Nicco.

Thank you for a very valid and timely commment. It is a curious and unwelcome phenomenon, in part driven by those with a vested interest and money that desire to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).

rich, it's the skeptics trying to stop the spread of FUD, that there is no reason for the huge FUD campaign of the climate fear industry .. you seem to be so far up the climate tree, you've lost sight of what's going on I think.

Fear, the world is ending doom if we don't pay a great big tax, and it's URGENT we must do it now, think of the children! (or blow them up, whatever)

Uncertainty, the seas might rise 1 metre or 100 metres by 2XXX, (insert date according to alarm required) the drought will get worse the temperatures will rise to the highest EVA! While we will have record snowfalls and the lowest temperatures EVA!

Doubt, every year we hear that climate change is actually worse than we thought, that temperatures are increasing and falling worse than expected, that ice shelves are melting THREE TIMES FASTER than previously though, that glaciers are melting faster than previously declared .. that every day species are dying out becoas eof climate change .. what else, every time there is a rainstorm, hailstorm, cyclone, earthquake even .. it's climate change .. probably even the deaths of all the unicorns

Skeptics say there is little to worry about, mostly it's natural .. so what part of the skeptical accusation that alarmists are hysterical doom merchants trying to scare everyone and the children, do you equate skeptics to being merchants of FUD?

It's in the interests of all the doom organisations, eco nut climate clubs and all the climate lobby groups and climate scientists seeking yet more grants, to predict doom for the planet, to demand to pay a great big new TAX NOW!, not later, NOW godammit! because it's Code RED, emergency and the earth is in trouble NOW. We can't wait any longer!

If you want FUD, then eco alarmists and AGW believers wrote the book, they are the ones with the vested in interests, particularly all the organizations collecting donations, the scientists getting grants .. what are skeptics getting?.

So what's the FUD that skeptics are spreading?

rpg

Just a reminder that the "AGW believers" are simply accepting of the overwhelming scientific opinion. Skeptics like yourself are taking an extreme minority position on the science presumably because you take offense at what the science says, and take even more offense at the actions that need to be taken to reduce carbon pollution. Unfortunately no amount of ranting and raving changes the basic science.

Alternatively, skeptics are a victim of campaigns funded by individuals and organisations with a vested interest in continuing to make money from oil, coal, gas and mining operations that are threatened by a change to renewable energy. If you think that sounds crazy then read the "Merchants of Doubt" book which explains "how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era." That should help answer the question you posed of "what are the skeptics getting?".

You may reflect that a previous post pointed out possible connections between the author and organisations with a history of dubious motives and funding sources.

The pro-AGW view of the allegedly-reputable scientific bodies is that concocted and advanced by their politically-motivated governing boards. There is no evidence that it is representative of the views of their members.

"..finding that 97 to 98 per cent of those climate researchers publishing most actively on the topic agreed with the tenets of climate change as identified by the IPCC.."

So in a field where you have to adopt the prevailing orthodoxy to be funded or published, nearly all of the most-published authors adopted the prevailing orthodoxy?

Why am I not impressed?

rich, skepticism is certainly unpopular with believers and the left generally,but is coming out to be more and more acceptable to the general public, who appear to be under a thin veil .. conservative.

You have to accept though that all the articles that are doom laden, hysteric and predicting calamities are from your side .. not mine, our side do not predict doom or end of the world .. emptying of your wallet sure.

I don't get anything material out of skepticism, and I know scientists who get bucketloads .. I think you have a very thin argument there indeed