How do the two sides in the global warming debate compare?

1. The "skeptical" side of the "debate" has proven that they will ignore any of the scientific evidence that would alleviate any reason for their skepticism. The psuedo-sciences bring them greater comfort than what the actual science could tell them. ... This is not the case with the true skeptics. Richard Muller was once and skeptic and when he performed his own research on the temperature data, the reason for his skepticism, he was no longer a skeptic.

2. The side that makes the most convincing argument would largely depend on the audience being addressed. How many times have we seen very poor answers awarded points simply because the person asking the question, or what resembles a question, favors this answer over any that would go against their primary beliefs?

3. Unfortunately, this can be fairly evenly mixed. This is not a good way to convey the message you want heard. I can understand the frustrations, but it is counter productive. Ottawa Mike knows this and has been very careful to not be too confrontational. I do not believe that it is because he is genuinely a nice person. He simply wants others to believe that he is a fair minded "skeptic". Yet, he has on occasion admitted that what drives him in the debates is that he wants this be political. "I want to vote on this before anything is done!" Yet he is fully aware that the Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics have stood the tests of time and of tests. They were not arrived at by a vote by the masses. Should we ever reach a point to where we could just for the Laws of science that we want to adhere to then I wish to repeal the Law that states that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. I feel certain the insurance industry would support the repeal of this Law.

4. A no brainer! This award clearly goes to the side that wishes not to discuss the science simply because science does not support their ideologically driven conclusions concerning the science. ... Someone I know made this comment today concerning Groundhog Day, "Only in America do we accept weather predictions by a rodent, but deny climate change evidence by scientists..."

5. This easily goes to the side that accepts that agw is real. To falsify the AGWT you need to show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or the Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics can be shown to be wrong concerning greenhouse gases.

6. Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, "Lord" Monkton, Roy Spencer, Joe Bastardi, Sen Inhofe, Steve McIntyre, Steven Goddard (will the real Steven Goddard, please stand up?, myth of a person) ... need I go on?

7. Anthony Watts has been known to cite his own articles as evidence for what his current journey into the psuedo-sciences. Then we have those here that link to wuwt, Steven Goddard and Judith Curry. No real science needed!

8. The "skeptics" side cannot use honesty, integrity or any semblance of critical thinking. Should they even attempt to do so, they arguments quickly fall apart. Failed logic is all they can depend on. A little sad, at times.

9. If you are truly knowledgeable on climate change then you would not be a skeptic based on anything concerning the science. Certainly we all be skeptical as to how fast or how severe the warming climate will become, but that is not a disassociation with the science itself. Science simply cannot tell us this with absolutely certainty, but it can tell us it is probably not going to be to our benefit.

10. Verify through scientific peer review or like Rush Limbaugh asking Sean Hannity to verify Rush's comments on AGW? As we know, there are different degrees of verification. ... I always listen to "Coast to Coast" for all of my latest scientific information. :)

1 at this point it's about even, in the past the anti global warming side.

2 Global warming if anybody cares to read the data and knows a little science.

3 Anti Global

4 Anti

5 Warming

6 Anti

7 again I put that about equal

8 Warming

9 Warming with the exception with a few Anti's who better but are in it for their own gain.

10 Warming

This Site Might Help You.

RE:

How do the two sides in the global warming debate compare?

Several questions, sometimes the answers only require an opinion rather than a factual response. I’m using the term “side” to identify those who are sceptical of manmade global warming and those who accept it is happening.

Please try to answer accurately, rather than giving the answer you would...

I'm not a scientist and even some of the deniers on here have somewhat more 'scientific' training (although they view things with a large blind spot to reality) but just from the many warning signs that this earth is way too overpopulated with the incredibly destructive animals called humans, it is easy to tell that we definitely affect all things on earth, including the climate.

@ rocky-in the 80's, there was plenty of warning about the ozone, no denier movement funded by oil companies so people changed their habits and guess what...it changed for the better.

You are in denial if you think the massive amount of human influence on this planet does not change things.

@ wage slave, the 'debate' should be over and people who think they are skeptics, are either in denial, or ignorant of the obvious fact that denial is the ONLY side to gain anything from debating this topic.

@ tomcat-'... they will use any and all means to defend their faith, regardless which side of the issue they are on.'...and then you use terms such as 'skeptic & alarmist'...really now?

And we're supposed to take you seriously, why?

1. Given that one side always brings up the IPCC, which was put in place to give policy advisors an updated look at the science in an easy to understand format, belly aches about left wing politics, or complains about increased taxes I would think it would be he side that does this. That being skeptics.

2. Dealing with the actual science those that accept it is happening give the most convincing arguments. at least regarding the science. I'm sure that if someone really wanted they could debate where exactly to spend the money and how to go about fixing the situation but most in here choose to argue about the science in a conspiratorial manner.

3. Most recently that would be the skeptic side. In almost every one of Sagebrush's posts he calls people morons, he says people lie when they don't, and he lies about specific details himself. I recall an individual who was another skeptic that swore and belittled those he argued against in every post as well. JimZ also has a habit of doing that. I do too now and then of course usually as a result of being attacked myself.

4. That would be the skeptical side. An example of this, again, would be Sagebrush. Instead of discussing the science he continues to post out of context quotes as if they are proof of something.

5. Those that accept AGW.

6. I would say that would be the skeptic side. Though, those with ill knowledge of the science, will use this technique on both sides.

7. I would say the skeptical side does this more often but I have seen it on both sides.

8. The ones who accept AGW to be true.

9. That would obviously be the ones that accept it.

10. Again, this would be the ones that accept it.

1: activists

2: depends on the debaters

3: activists

4: activists

5: skeptics

6: activists

7: both sides usually

8: skeptics

9: depends on debaters but usually skeptics

10: skeptics

Nobody will understand that you're therefore sure that last battle will get you straight back all the cash but you are able to only accomplish that with the Zcodes System from here https://tr.im/nqiEa .  

Zcodes System will give you a sports betting strategy system. With Zcodes System you may get some more money because you will have most of the sports betting techniques that function in only one Zcodes System.

Trevor,

I refer to my question. You actually have C, who is unable to figure out that the question is about temperature exchanges not CO2 exchanges. You have Some1, who seems to think that the oceans will just magically decide to stop pulling heat from the atmosphere and place it back into the atmosphere.

Then you have Gary F. This person is actually disgusting enough to insult the mentally handicapped by comparing them to me. What kind of a person would sya such a negative thing about the mentally handicapped.

I know you think that the warmers are the greatest thing since sliced bread, but you all have some work to do yourselves. Also, given that all of the "science" is driving political policies, it is silly to try to pretend that they can be so easily separated.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtJnG...

Also, please note that in my question I do have a reference, PLUS I can provide the sources for the ocean temp increases and can provide the temp data reference.

I understand that the warmers are frequently wrong, but that hardly matters. This is not a contest to see who gets in the most punches. YOUR side is claiming the need to spend trillions of dollars. Dollars that could be used in other ways to save lives. You are the ones that hold the entirety of the burden of proof. When the "deniers" ask me for a red cent, I will start holding them to the high standards. Until then, you have to meet your burden.

In fact, let me apply your line of logic to my field. There are many people who think medicine doesn't work. They tend to hold odd opinions like handling snakes will work better. They are easily shown wrong. THEREFORE, I should not have to test any drugs and they should not have to be reviewed by the FDA. In my reports, I can curse, insult, make false claims, etc. because I am not as bad as the medicine deniers.

If you think this is the case, then you will surely make my job easier.

1) If the individual has a background in science, they will lean towards science. If the individual views the cause and it's social, evironmental and economic repurcussions as a threat to their way of life, and they do not have a background in science, they will use any and all means to defend their faith, regardless which side of the issue they are on.

2) The skeptics that predicted cooling 8 or more years ago clearly deserve attention, considering the amount of private and public funds that were spent to make projections about AGW that never materialized. Climate sensitivity is clearly much lower than thought by Alarmists.

3) Both sides are guilty of this.

4) I think the majority of people on the AGW side completely ignore reality and batter down anything that contest the theory. The adaptaion of the Hockey Stick as part of climate science and the fact that it passed peer review is just one of many glaring scientific research errors. And using it to ignore the MWP and LIA is a perfect example of how to ignore climate change.

5) Both sides, if there was evidence of catastrophic warming caused by doubling CO2 most skeptics would agree with the theory.

6) The entire AGW scenario is based upon the predictions of climate models that are not peer reviewed and have all failed. So any papers, research, theories and or hypothesis based on data from climate model simulations is essentialy pseudo science. Play Station Climatology.

7) Perhaps skeptics, data is data, most of it is copied and pasted everyday by computer programs.

8) Alarmists

9) Skeptics, the AGW crowd has intentionally ignored what the Paleo record shows and skeptics have to fight to force them to be honest. Such as what comes first? temperature rise or CO2 rise, shame !

10) Skeptics, its 2014: no warming, no growth in CO2 rise, no growth in hurricane activity, no loss of Arctic summer sea ice, and on and on.

S = Skeptic

A = Accept

1. Both (unfortunately)

2. A

3. S

4. S

5. A

6. S

7. Both (but not so unfortunately as 1)

8. Neither (unfortunately)

9. A

10. A

1-Deniers (typically conservatives)

2-Climate Scientists

3-Deniers

4-Deniers

5-Climate Scientists

6-Deniers

7-?

8-Climate Scientists

9-Climate Scientists

10 Climate Scientists

Read; The Republican Brain, The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality,

watch;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvZA68DHFi8