Who are the real global warming skeptics?

Another way to test your belief is to look at the myriad of hypotheses put forth by any denier or any denier blog. There is no cohesiveness, no robust theory to compete with AGW. They will just blast away with any idea that is counter to the physics of greenhouse gas and long-wave radiation.

* The has been no warming

* There was warming up until 1998 but then it stopped

* There is warming but it within the normal rate

* There is unusually rapid warming but it is caused naturally by ice age cycles

* There is unusually rapid warming but it is caused by solar energy

* There is unusually rapid warming but it is caused by solar activity

* There is unusually rapid warming but it is caused by clouds

* There is unusually rapid warming but it is caused by water vapor

* CO2 does not cause the greenhouse effect

* CO2 does cause the greenhouse effect but only by an exact amount unaffected by the amount of CO2

* CO2 does enhance the greenhouse effect but the extra it comes from volcanoes

* CO2 does enhance the greenhouse effect but it comes from the ocean

* Global warming is good

* We don't know anything because all scientists are socialists

* Man is too small of a factor to affect climate

You'll hear the same person cycle through all of these, and not be bothered by the lack of scientific evidence for any. Anthonony Watts continually pats on the back anyone who presents any of these arguement and he appears totally unconcerned that they conflict with each other so badly.

What the public does not understand is the science researchers have to take a specific hypothesis and test it. The ameteurs just pick their own belief and assume it is right while never testing it and never researching whether others have tested it.

Documents have been leaked previous within the 12 months from the 'loose-marketplace' Heartland Institute, revealing repayments to distinguished local weather-difference deniers, a plan to create a fossil-gas-pleasant curriculum for Kindergartners, and efforts to 'preserve opposing voices' out of the media. There was once no experience denying it by means of a distinguished scientist, now not anticipating to get funded to propagate a delusion any further. But one difficult element for those who pay attention to Muller, is that he is blaming others for the drawback, just like the Chinese and likewise stated that if we cannot get the Chinese to do whatever approximately it, then it isn't valued at it for us to do whatever.

We must guard against belief driven skepticism as this tendency is applicable to any issue including religious ones

We should not believe in anything but come to know the truth by thinking for ourselves to get to know something inside out and making an objective, rational, unbiased and scientific judgment.

It doesn't matter where people fall into the spectrum, whether as supporters or as skeptics, the really important aspect is for an individual to come to know the truth through his own powers of thinking, discerning, contemplating and in logic.

http://www.circleforhumanity.net/

http://www.wanttoknow.com/

most scientists by definition are skeptics, they demand evidence, testing etc. Deniers on the other hand are more like conspiracy theorists, nothing will change their mind. I don't believe there are many true skeptics as most of the evidence is in.

I don't know what to make of Roy Spencer for example, it's likely that he's more a denier than skeptic.

Tim Ball is definitely a denier.

Your "case study" presupposes that a paper that predicts 1.5 degree warming is a pro AGW paper. The IPCC does not want to stop global warming, but limit its growth to 2.0 degrees. That is the supposed catastrophic tipping point. The criticisms of environmental group's errors by pro AGWs were done because they thought it was a skeptical paper. There is not enough warming to make it a pro AGW paper.

Lets do another case study:

Lindsen and Choi put out a paper that indicated that there are negative feedbacks. This paper was severely criticized, mostly in the pro game but also by Skeptics (Spencer). How did Lindzen and Choi respond to criticisms of their paper? By acknowledging the errors and reworking their paper. Lindzen and Choi 2010:

This work (LInden and Choi 2009) was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al. [2009], much of which was appropriate. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper in which the various criticisms are addressed and corrected.

After redoing their work, they found that their conclusion still held up.

In publishing Spencer & Braswell, 2010 how did Spencer respond to his critics.and his response to critics. By acknowledging them and reworking his paper.

"It is now apparent to us that we did not do a good enough job of that in SB08. Spenser did not criticize his critics. He stated he did a poor job in making them understand."

How do people in the pro AGW camp respond to criticisms. Lets take the hockey stick debate. How many people in the climate science community criticized the original hockey stick. None. How did Mann respond? Angrily. How did his supporters respond. It does not matter Mann 2008 reproduced the hockey stick with tree rings.

Before I continue I should explain to everyone what the Tiljander series is. The Tiljander’s Lake Korttajarvi sediments are temperature proxies. Despite warning from Tiljander that the sediments had been heavily contaminated by modern construction and farming, making them totally unsuitable for inclusion in the Mann 2008 algorithm, Mann and Bradley did so anyways.

When it was pointed out Mann incorrectly used the Tilj. sediments, did they thank McIntyre for pointing it out. They criticized him and said it did not matter that they could still get a hockey stick if you take Tilj out. They did so by using tree rings. How did they respond to criticisms that tree rings do not make good proxies and should not be used By saying that without tree rings you still get a hockey stick .But only by using the Tilj. sediments. If you take both of them out you do not get a hockey stick.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/01/the-no-dendro-i...

This is one very brief example. In answer to your question. I disagree with your hypothesis that people in the pro AGW camp are open minded and receptive to criticism, while skeptics are close minded.

The thumbs up received so far is a better indication of how open minded the AGW camp really is,

Homer Simpson.

Homer Simpson is by far and beyond the most credible Global Warming skeptic I will ever know. No other GW skeptic comes close to his pure intellect and savvy. All others are pure charlatans.

All the skeptics are contained in the (hi-def) video, called "HOME".It talks about the so-called"global" warming and human beings and other creatures which humans live with and eat..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

enjoy the facts,here....................

The majority of scientists are skeptics, and many of those who are not speaking out publicly are remaining silent in order to prevent placing their government grants in jeopardy by not following the party live.