http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2013 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
Some "skeptics" are almost reasonable, but some are not. They don't agree whether Earth is round or flat. What they do agree on it that if there is any possibility that the effect of carbon dioxide has no ill effect, we must act as if we are certain that it has no ill effect.
There is never anything that everyone agrees upon.
And to combat Baccheus's list:
There are warmers who believe that AGW causes earthquakes.
There are warmers who believe that AGW will cause the end of humanity.
There are warmers who believe we need more taxation.
There are warmers who believe the "denier" effort gets more funding than they do.
The temperature range for the models is from 1 degree to 10 degrees in the next 100 years.
There are warmers who believe the ozone layer problem and AGW are the same thing.
There are warmers who believe that AGW causes tsunamis.
There are warmers who believe the seas will rise by 20 meters.
And the same thing about many opinions is also true of warmers. In fact, the largest problem I have with warmers is that most are against a nuclear solution. Let me make this CRYSTAL CLEAR. The best solution available is accepted MORE by skeptics than warmers.
But I can discuss where MOST people agree.
1.) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2.) Working towards an energy solution with more renewable resources is good.
3.) Being reliant on foreign oil is bad.
I think that skeptics see a couple of things that they find troubling.
First, the warmers seem to treat science as if it were religion. They see no room for discussion, or changing views based on additional information. They almost seem to worship science as a deity without understanding that it is really just a process for gathering evidence and evaluating an idea. The wording of your question says a lot about this. If one side is 'skeptics', what does that make the other side? It makes them "believers". Religions have believers, not science.
Second, the warmers seem to close their minds to all ideas that do not match their own. They do not evaluate them. They just lash out.
Third, warmers tend to exclude all data which does not prove their point. For instance, if you were to say that this was a cold snowy winter, they will attempt to prove their own intelligence by stating that you are stupid and don't understand climate because you can only see what is in front of you. They seem to ignore the fact that a simple definition of climate would be, AVERAGE WEATHER. The very crux of the warmer arguments is that the AVERAGE temperature is rising. Well, it does not take much of a mathematician to understand that if you add in data that is below an average, it brings the average down.
Fourth, warmers tend to fall into the "do it because it is symbolic" camp of people. They will protest and stonewall and prevent many things, none of which will have any affect on global warming. They will jump onto any idea that someone labels earth friendly without actually stopping to think about what will or will not work. A slightly off topic example is "Earth Day" activities. My workplace coordinated a trip to the local living history farm to basically do yard work at the old farmhouse for "Earth Day". Well, let me tell you something. The Earth does not want trimmed lawns and her weeds pulled. Just leave it alone, and you will see in a few years what the Earth wants.
Fifth, if you just pay a little attention you can quickly observe that most of the global warming hype is really about money and power. In he scientific community right now, you get no funding if you do not toe the global warming line. The government throws money at GREEN, though very little of the money has any chance of accomplishing anything meaningful. In the UN, they want to figure out how to TAX rich countries and give the money to the UN, their contractor buddies, and other poor countries based on the amount of carbon produced by the country. Only the rich countries though. Poor countries can release as much carbon as they see fit.
Sixth, all of the global warming models were WAY WAY off. They said we would be cooking in our own juices by now. When you point this out, warmers get very offensive and once again claim that the fact that they did not understand what was going on, and their predictions were all wrong, again somehow proves that you are stupid.
Seventh, warmers seem to be able to take any and all contradictory observatons and somehow warp their ideas to say that it proves all the global warming hype. If it rains, global warming. If it does not rain, global warming. Believe it or not, some will even come up with an argument that colder weather is a result of global warming. There are people who claim that earth quakes will result from global warming.
I could go on, but that is enough for now.
There is air.
Everyone is a skeptic. All scientists are skeptics; that what make advancement possible.
What you are asking about are the climate change deniers. There is no single denier position other than "the scientific body is wrong" and/or an animosity towards government-creep that becomes paranoia retarding their ability to look past politics and strictly at reality.
There are deniers who claim that all scientists are in a conspiracy. But even the conspiracy nuts do not agree: JimZ claims that all physicists are Marxist. Billy (rip) claims they are all controlled by reptilian capitalists. (Actually, Billy's claim that lizards from out of space came here 200,000 years ago and walk among us is actually more realistic than JimZ's claim that people study physics and earn professorships only because they want to help the proletariat overthrow the bourgeoisie.)
There are deniers who claim there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect.
There are deniers who claim that the troposphere has not warmed.
There are deniers who claim that the troposphere has warmed due to clouds (Spencer's hypothesis).
There are deniers who claim that the troposphere will stay cool due to clouds (Lindzen's hypothesis)
There are deniers who claim extra CO2 does nothing.
There are deniers who claim there is no extra CO2.
There a deniers who claim the extra CO2 in both the oceans and atmosphere came from some other place, and that meanwhile the CO2 from combustion of fossil and wood fuels just disappears.
If you want to ask about a denier theory, you have to specify which one; they do not agree with each other. There is one grand theory of how CO2 affects the atmosphere with differing nuances, and there are thousands of dissenting ideas each with very few followers.
I think everyone agrees on a few basic facts. These would be:
a) We dig up fossil fuels and burn them
b) Burning fossil fuels produces CO2
c) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
d) Burning fossil fuels therefore adds additional CO2 to the atmosphere and this has a heating effect
Where the difference basically lies, in my opinion, is that skeptics will argue that whatever heating effect that additional CO2 has, it isn't the major contributor and is a relatively minor, even insignificant factor.
What it always comes down to is the same thing - skeptics will agree with the science right up until the point where
a) there's a problem
b) we're the source of that problem
c) we have to change something about how our society, economy, politics behaves to deal with it
And, to be balanced, 'warmists' (like me) will generally accept the science but will have varying degrees of 'greenish liberal leftie' sentiments about
a) how much of a problem it will be, ranging from minor to THE END OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT!!!
b) the degree of change that is required, ranging from investment in new technologies and carbon taxes, to everyone moving back to the country, living off soya beans, and selling jewellery we make ourselves from sustainable sources to buy rain clouds to nourish our Earth Mother
c) how much we're responsible, ranging from yep, ok, we done bad to we all deserve to die to preserve the lives of the cute little animals
Skeptics agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we have increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% and if nothing else changes, this will cause the earth to retain more energy.
What they don't agree on is how much warmer it will get as a result.
I do think the alarmist and conspiracy theorist on either side are sad people, but on the other hand their "logic" does appeal to my sense of humor...
How would you even know the difference? You can't prove that the desk under your computer is or isn't a shape-shifting alien. You said so yourself. So, why does the climate changing even matter to you? ... or why would you even care about what the two sides agree on?
"What will shock you is that two professors not only candidly admit it, but published a paper in a peer reviewed journal touting the beneficial effects of lying for pushing nations into a UN climate treaty in Paris next year!" wrote Craig Rucker of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) in an April 4 blog post. "The authors not only believe that their dubious ends justify their shady means, they institutionalize 'information manipulation' as a tactic, host panels about it at climate conferences and publish it in journals. They're shameless."
http://www.naturalnews.com/044856_global...
What's to agree on when the agenda-driven alarmism has been obvious to begin with?
You might be interested in this list from Roy Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skep...
It's not the sun based on studies that claim the suns influence is either -10% or +40%,
tree rings are ok to reconstruct past temperature when we can proxy the variables in the environment, but we know they're wrong when we know the varibles
It's still warming just not where anyone can find it and/or natural variability is hiding/masking the effects
We agree that CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere but one side believes it's effect is akin to cyanide
We agree that CO2 is good for plant life but one side thinks this fact means deniers are proposing spraying raw sewage into the atmosphere
We agree that snow is not going to be a thing of the past despite what scientists might believe
We agre that the artic is not ice free despite scientific claims it should be
We agree that alternative energy is necessary, we don't agree that a made up crisis or that the government will create the innovation that will allow this to happen
I believe
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
We are increasing CO2
We might warm the Earth slightly
That Co2 has benefits in greening the planet
I do not believe
A slightly warmer Earth is dangerous
That carbon taxes can change the weather
That CO2 can cause droughts or floods
It seems like it might be instructive to consider what statements most or all "skeptics" agree with, and what statements most or all "warmers" agree with, and compare the two lists.
So, please list any statements relevant to AGW that you think pretty much everyone on your "side" would agree with (stop if you exceed 20). Please note anything others have listed for your "side" that you *don't* agree with. And, please comment as much as you feel qualified to on the relative length, importance, and/or scientific depth of the two (collective) lists.
Al Gore is rich.
The science is phony.
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
It is political rather than science.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
Global warming has been happening. And there is currently a pause in global warming (Considering that MET in the UK is an AGW cultist club but they stated there will be no global warming until 2017 at least). But we differ on the cause of global warming.
I'm not going to dwell into what the Y Answers kool-aid drinkers agree on.
