You have BOTH answered your own question (it is easier to recycle prefab doubts about something complex and counterintuitive than to explain why it is nonetheless true), AND revealed a still better answer: it is easier for deniers because they get referred to too often as "skeptics," when they are actually utterly unskeptical of all the denialist bull they are often too stupid to even recycle properly).

Wahat anti-science poster Pat here calls "claptrap"; I call the reliable consensus of Nobel Prize winning scientists:

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

Create doubt? How would I create doubt about gravity, the earth being round, the earth revolving around the sun, ....with AGW all I have to do is look at an uncertainty that is larger than the value of the rate of change, find out they're still using tree ring data after they realized they don't know how to calculate temp using tree rings, vague predictions of more severe weather.... It's like asking someone to create doubt about big foot or the lochness monster, the doubt is inherent, it doesn't need to be created.

Gary - When I appeal to authority, like a mechanic, they do a very good job of explaining the problem with the car that I was unable to diagnose myself. They usually even show me the part that is bad. It's easy for you and the rest of your group to claim that climate change caused by CO2 is so mystical that only climate scientist and the followers of AGW are able to comprehend. You can teach almost anyone the answers to those questions that 79% of adults can't answer. I sometimes find it appauling the things my wife does not know, that doesn't mean she isn't intelligent enough to learn, she either doesn't care because it doesn't impact her or doesn't see that the specific piece of information is relevent to her life. This doesn't make it yours or anyone elses duty to decide that since you've been unable to provide sufficient evidence to convince those 79% that they should be ignored.

Its the sceptics every time. The warmers are told that the sky is falling and when it doesn't they are proven wrong. The sceptics only have to have a walk in the park to see all is the same as before. If you go to the seaside as you did as a child the sea level is just the same.

This planet was made for us, with the fuel that we need provided in prodigious amounts even for the UK.

When the warmers say we are running out of energy, we discover tons of shale oil and gas under our feet.

The warmers have no faith in the creation that was made for us and do not see its perfection for our needs. It is time they came in from the cold.

Skeptics are having the easiest time, I notice now when reading articles about climate change, the comment sections are filled with almost entirely skeptical comments.

I dispute AGW proponents have the better science, Skeptics like Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Garth Paltridge, are Eminent respected scientists, against the likes of Hansen Mann and co

Doubt is an important part of science. as is proof and results.

Just wondering if anyone who has bought into the global warming idea has ever researched the issue fore themselves and has considered the devastating consequences if they are wrong - trillions of $ wasted, government control over every aspect of your carbon footprint, your tax dollars syphoned off to pay global warming reperations to banana republics among other things. I guess it also makes me uneducated to point out that we are, geologically speaking, just coming out of an ice age, and, on top of that are still recovering from a temperature downturn that lasted from the 1300's through the 1700's. Compared to most of the last 10k years it's freaking cold. Nobody is denying co2 is a greenhouse gas (wonder how many of those better educated sheep could tell you what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas without running to wikipedia). Fu*king twa*s. Nor saying it is a fabrication, but maybe look who benefits from the hysteria before you call people who aren't quite certain it's as bad as algore (who owns a nice mansion in Malibu because of it) says it is. Don't think that researchers are immune from painting a picture that towes the line thier benefactor universities or governmenta want (almost exclusively left leaning). Just take it with a grain of salt.

Why would you worry about it, if the evidence is so clear to you? Your own science shows an unequivocal 90% probability that humans are causing the climate to change. That only leaves 10%.

The less than 1% forcing caused by humans (at any one time to the climate) shouldn't bother you one bit, yet you still find ways to personally attack anyone who disagrees with you.

When you can show an absolute cumulative effect by humans to our climate system, then you can claim your intelligence on the matter. Until then, learn to debate with some integrity and compassion for human dignity. The continual badgering gets old and shows how weak your evidence really is.

Edit:

Proof of this just came from Climate Realist : "Denialists respond with ad hominem arguments and when they want to sound scientific, they use cherry picked evidence. For example, they point out that a glacier somewhere is growing. Should we just ignore the growing glacier? No. But it makes a lot less sense to ignore all of the shrinking glaciers. It could be said that the growing glacier is the exception that proves the rule."

Glaciers are retreating and exposing carbon sinks. It's a continuing and natural process. This is shown through the study of glaciers. They grow and then retreat. Why does temperature vary from year to year and CO2 is steadily and constantly rising? There have been no claims that I have heard of that proclaim "Glaciers are growing". Please correct me if I'm wrong. Glaciers moving from one point to the next is a constant process.

Darwinist - BTW: A debate is what makes us do better work and understand the process. It invokes more scrutiny and entices us do do more thorough work on our analogies. When Chem Flunky can't prove that my desk "isn't a shape-shifting alien" that holds up my computer, then it's easy to question the science. I'm a carpenter and have built a few desks so I know they usually come from trees. I hope those shape-shifting alien trees don't mind. ;-)

Edit to Gary F :

Where exactly in your link does it say what you are claiming? If you pin-point your information (like most climate scientists try and do and ultimately fail), then it would be easier to understand your intellect on the subject. I've read through your link and there are many links within the link. Is this the 'smoke and mirrors' concept that you advocate? Most people think that "The Federal Reserve Banking System" is a Government organization when it clearly states that it is privately owned. Is this the kind of Government you really admire?

Gary F - I was talking about this statement "From the Republican Party Of Texas 2012 Platform:



“Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

Republican Party Of Texas 2012 Platform"



I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. HOTS is a program that instills a learning system that most people find un-educative and biased. When most people are uneducated about our debt-based financial system anyway, why should we leave it to Government to teach our kids anything? Our Government programmed teachers are the ones who taught them the math. Can you even understand that at any one time human forcings to the climate amount to less than 1%? I still have seen nothing from you about our "cumulative effect" on our climate besides a temperature reading provided by other sources.

I would say skeptics have it easier because we just have to look at the real world evidence to realize that CAGW has been blown out of proportion.

Temperatures are trending LOWER than even Hansen's scenario C (No increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000)