Do you think we will get to a point where most skeptics predict HIGHER temps than most of the alarmists?

At the end of the day, there will be only one set of science. Everyone will agree. However, in the interim ...

Just notice how things work. We hear that denier's predicitions are not based on science. This omits the other half of the coin. The IPCC does not make predictions either. It is another one of those we do but we don't things. The reports are full of the word "predict" but there is a disclaimer that says they only suggest "scenarios".

If you ever try to pin a scientist down here the replies are always: "We never said that." The IPCC does it by claiming future disasters in headlines but then it will add a get out clause to the footnote of figure 19 on page 1234. Surprisingly (!), most of the people who see the headline never stumble across the footnote so balance is never restored.

If we do get to the situation where they might suggest lower temperatures than sceptics you will find that the goalposts have moved - just as some have done with the pause in global average surface temperature anomalies. They were important for 30 years but now people have spotted the pause it is heat content that really matters. Remember the tropospheric hotspot? That used to be important. Remember the Medieval Warm Period. First we had one, then we didn't now it doesn't really matter.

4. Deny reality completely, is what you denialists are doing.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/wa...

And we are causing it

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/fil...

The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2013 and 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

If you want to know how "warmers" think, take a science course.

<I predicted about a 1C rise for a doubling of CO2 and right now I'm beating most multi million dollar climate models.>

And we had a 0.8C rise from a 44% increase of carbon dioxide.

Given that I am supposedly the alarmist, how come it is me that actually spells out "carbon dioxide."

<do tell what you think the difference is between a skeptic and a denier.>

A skeptic is willing to change his/her mind when confronted with evidence.

If by "skeptics", you mean deniers, nothing they "predict" is ever based on science, so only an idiot would believe them anyway. You might as well go with a fortune teller or Joe Bastardi.

EDIT: Skeptics care about scientific evidence, deniers don't. Deniers will latch onto anything they feel supports their denial, even if it contradicts something that supported their denial the day before. If you want examples: I am a skeptic, you are a denier.

"as the global warming pause continues or if there is only slight warming over the next few decades"

Both are extremely unlikely.

LMAO yes they do seem to be backing down a lot.

Anyone except 3

Deniers/skeptics predictions or opinions have no credibility