerting in the fact that so few truly understand the inherent uncertainty involved."

I think that the disregard for the process is shown in the 'climategate' hoopla. Most of the people who cite that as the definitive proof of an AGW hoax haven't read one word past the out-of-context quotes and the interpretations of those quotes they've been spoon-fed. I believe that the TC AGW supporters in this section are all respectable in the methodology used in reaching their conclusions. A select few deniers are as well, but they still fall into the denier category since they fail your own tests of "objective, questionable, uncertain, ongoing and apolitical". Hence this question, and my answer.

_

Global warming/climate change has just become a new religious cult based in greedy power grabbing and hopes of world domination through "climate legislation". In the past it was the religious zealots who burned the truth telling scientists at the stake today it is climate change political zealots trying to silence the truth tellers and sell the world some very expensive SNAKE OIL.

It seems global warming advocates are determined to turn logic and biology upside down. Anyone who remebers basic high school biology knows carbon dioxide is essential to plant life as oxygen is essential to human life. These two basic facts can't be separated. Only Obama-style liberals will attempt to convince us about how critical combating global warming is to the Earth's survival. As then Sen. Hillary Clinton said to Gen. David Petreaus, we must be "...willing to suspend all disbelief." I'm not willing to do so!

Global warming, or climate change, which ever they decide to call it this year, is not based on science at all. it's all based on the consensus of a few scientist who have something to gain by furthering this farce. Guess what that is? $$$$

Anyone who believes Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant should stop breathing. Since we exhale Carbon Dioxide in every breath, we are literally polluting the atmosphere. So stop breathing and reduce your carbon footprint, or say NO to cap and trade & the whole global warming hoax.

We can't project an accurate forecast a week in advance and yet we say that we're doomed in the future? I believe in eliminating waste and keeping things clean so that I, and my family, can safely enjoy the outdoors but I also know where the comforts of life come from and that is manufacturing that uses energy and supplies that are either grown or mined somehow. Follow the research grants and see what is being pushed.

I have a simple question I would like someone to answer for me, If the specific gravity (relative density) of air is 1.00 and the specific gravity (relative density) of CO2 is 1.5189, that means CO2 is heavier than air and settles on the Earth's surface where green plants need it. How then can CO2 be in the Earth's upper atmosphere and stratosphere trapping the Sun's rays and heating up the planet? Anybody? Anybody? Hello? That's what I thought.

Generally speaking, it is an effort to blunt efforts by others that are perceived as a personal threat, sometimes manifested in a vocal and aggressive way that indicates an unusual level of stress brought about by an underlying fear. If that becomes evident or is pointed out-as often occurs here in this category of Y/A (although most usually in an indirect manner)-the response is usually defensive, because many people are not aware of the level of stress they are under or the reasons for it, and are quite often in denial (ooh, there's that WORD again) about stress or the underlying symptom. When it comes to matters of science-or anything else that is not readily understood by the person who feels threatened-the goal becomes to stop the threat by whatever means necessary, up to the moral limits of the person who is fearful. Social strictures (ethics) over the centuries have changed, of course, but the fight against AGW today has become the modern day equivalent of a witch hunt, so often referred to by those who feel they are being unfairly assaulted that it has become a cliche. In this particular instance, it is a double-edged sword; people who are afraid that their lifestyles are going to change are trying to prevent that, but on the other hand, if they are wrong they also know that the costs could be even higher in the future, which increases the level of stress from which they are suffering. Therefore, they evaluate the risks on a personal level and increase the volume and aggressiveness to exude a greater air of confidence, thinking that this has a good chance of increasing the probability of their desired outcomes...which is often nothing more than delaying the inevitable, which is that things will change regardless, which is why they feel so impotent and inadequate. Not to get all Freudian on you, which is how that may sound and why there are so many jokes out there about sports cars and small...never mind, I'm starting to wander.

Strange question, I often wonder myself how people who seem to be relatively intelligent lack the basic common sense to see how far fetched and ridiculous the claims being made by alarmist.

Darfur is a perfect example, even though the history of this region is filled with drought, corrupt government, tribal and religious feuds the alarmist believe global warming is the source of the problems in that region. Much the same way alarmist neglect the history of climate change for the world and continuously astound me with there claims of man made climate change induced problems. Even more ridiculous than Darfur is prostitution in the Philipeans, a popular port for sailors for more than half a century because of prostitution, little did they know they owed this adult play ground to global warming.

No "deniers" aren't on here to be smart asses, it just appears that way because of the appalling claims being made by alarmist.

Are you in high school?

Global Warming deniers do so because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Go learn something from someone other than Al Gore (who, the last time I checked, was not a climatologist, meteorologist, historian, biologist, or any other kind of scientist).

Just another liberal pretending to have a mind who does not comprehend that you have to be at least a middle of the road moderate to become a skeptic. No silly liberal ever born could ever dream of obtaining the highest title in science and public service as skeptic.

Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it. And as well how many years, centuries or millennia it might be before the world warms up again from the coming ice age.

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

No, I think most of them are just trying to misinform people to trick them into becoming deniers. I think many deniers are honestly just flat-out nuts. NDD, James E, and Poyzin are the best examples of this.

I think in general they're not particularly smart people, they generally vastly overestimate their own intelligence, and they let their political biases dominate their thinking and cloud their judgment.

But as much as it seems like they simply can't be serious (see Poe's Law), sadly, I think they are.

All scientists are skeptics. The "snarky" comments are their way of saying, " boy I sure am tired of these sheep bleating about the Earth being flat, and us being the center of the universe and all". After a while it just seems like the only thing sheep understand.

Honestly, I think some of them really are crazy. James E is clearly unstable. Most of them have the arrogance of ignorance. They think they know, but since they don't know anything, they don't know that they don't know.

Warmists such as "skeptic" just can't be as brainwashed as they pretend to be, can they?

Who am I kidding? Of course they can!

Oh, and I should like to emphasize the first answerer's point: study your history. Oligarchs have been complaining about "overpopulation" and similar kinds of eco-nonsense since at least the time of the Peloponnesian War (4th century BC), and probably since human civilization has existed. This is simply the pathological mindset of the oligarch - a way for them to justify their brutal hegemonic domination of the population. It's nothing new.