Ross McKitrick wrote a paper with Pat Michaels where he conflated degrees and radians. Debaters like to point to that as a sign the skeptics have no clue, frequently using M&M so they can bring another McKitrick co-author Steve McIntyre into the mix.
Lord Monckton tends to be very whimsical with his graphing, using extreme cherrypicking to demonstrate his points.
Not a specific skeptic, but Heartland put up a billboard saying that there has been no global warming in some amount of time, by comparing two months.
There's an inherent obligation of AGW climate scientists to show that CO2 is causing "Global Warming/Climate Change".
In the beginning the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change was charged with the fundamental question "Does the increase of atmospheric CO2 levels cause the Global temperature to rise?
If they can prove it, then they are charged with the question "How much effect do humans have in affecting the temperature to rise?"
The biggest error that skeptics have made (IMO) on this issue was to let environmentalist science control it. Environmentalists cloud the issue with environmental terrorism by making statements such as "the oceans will rise 20 feet and cause many deaths" or "temperatures will rise so much that all will die". The current chairman of the IP CC is a well-known socialist and environmentalist.
It would be interesting to know how many "Creationism Scientists" are involved in the IP CC's assessment reports.
Here is a list of 174 errors that have been made by "skeptics"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
One very popular error is what they say about 17 years about warming not being statistically significant. This is not because anything happened 17 years ago, but because of signal to noise. Thermometers were invented before 1994.
Why not try to get some balance and ask: "What errors have been made by climate scientists?" Take into account the fact that when an editor of Nature was asked how many articles he published were "wrong", he replied, without hesitation: "All of them." He knew that science is an iterative process.
Big Gryph's answer shows bias and is wrong in places. CO2 is, in fact, essential to humans and plants. See here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienci...
Smoking is not connected with gobal warming so that is a strawman arguent. How much more would we know about cancer if we spent some of the billion dollars a day currently being spent on climate related issues on cancer research?
http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publi...
Here is Willie Soon's response to the article in the UK Guardian about his Exxon funding: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...
We are constantly being told by the scientists that science is not subjective and is self-correcting. So how can funding make ay difference?
Sceptics are right to criticise the models because they are all running too warm.
They are also right to criticise the IPCC. Pachauri claimed the IPCC was the "gold standard" of science and only used peer-reviewed scientific papers. Analysis shows that they use up to 30% grey literature - like magazine articles from green lobby groups.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/lafram...
Perhaps we should take a more unbiased view of who are the people that "... have no real climate science to offer in defense of their position and generally post questions and answers here that are little more than distractions designed to waste other's time. "
That there has been no significant warming for 15 years. It's actually 17 years now.
That the sea level rise is 3.2mm/year. The 3.2mm/year is the very highest upwards adjusted estimate of sea level rise. I often make this mistake myself and I often fail to mention that most other estimates are considerably lower.
That weather is climate. Weather isn't climate until an alarmist tells you it's climate. Record cold temperatures across most of Canada, Europe, Russia and China is weather and it's not global. A hurricane in the Philippines is climate and it's global.
What professional papers? All they do is deny real science and harp on about Al Gore (seriously update your politics) if you do nothing you can make no errors
The denier industry can trace it's roots directly to big oil and coal executives who tried to convince us decades ago that CO2 was not only not harmful but that it was good for plants and people too, the second being a flat out lie. When they saw their efforts weren't bearing fruit, they started paying think tanks and other right wing organizations.
Keep in mind that many of these organizations were previously in tobacco's pockets claiming that second hand smoke wasn't harmful and likely before that promoted bacon as being good for us.
Big oil was the biggest teat and began not only paying organizations, but individuals as well. Willie Soon personally received over 1 million for his efforts. The lay deniers are guilty of being led around by their noses and buying into any of the abundant lies denying AGW They use links to whatsupwiththat, dailymail and fox news frequently all of which are decidedly deniers sources. They constantly question IPCC and models. They have no real climate science to offer in defense of their position and generally post questions and answers here that are little more than distractions designed to waste other's time.
Skeptics do not get to publish papers in the climate/change/biased world they get rejected., many journals and newspaper refuse to even allow comments from skeptics
In their professional papers or other venues?
