Do you think that skeptics of man-made global warming are liars?

WHO ARE THE DEMONSTRATED LIARS?

1) the "lost" U of east anglia data supporting all of their claims forming one of the keystones of climate activistm

2) the "hockey stick graph" that has been proven to be a massive fraud and was a centerpiece of climate activist arguments, cited in nearly every argument for years, and evident as a fraud on it's face from the outset

3) every claim in al gore's "inconvenient truth" has been proven pure fantasyland propaganda and the man is invested entirely in the cap in trade communist takeover of the world economy based on CO2 regulation. you can see that t. boone pickens and others trying to develop windfarms and others who are not similarly connected to the cap in trade stormtroopers, yet willing to produce 0 emissions energy, meet union and activist resistance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

here is a nasa graph of sea level data since the last glacial maximum some 14,000 years ago. plot on that graph where you think humans cause climate change

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/300px-Post-Glacial...

here's REAL climate data going back 450,000 years

once again, plot on that graph where you think humans created climate change

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8...

this is ACTUAL peer reviewed science from real scientists who, for a very long time, have acknowledged climate variances over the cycle of glaciation this planet has been in for millions of years

human carbon emissions historically are COMPLETELY unrelated global climate.

we have PROVEN LIARS who used MASSIVE FRAUD as the centerpieces of their scientific claims and we have REAL SCIENCE from the preeminent collectors of climate data. climate activists have proven themselves to be the 21st century incarnation of marxism, whose only ambition is the destruction of free markets

On both sides, there are some who have a legitimate case worth looking at and there are others who have just jumped on to the bandwagon based on their biases. I think there is some truth on both sides of the debate, so not all skeptics are liars.

There are going to be some negative effects due to actions by a human population which has never been this large and operating at this scale before due to technological advances. But some changes are just part of the natural cycle as well.

Seperating these two out will give a clearer picture of if and where we are contributing to the damage. E.g. we have reversed use of certain pesticides once we found they were harmful to us and if they were harmful for us, they must also have harmed other creatures and disrupted some things in nature. On the other hand El Nino is a known phenomenon and occurs at regular intervals.

I think you'll find that serious proponents of AGW will see a difference between skeptics and deniers. I certainly do. Deniers are those who know better and still pretend AGW is not real, whatever specific methods they use to deny man's actions are directly responsible for the current rapid global warming. Skeptics are those who do not know, for whatever reasons, the current state of knowledge of our warming climate and just what that means and implies. While I may question the motives of some skeptics, I do not and cannot see skeptics as liars. Deniers are liars. Skeptics are not. It's that simple.

"Do you think that skeptics of man-made global warming are liars?"

No. Skeptics are skeptics. They are not denying, they are not convinced. For example, I am a skeptic. That means that I am not convinced, not that I believe "the opposite," whatever that means.

I have a question for the global warming enthusiasts that has yet to be answered. Since it is child's play to articulate a compelling case for reducing and eventually eliminating the use of fossil fuels without ever mentioning global warming, what is your objective? When your position is based on something that has not been proved, but could be based on something that is proved, why do you invite opposition?

Considering how Pegminer was referring to the population of deniers that frequent this site, I would most certainly say that a great majority of them are liars. Most of the ones we've been seeing nowadays are newer trolls that come in from the Politics section (educated guess) and post baiting questions in which they either make false claims like "Al Gore invented the internet," or "The liberals are trying to switch from 'global warming' to 'climate change' to cover their behinds," or "The Earth has been cooling the past decade," or "CO2 levels haven't risen by 40%," or "Humans are only responsible for 3% of emissions and thus cannot matter," or "Sea ice extent is recovering," or "A single volcano emits more CO2 than humans can in [insert number here] years;" or they give best answer to people who are demonstrably wrong, were proven demonstrably wrong right within that question, and who were over-gratified with being called "right." Even further still, there's quote mining, blatant misrepresentation of both scientists and other users, false accreditation to a plot to economically doom the US (when many here aren't even from the US!), so on.

So yeah, many here ARE liars. Whether or not they do it intentionally, i.e. pathologically v. trolling, is irrelevant. When points that have been constantly refuted are brought up, and when misrepresentation is the second line of "evidence" besides these debunked claims, that fits quite nicely into "lying."

As a Skeptic I try to be honest.

And I think most the AGW believers also see themselves as honest.

The problem is that many believers see themselves as 'Enlightened', which is a bit problematic.

You see when you 'KNOW' that AGW is TRUTH regardless of data - well you just get tempted to fudge, misrepresent & spin things - just to make sure all those 'unenlightened' souls don't get confused.

This is what happened at East Anglia U. This is what Al Gore does.

"It's the hottest 10 years on record!!!" Well ok, but the 'record' is only 160 years long & there has been no warming in the last 10 years"

There is a vast consensus among Climatologists. Well sure, but skeptical Climatologists get fired. So it's like the consensus of Priests who believe in God.

See the AGW guys are invested with the 'truth' of their faith and fall profoundly short of proper scientific objectivity.

And the Politician who fund them are just a nasty crowd of tax & spend Socialists. The will fly 40 friends on a fossil fuel Jumbo jet to Spain & back, then wag a finger at the 'little people' hauling their kids around in a mini van. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNSZ62xiD4M&feature...

Try going by facts, not theories. Al Gore has a book & movie based on theories, no facts. There are days that are hot, other days, it is cold. That is a fact because I bet you've even seen cold and hot days (so did Al Gore.)

No, I don't believe people that are skeptical of man-made global warming are liars. I have no problem with scientifically informed skepticism. I do believe that most of people that deny global on this site are liars, though. Many lie repeatedly, both in their questions and answers. I have been blocked by a number of people that like to lie in their questions because they don't want their lies being pointed out. Debate is great; lying is not. Unfortunately deniers believe that lying is an acceptable form of debate.

Unfortunately this forum is unmoderated against lies, but moderated against "insults" against other YA users. So a denier is free to say any lie they like, such as "Climate scientists are all socialists" or "Climate scientists ignore water vapor" or "They changed the name to 'climate change' because it wasn't warming any more" or "They fudged the data" and if I choose to call a specific denier out as a liar for what they have said, my answer will get deleted, not theirs.

I have no problem at all with disagreeing over the science, I do have a problem with using distortions and lies to advance what for most deniers is a political, not scientific, viewpoint. Feel free to check my answers (which are all open for inspection by everyone), I think you'll see that I don't always agree with those that you consider alarmists, if I think the science goes the other way. Healthy debate is great, but lying is not healthy debate.

EDIT: I just noticed the answer that says

"The other day, I received an email from one of the most boorish dolts among the Gorebots. This moron thought he could intimidate me into recanting one of my answers with which he disagreed."

I am proud to be the "boorish dolt" that he refers to. I'm not sure why he calls me a "Gorebot" since I am not a particular fan of Al Gore, didn't care for his movie all that much and never voted for him, but I guess truth is never really a goal for people like him. I asked him to withdraw his answer because I thought he was mischaracterizing the differences between William Gray's group's forecast for this hurricane season and NOAA's. If you go to their website

http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/

and look at their latest forecast, you will see that it is virtually identical to the forecast by NOAA that this denier shows in his answer. For some reason, the denier has chosen to ignore every forecast made by Gray's group this year (presumably with more and better information) in favor of a preliminary forecast made last year. I think this is intellectually dishonest and told him so.

Edit for Mortally Challenged: Who is Alinsky and what is his book? The books I am currently reading are "Synoptic and Dynamic Climatology," "Mesoscale Meteorology in Midlatitudes," "Antennas," and "Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences."

It matters on the individual. Certain regular deniers in here are most certainly liars as they keep repeating the same arguments over and over again even though it has been explained to them in almost every thread. Others take a political stance and take in whatever these deniers say to them as truth and base their political opinion of AGW on their dislike for the other party and the fake data the original deniers feed to them. I wouldn't regard these people as liars. Others, but very few, readily take a skeptical look at both sides of the debate. Some 'alarmists' as you call them of course do this too in that they don't check the science for themselves but merely repeat what has been told to them. If you want to know the truth about AGW study it for yourself. And by this I mean study the physics and climatological aspects of it until you have a complete understanding. It is easier to get a better understanding of the science if you actively look to disprove your current beliefs in looking at the scientific literature. You'll come to a better understanding of it.

Edit: I find it funny that when I tell people to look at the science themselves instead of trusting a side and get two thumbs down in a minute. Are you deniers really that insecure that you can't allow people to look at the data themselves and make their own decision? Instead they have to be spoon fed the false data from you?

IMO the term Liar is fairly close to slander and not something that should be stated on a emotional whim. Alarmist however have exceptions to the rule: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkkUW...

They don't bother listing any actual facts, but randomly create ruses on the fly. Yet they wonder why people can't take them seriously.

I'm sure that some people on both sides of the issue have lied at times... That's just human nature.

Quite often, people on both sides of the issue have unintentionally misstated facts. That is understandable because very few "Internet warriors" on either side of the debate have actual scientific backgrounds.

But the really despicable thing is the Alinksy-style approach that the Warmistas and Gorebots use- (as Mortally Challenged pointed out). When caught in their own lies and malfeasance (Climategate) they accuse the other side of doing the same thing. They use the word "denier" in the same way the left uses the word "racist" in an effort to intimidate the other side into silence.

The other day, I received an email from one of the most boorish dolts among the Gorebots. This moron thought he could intimidate me into recanting one of my answers with which he disagreed. I politely replied to him; explaining my answer in more detail. He replied back, accusing me of being "intellectually dishonest." It's not the first time one of the boorish Gorebot dolts has sniped at me with accusations of lying or intellectual dishonesty. Considering the fact that Yahoo Answers is not supposed to be a chat room or an Internet discussion forum, I find this sort of behavior to be particularly Chicken-****, as there really isn't any avenue here to directly and openly challenge or refute such sniping without starting a rant-type thread.