Why do skeptics think a few scientists (who disagree with each other) and blogs more believeable than.....? Thousands of climatologists and EVERY major scientific organization?

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Backed by a mountain of data, including:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

Most all world leaders and corporate leaders agree too.

What makes the %26quot;skeptics%26quot; believable, other than your political beliefs? Do you also question evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics? You have no direct evidence of those either, only what the scientific community tells you. Why do you believe scientists about those, but not about global warming?

Additional Details

7 months ago

SHAPESHIFTER - They take the data off Mauna Loa because it%26#039;s unusually uncontaminated air there. Here%26#039;s 30 years of data. It shows no sign of volcanic eruptions.

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/qu...

There are reports from sites all around the world, many nowhere near volcanoes. They all say the same thing (unless they%26#039;re near industrial areas or other contamination).

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/

I know you%26#039;re simply repeating something you%26#039;ve seen elsewhere. I consider you a thoughtful skeptic, so think about this.

Why do the global warming deniers make such outlandish claims, which are CLEARLY refuted by the data? It%26#039;s simply a debating tactic, and a completely unscientific one.

7 months ago

bigdmizer - Your argument about a flat Earth, goes the OTHER way.

2000 years ago Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the Earth. Once the data was in, there was a strong scientific consensus that the Earth was round.

It was ignorant %26quot;skeptics%26quot; who denied science and the data who thouht the world was flat.

The problem is that climatologists don%26#039;t agree with each other, have no significant proof humans are causing climate change, and, most importantly, don%26#039;t use consistent data.

Little of the data for human based climate change is reliable because it is based on supposition. All the hard data is less than 500 years old. It is also a know fact that for the last 100,000 years or so, the climate has been unusually stale. To put that in perspective, imagine if someone took a look at what you did for the last 10 seconds and judged your whole life by that 10 seconds. What would they assume your life was like?

Scientists know that the world has been both hotter and colder than it is now. Much hotter and much colder. The climate changes and has been changing since the Earth first developed an atmosphere.

If one looks at the past billion years, one would see that we have been living in a VERY short period of stability. To say that the climate would not move out of this period is folly. Even the charts of the believers show this, which is why they only focus on the last couple of hundred years.

You mention evolution, yet forget that evolution has been driven, in part, by climate change. Without climate change, humans would not exist. Also, humans are the most adaptable species. We stand the best chance of surviving climate changes because we can adapt to the changing climate through the use of technology. That is why there are so many humans in so many climates now.

There is direct evidence for evolution, relativity, and quatum mechanics. There is no direct evidence for man made climate change and also no evidence that climate change is bad, let alone bad for everyone. Climate change might be bad for some people in some regions, but it may well turn out to be a boon for people in other regions, especially regions where the climate is at an extreme.

You are projecting your arrogance and fear of death onto the greater world then decrying that others do not do the same.

What makes alarmists constantly misrepresent consensus? Frankly, I am skeptical of claims from so called skeptics and those that pretend to know more than they do about climate. At least skeptics generally admit they don%26#039;t know. I think most skeptics also realize that those that pretend to know, don%26#039;t.

With me its always been the plausibility factor.I know that there are many processes that defy human understanding.I don%26#039;t like the approach some proponents use,ie(scare tactics,unrelated facts etc..).I can read and I%26#039;ve visited most of the links you have listed and many more.Some simply state facts without the process,others will explain in great detail that there%26#039;s a error margin...sometimes to a great extent.But I can live with that.I don%26#039;t think drawing the cream and throwing away the milk is the best solution.Especially when your trying to convince someone that the facts are real.

In the defense of science...They have develop a new computer that will help modeling...New satellites that use radar to monitor the upper atmosphere,and clouds...real time seismic monitoring stations...and a few new theories about earthquakes...I was especially glad about the satellites and knew from the beginning the old ones couldn%26#039;t have been accurate.

Edit: I%26#039;m going to agree with (Ken%26#039;s) philosophy...basically on yahoo answers it%26#039;s the same.You face no repercussions for having bad judgment or posting erroneous facts...I wish I could count the times I%26#039;ve had to correct a engineers numbers
because the real world wouldn%26#039;t allow for it.

I%26#039;m curious why alarmists feel the need to recruit %26#039;believers%26#039;. If it was so clear and obvious us %26quot;deniers%26#039;%26#039; wouldn%26#039;t be able to refute it.

I know that I did not believe in gravity, was the only one it seemed like-then out comes the 9 functions that make up attraction and repulsion. Understanding magnetics was what made me disbelieve. GW is not the same. this system is cooling and heating and moving and.... The models are having to be made up of the evidence we have and that is very little. Heating causes CO2 to increase. What happens if CO2 increases? We do not know. our only examples are volcano that went off one after another and caused an ice age-a nuk winter, followed by greenhouse heating. But that took some 300,000 years. Never-the-less, Today here is what we know: many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more destruction. Blacktop (roads and parking lots), buildings, air pollution (causes lung and other diseases), deforestation, duststorms (which increase hurricanes and cyclones and cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC%26#039;s), solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels) are human problems we need to fix to keep life on earth sustainable! The federal government needs to adopt a pollution surcharge to balance the field and advance new technologies. We must pay the real price of oil (petrochemicals) including global warming, cleanup and for health effects. But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with little evidence! The result is: change is on the way, we just do not know what changes. But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and they form clouds cooling earth but causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). But humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms. The USA Mayor%26#039;s have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).