I think the way it works is when you have a psychopath – who is in total denial , inverts the question and applies the diagnostic evidence of their affliction and inverts it towards others , who have already made the observation – ( Post modern Sceptic I suppose); but with global warming or that should be ( Climate Change) , - that is just an outright criminal conspiracy of a model of 1 in one hundred millionth truths told, orchestrated by psychopaths- and Narcissistic incredulity of being a identified Psychopath , It is not scepticism . That is a very sick mental patient.
Yes, it is a non argument about science , and it more to do with Psychopaths criminal intent – I am sceptical that many will understand the truth, but I remain optimistic that the lie will live on for a while yet.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.

Spindoc, you say you "have not formed a view either way on AGW, not for the want of trying to get the data I need I might add."

Some commenters obviously can't (or are unable to) do the research or analyse the data, for various reasons.

However, there are others that promote misinformation, or deliberatley distort what the data is telling us, for ulterior motives. They even accuse national and international academies of science of distorting science - simply astounding.

This is not to say these institutions, the scientists themselves or genuine media journalists are doing a good job of explaining the science.

What data do you need? Where have you been looking?

Thanks Q&A. I tend to be selective in searching for data on any topic. In relation to AGW I stay away from the IPCC, not comfortable with the politics, funding or the process. Anything associated with Al Gore is out. I do not go to any media related commentary, articles or opinion pieces.

I select data from University research, Meteorological data sites, NASA satellite data and ground station observations. Most of the sites have raw data that can be downloaded or analyzed from different perspectives.

Interestingly, some of the pro AGW sites no longer provide raw data; it’s been pulled due to “inconsistencies”.

I accept the research data that shows an increase in atmospheric carbon from 1970 to date. I also accept the data that “some” oceanic currents have recently recorded up to half of one percent increase in temperature.

If I read something about say, Arctic Ice melting at an alarming rate, I can find other research that says “no, it’s back to normal”. The University of Illinois link is a good example of research that runs contrary to what the media publishes and it gets ignored.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

The BOM climate research is another good example. The 1900 to 2003 map indicates no reduced rainfall in the eastern States over that period. If, however you select 1970 to 2003 an anomaly shows up. That said, if you run the data sets in 30 year blocks there is no anomaly and no supporting charts show any anomaly.

The only data I can “see” as an anomaly is the increased atmospheric carbon from 1970, for every other piece of so called scientific evidence from either side of the debate there is an equally scientific opposite view.

The two most wickedly abhorrent terms used in this debate are “the science is settled” and “scientific consensus” Would anyone fly in a 747 that was built on consensus?

A bit off the thread, I apologize for that but thanks for the question Q&A.

I suggest that you also look up many national E P A reports, i.e . . . . Germany – Sweden- and British – California, etc, and I think you will be surprised with the actual findings of atmospheric chemical composition and its origins, and its life span-
I am sick of it, there are many who should be paraded, and sent onto the gallows.

That is to be the reasons why many of the things missing and fictional numbers added, important paragraphs deleted and the facts changed, when the Buaerocrat doctors 99.9% of the reports; - If this seems to escape most people, They are Pathological LIARS, just look how the health system has become totally dysfunctional throughout Australia – Many reasons, but the Buaerocrat is feeding everything else but the truth. The Physicians and the Surgeons are considered useless when dealing with a Beaurocrat.
The Gods of Government.

Albert Gore started this up in the early eighties when he put the ultimatum to prominent Professors and Doctors – Including NASA, - You are with me, or the funding is not.
That simple.

Spindoc

I (certainly the world’s governments and major businesses) don’t dismiss the IPCC reports so lightly. Much of what your searching for is found or cited in the papers referenced in the WG1 technical papers, for example.

IPCC reports are based on thousands of published peer reviewed research papers from the scientists and scientific institutions you say you select data from (“University research, Meteorological data sites, NASA satellite data and ground station observations” ... and much more).

A lot of people are confused about the ‘politics’ of the IPCC. They fail to understand that government or political representatives cannot change the science, no matter how unsettling the message might be. This is why over 2000 scientists have met in Denmark this week as a prelude to the COP 15 in Copenhagen in December – they have been able to add the latest findings to the AR4, with even more certainty.

Frankly, I find it odd that you seem to want to “reinvent the wheel”, but hey ... go for it. I’m not sure you are up to speed with statistical analysis though ... “if you run the data sets in 30 year blocks there is no anomaly and no supporting charts (that) show any anomaly” - are these really your words? I’m sorry, that comment depicts a lack understanding of statistical trend analysis.

Scientists understand the enhanced greenhouse effect extremely well, contrary to what some people think. These people confuse “the science is settled” statement as to meaning it is 100% settled ... it is not. You will always find the nuances being debated in the scientific arena, think of it in terms of probabilities of outcomes.

So too with the term “scientific consensus” ... if a preponderance of evidence stemming from the scientific process points to the same conclusion, then you can say there is a consensus. Of course, this does not mean it is absolute (some other hypothesis can come along and knock AGW for six ... but no one has been able to do that). The analogy to a 747 has nothing to do with it.

Fractelle's said it pretty nicely.

Logically speaking, isn't it a given that the parameters of any ecosystem will eventually change if the components within it are substantially altered on an ongoing basis?

It all just comes down to time.

In relation to the skepticism issue, I don't think it's as much the concept of skepticism that is being challenged here. Indeed, skepticism is the foundation of the scientific method.

I think what is challenged is the lengths that climate change deniers choose to accept science that does not actually conform to the scientific methods that have been laid down in the past and that so few of the articles disputing climate change are actually peer reviewed, which means that instead of relying on legitimate science, they rely on spin.

This was never such a significant problem in the past, however the recent US administration had a habit of ignoring scientific findings when it clashed with their ideology, though this approach has become more common throughout the world and in many disciplines.