What points would the climate change skeptics bring to the debating table?

Sorry, I would say most of them are debatable. I have never really seen any points on the side of AGW that have any basis other than whether or not scientist whose livelihood depends upon grants to prove AGW would have any other source of funding if they did not manipulate data.

Hi Mike I think both parties don't want to see the election turn into a referendum on carbon Tax . An election should be won and lost on a variety of topics not just one issue Here in Australia Howard won his elections on boat people ( refugees) and GST Tax He won both through the help of the media they promoted the man overboard issue The media played time and time again footage of a small child jumping from a leaky boat When in fact the child was thrown to a parent already in the water It wasn't pretty to watch peoples lives in great danger But to dramatise it to win a election by playing on peoples emotions to win votes to me isn't a good look . And then in the next election because the boat people lie went so well he decided to have a referendum on a GST tax before the election and the people voted in a landslide win for NO GST TAX and for those who have short memories HE stated that the people have spoken an Australia will have NO GST while ever he was leader and what did he do as soon as he was reelected introduce a GST TAX He just kept on lien to the Australian people. So I think the reason they are not talking about AGW is because they see the science is not settled on CO2 being the primary cause for climate change They know weather modification IS taking place around the world and they know the agenda There's an old saying LET SLEEPING DOGS LYE don't go poking it with a stick just to see what happens it mite bite you on the *** Just like the CO2 debate if you stick your neck out on CO2 issues then you could be left with egg on your face and neither party wants that. My opinion Mike Cheers

There is no debate on the issue of climate change if you are talking about whether or not it exists but when it comes to whether what we are experiencing is caused by humans or just a natural process is were the debate comes into play.

The Inconvenient truth gives great examples on how climate change is a natural occurrence, but it also shows how what we are experiencing can be associated with human interactions, such as the industrial revolution

Mhm I understand what you mean. But first of all climate change is not the correct term it is labeled as Global warming. (Climate change is the change of climate over large periods of time) Sorry, but this was irrelevant but had to point it out.

Secondly, Skeptics.

Alright this is one revolving theory(said as crazy, you'll see why) is that this was a conspiracy( sort of)

brought up by Americans to stop the development of Newly Industrialized countries such as China and India.

This does sound crazy and well.....it is highly controversial so I understand if you do not use it.

Secondly there was a volcanic eruption which released more CO2 than the dirtiest power plant, this evidence can be used to backup your former theory, or just used to provide substance to the argument. (Validation)

"It's a fact that Kilauea has been releasing more than twice the amount of noxious sulfur dioxide gas (SO2) as the single dirtiest power plant on the U.S. mainland. "(http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15....

Global warming believers:

Well basically evidence and numbers to show how our earth is heating up. They can argue about melting Ice, rising of sea levels and impact to our wildlife. They have more than enough points to validate. Internet searching will do the rest. The challenge here is for the skeptics.

I don't know that you could be a denier/skeptic against AGW and still remain sane at the same time.

The whole business about denial and skepticism in the end has nothing whatsoever to do with global warming and climate change anymore than it is about the individual's relationship of him/herself to him/herself.

It boils down to me factor as they wrestle with a part of themselves that they cannot readily understand nor come to terms with when confronted with such a reality as GW and climate change which produces within their psyche certain dissonance and tumult

Usually the harsh realities of truth regarding GW short circuits people's ability to process the stimulus objectively without preventing fear and other emotions to creep in thus their tendency to deal with it any way they can with fallacious arguments and whatever else just as long as they can maintain the illusion within themselves that such a thing as GW could not possibly be real.

Moe's responses to various questions are a classic example of this mechanism at work which usually exhibits extreme degrees of denial of reality that extends beyond the issues of GW to other spheres.

Not everyone has the capacity to deal with the harsh realities of truth and just as most people here on earth are in denial about their own mortality, its only in their death beds on the brink of death do people's illusions break away and the stark reality penetrates through the heavily fortified denial that they've erected for so long which in the case of a GW denier is the reason for truth not being able to reach their heads unless something terrible effects their lives directly that brings home the truth.

So any points and contentions the deniers have are mere formality giving expression to this mechanism whether right or wrong is irrelevant just as long as the illusions are kept alive whatever it takes

How are we going to turn off the carbon spigot without destroying the economy? For us backwards Americans with no distributed public transportation and no alternative to driving, $4/gal. gas is actually painful and is causing us to have to forgo the usual things to which we are accustomed. If we had a carbon tax and $6 or $8 gasoline it would just end forever the God given American freedom to drive anywhere, anytime and buy anything we want up to the limit of our credit cards. And I know this is just self-hating liberal talk, but I feel guilty when we use crops as fuel and the price of grain triples and poor people in other countries starve and revolt.

I don't find arguments that warming is unprecedented to be valid, I don't find the assumption that all current warming is caused by CO2 either directly or indirectly, I don't believe our weather is becoming more extreme, I don't have the same confidence in the accuracy of proxy temperature reconstructions, I don't find predictions of future catastrophes to be compelling, I don't agree that problems currently being associated with AGW are in fact at all related to climate changes much less bad climate changes, I don't like being given contradictions and then told they aren't contradictions because some other contradiction makes this contradiction a non-contradiction.

I understand that many of you have put a lot of time and effort in finding something to bring meaning to your life and that you feel that you are helping to save the planet, that's your right. I just happen to disagree and think you've wasted all this time, effort and other peoples money trying to prove you've discovered something that's going to ruin the planet and your just trying to help save the planet. I also know that for you or anyone else certain we are a plague on this planet to accept that you are wrong would be more destructive than any 0.8°C rise in global temperatures.

I don't argue with a palm reader over my future and I don't really need to debate you or anyone else on whether or not that future is going to be plagued by natural man made disasters.

Muffin mime "Do you argue with your mechanic when he says that if you don't replace your timing belt, it's going to eventually fail and most likely cause significant damage to your engine?" Yes, I'm sorry if you don't have a problem following your mechanics advice on this type of information but since I only went in to have the tires balanced and rotated I'm going to pass on his advice right now. Once you've grown up you'll learn a little about how things work or you won't and you'll continue following whoever you've decided is an authority figure.

I'm not sure that anyone could deny or debate climate change itself. The Earth's overall climate has changed many times over its history. Even within the small slice of the history of man there have been both global and local climate changes.

The real debating point, if any, are the directions in which (if any) man is causing climate change, whether this is in opposition to any natural change, and the impact of man's contribution to the overall.

I say that we should not deliberately try to alter the climate. That is, our use of fossil fuels is perfectly natural, as we are part of nature. A long time ago forests were destroyed by our need for fuel. Today is no different. The world turns, we must learn to turn with it. Adapt to changes in the climate.

there are a lot of numbers that have been questionable for some time. i would like to see an honest assessment of all of them.

1. sensor placement and number of sensors. the CO2 readings in Hawaii go back a while, and are not disputed. temps are another topic. a lot of sensors in the historical record have been surrounded by heat islands. new sensors are placed where? how do their readings get incorporated?

2. how are the orbital factors impacting things? wiki milankovitch.

3. in the past, temps have been both warmer and colder than now. explain.

4. there is a vast amount of CO2 "disappearing" from the atmosphere every year. where is it going? don't just say ocean without proof.

5. to be honest in the debate, the warmers really need to estimate what everybody has to give up. we know CO2 levels increase and by how much. we think we know the temp impact of that increase. i have done a lot already, for economic reasons. what else must be done? forget about sequestration. won't work. we can't contain solids, forget about gases. what really must be done?

6. all of the people doing the most moaning and groaning about climate change, what are they doing? besides moaning and groaning. they fly around the world to talk to each other. oh the CO2 from that trek.any of them turned off a light or changed a thermostat?

Hi Trev

I would like to add something hear to help create understanding whether your a warmy a skeptic or a denier It doesn't matter because this is a process we all go through every second of the day It's about how we think First we get a thought they can come from out of the blue then we rap that thought with emotion and if we get past this and can stop thinking emotional we can move on to seek and search were we can look at problems from all angles and see our self in the picture if need be and then we can take action by saying or doing something and then what we end up with is knowing or knowledge it's a 5 step automatic process that each thought has to go through THINK ,EMOTE, SEEK & SEARCH, ACTION, KNOWLEDGE At a personal level there are many internal and external factors that can keep us locked in a loop of think and emote and there's 2 types of emotions Primary and Secondary thins like need and want or love and hate just to name a couple And hear I'II start to answer you question, if you understand this process you must see that Climate Change has turned into a EMOTIONAL problem and not a physical problem, because it will affect people in different ways Our lives in this modern world has a reliance on the MONEY system to a point that no one wants to look back to fix the problems we see today because it would mean taking some sort of hit to their back pockets and the more money your got the more you have to loose if things change from the way we do business, economics and money IS what's diving us in the direction we are heading through the power of emotions. I had a personal crash when I was about 40 and at a personal level I was blaming all my problems on outside problems until I understood how I worked I was pushed and pulled by external influences but I soon realised that my problems lied within, Everything became clearer when I started to look at what was going on inside of ME and stop looking for stuff outside that I really had no control of By using simple process like this will allow us to think out side the box they like to keep us in and see things clearly when problem solving I don't see humans as all being different rather were all the same and it all boils down to the choices we make There's an old saying Opinions are like ******* every bodies got one. The problems that face us all will not be solved hear on Yahoo it's a media based site and advertisers run the show and if your beliefs don't aline with these peoples agenda then you break their guidelines and things go missing whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter because opinions drive this site not understanding I'm quite sure Trev you understand NEUROLINGUISTICS ( the way words travel through our nerves system) and that we see in pictures not words or brains have to convert words into a clear picture before we can understand So hear you will never be able to have a real debate because of difference of opinion A debate realise on respect and I don't see much of that going on here Climate Change is not a 1 dimensional problem it's my belief that before looking way out there we need to recognise the process that are going on within first here's a starting point for all to look at http://www.ornl.gov/sci/radiation_transport_critic... I would love to debate the way the radiated frequencies that are emitted by this process and the way it creates our magnetics and gravity but this site is not for debating Most here can't turn off their internal noise long enough for a debate to take place Cheers and a great day to all