Wouldn’t it be great to be able to engage in a proper debate with some real sceptics who bring valid points to the discussion. Instead we get the same idiotic nonsense that they’ve been spoon fed by their favourite blogs and denialist media. It’s as if they can’t think for themselves and have to be told what to think.

Now, there are some intelligent sceptics who frequent Answers and I’m sure if they put their minds to it they could engage in some proper research and come up with some sensible points for debate. It just seems like they take the easy option all the time and come up with the most ill-conceived and baseless ‘arguments’.

I hope to be proven wrong and look forward to sceptics presenting their data (real data, not the distorted and mathematically reworked junk that gets deposited on sites such as WUWT).

"I'd really like to see some scientific data challenging AGW but they don't seem to have any"

Here's a small list on one topic from just the year 2013: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/01...

Here are some key points regarding your above question:

"Periods of high bog surface wetness correspond to the Wolf, Sporer and Maunder sunspot activity minima, suggesting solar forcing was a significant driver of climate change over the last c. 1000 years."

"For the moment science does not really have a complete and total understanding of the factors affecting the earth's complex climate system and therefore no sound conclusions can be drawn."

"Under the same CMIP5 anthropogenic emission scenarios, the model projects a possible 2000-2100 average warming ranging from about 0.3 C to 1.8 C. This range is significantly below the original CMIP5 GCM ensemble mean projections spanning from about 1 C to 4 C."

"Nevertheless, the cyclical temperature increase of the 20th century coincided with the buildup and culmination of the Grand Solar Maximum that commenced in 1924 and ended in 2008."

Of course, your entire premise of "challenging AGW" is not very precise. Actually what is being challenged is CAGW. You do recognize the distinction?

To Ottawatts Mike:

<>

And then you provide a link to a hockeyschtick post titled "71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2" which is nothing more than a populartechnology kind of list of real science papers which deniers falsely believe supports their AGW opposition but which in reality doesn't.

That is in essence what AGW denial boils down to: not understanding Science in general and completely not understanding climate science in particular and believing that referring to a list of papers compiled by another misinformed denier is sufficient evidence to back up you claims.

What's to discuss? It's getting colder. CO2 isn't causing the warming that isn't happening.

What is unscientific about noting failed predictions of the theory and thus falsifying it?

Just WHO is the denier?

They either don't understand the science or they would rather ignore the science because it doesn't support their agenda. They don't talk about science, only politics.

A doubling of CO2 increases temperature by about 0.1 C.

or do they just use it as an excuse to push their own far right political ideology?

I'd really like to see some scientific data challenging AGW but they don't seem to have any