How would a Global Warming Denier/Skeptic argue manmade global warming?

I'm a skeptic and I would argue it like this:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

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

Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-330991046...

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

I'm in my 2nd year of studying geology at uni.

to my knowledge none of the lecturers in the EES (Earth and Environmental Science department) believe in anthropogenic global warming and all the ones I've had have made some joke about it when asked.

We are definitely not the people who believe the world is flat.

We actually follow the articles that are published and read them in their entirety not just the abstract or conclusion.

Your analogy comparing skeptics to those who believe that the Earth is flat is 180 degrees off.

Actually, those who cling to the 'Man-did-it Catastrophic Global Warming' faith are those who could be more accurately described as 'Flat-Earthers', as they continue to deny that there is no (unmanipulated) scientific basis for their claims.

A true scientist is a Skeptic. Unfortunately, there are a number of high-profile, so-called 'scientists', politicians and opportunists who see scientific skepticism as a threat to their schemes.

I studiously try to avoid the label of 'denier' and I do not dispute the scientific data that has been presented, but I do consider myself a skeptic because there are so many different predictions about the potential impact of mankind's activities on climate that it is difficult to make a judgement about what we should do now to minimize it. Maybe my skepticism is rooted in HOW MUCH we should do rather than what.

I've said many times that I don't have a dog in the fight, meaning that I don't feel a particular need to defend a political loyalty, scientific organization or stance...all I am really interested in is finding out the truth. So it annoys me to no end when the discussions about the science are diverted into arguments about politics, personalities and conspiracies in absolute terms, i.e. 'Global Warming is a hoax because Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite' types of drivel. Yeah, OK...so Gore is a hypocrite, so what does that really tell us about the science and research? It certainly doesn't disprove it...Gore being a hypocrite is not 'evidence' against the science itself. I know there are people who find that outlook frustrating because they are convinced there is a huge conspiracy unfolding for all sorts of intricate reasons-and maybe there is, for all we know-but Gore being fat or a hypocrite doesn't serve the argument that the science or theory is wrong. If it is wrong, provide more convincing evidence of than the proponents are providing. I also have little to no tolerance for the oft-repeated falsehoods and ignorance...let's see...volcanoes and other natural events, CO2 is an insignificant percentage of the atmosphere, etc. etc. Or hack into the Rothchild's emails and find incriminating evidence about 'tricks' designed to convince the rabble to hand over all their money and power to the elites. 'Let them eat cake' would be good.

I would seriously like to see the people who are making these arguments based on what are really their geopolitical and economic beliefs come up with some serious analysis of the costs of addressing the problem of CO2 and link that to the predictions. I have heard as much as 14 Trillion dollars in costs to mitigate mankind's impact on climate, but to my knowledge nobody is really saying where that money is going to come from, what it is going to be spent on, and over what period of time-and to what effect? And I think that is where we're all arguing fruitlessly-if we can't say for sure that the impact of AGW is going to bring about apocalyptic consequences in...well, say 150 years, for example, can we afford to invest 14 trillion dollars in the next...uhhh...15?-when we don't know for sure how much of an effect that will have on climate?

See, the thing is I am neither an economist nor a scientist, climate, political or otherwise. But I think it is downright silly for people who obviously know very little about science and clearly have political agendas to be arguing so ignorantly about the scientific theory itself or subscribing it to any number of convolutedly impossible conspiracy theories. If people want to be skeptical, there is plenty to be skeptical about-they just need to put the numbers and the predictions together. What would be the impact of spending X number of dollars (a trillion dollars a year for 14 or 15 years), and can we do that without risking greater social upheaval than might or might not occur in 150 years-or 500 due to climate change? And how much of that climate change is going to be directly caused by mankind? Are we going to give ourselves another 25 years to adapt, or another 250?

I don't think the people who are really trying to make that argument via their liberal conspiracy theories can actually get their arms around it, so they're just falling back on the political mantra blaming Al Gore et al for being fat, belching volcanoes that will spew out more CO2 in one year than mankind can in the next 20...but there in the above paragraph is the argument-not against the science, but against a cure that may be worse than a disease that hasn't even really been diagnosed yet. Is is terminal or treatable?

Yes it's an up hill struggle to talk sense to the brainwashed.

There doesn't have to be a holocaust denier arguement, science doesn't work that way.

warmers have the theory, it's up to them to prove it (which they haven't by a long shot). I can't prove to you that a non existent thing doesn't exist! Like I said 'real' science doesn't work like that.

Actually, sceptics are extremely rare. You need to have knowledge on a subject to be a sceptic. Most tend to ignore the science outright based on ideology (see http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/266186.html )

I consider myself a sceptic because I believe that humans are contributing significantly to the current warming trend but am open to the possibility that there may also be a natural element which has not yet been considered or lacks sufficient data to indicate a strong influence acting in conjunction with anthropogenic GHGs to drive the current trend. I think you'll find most, if not all scientists who argue for action on climate change would hold the same position.

Here is concise skepticism from a climate scientist: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/...

They base their arguments on "Well it's happened before so humans can't possibly affect the climate."

At least that's the usual. It's a ridiculous argument. You could question the climate sensitivity as it relates to future warming but questioning the warming that has already occurred or blaming something other than man's emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases you're going to have to ignore quite a bit of data, such as the frequencies the warming is attributable to, in order to forward your belief.

I donot know