Why do climate change deniers continue to argue that either the earth is not warming at all, or it's not?

The average guy on the street sure doesn't, at least not in the absolute terms that are so often used. It's kind of a sad statement that 'common sense' is so often cited as the rationale behind absolute judgments rendered when logic contradicts the common sense so proudly offered. Sometimes I'm even embarrassed for people, which is strange when you consider this is essentially an anonymous forum.

I don't make any secret of the fact that I am a layman and don't pretend that I have answers that science doesn't-and climate science doesn't pretend to know all the answers. Although some scientists are certainly pretty well convinced that the evidence is clear and unequivocal, I'm not aware of any scientific organization that makes the absolute predictions that some claim. Part of it is probably in the grasp of statistics and probability.

I recall some years ago one of the hot button issues was polling and statistical probabilty. It was amazing to me how many people were unable to grasp margins of error, what straw polls were and demonstrated and so on. It's pretty much the same when it comes to climate science.

Nonetheless, the issue is clearly tainted by politics and the media...there you have sound bytes and headlines, which says something to me about reading comprehension. Or at least patience. I see the oddest conclusions reached that are linked to articles that do not support the conclusions that are drawn by the very people who quote them.

I come here for information and the latest updates. I answer questions such as these when I feel I have a perspective to offer, but I really make few judgments about the science itself. I'm pretty neutral in that regard-I don't have a dog in the AGW fight, I am not a qualified scientist...I'm just an interested individual with a vested interest in the most accurate short and long term predictions of which way the weather will go and climate will follow.

Now when it comes to individuals, I don't have any doubt that there are people out there who are trying to profit from climate change and AGW. That to me is a separate issue from the science, and I have never heard any kind of convincing argument that explains the long term weather trends that I believe signal climate change other than 'it's a conspiracy.' My outlook is great, but how exactly are these conspirators actually changing the climate in the areas that I am operating in? Whether it is natural or influenced by mankind, conspiracy theories just don't cut it from my point of view.

Further, I'm actually fine with the idea it is just a natural process, but those who say it is don't explain the science that warrants such a claim. To me the debate is more or less a competition, with those who say the measurable climate change I have observed-shifting hardiness zones, warmer winters, longer growing seasons, etc. etc. in my own neck of the woods-is simply weather don't back it up with objective scientific research based on history, activity/cycles of the sun and so on as well as those who provide data and research that support the theory of AGW. I don't see any way of simplifying my outlook any more than that.

People here who are anti-AGW don't like that outlook, and they don't like it when they are called on it. But they're not offering the evidence that they need to-they call it logic when they claim that it's all a conspiracy to take away our freedom-and I am concerned about that too-but a conspiracy doesn't explain why the weather is changing, and why climate seems to be changing...and neither do natural processes. How many times, I wonder, does this need to be pointed out?

Quite a few, apparently, and people smarter than me have also pointed out that arguing logically with the illogical is a waste of time. So for what it is worth-and I sense a growing frustration on your part-the information you provide in your answers is clear, concise and informative. I would also credit Pegminer and several others in this regard.

From the standpoint of a layman who is looking for answers, you provide them. You and several others are good communicators-and educators. I'd also note several others who I believe ask insightful questions that draw out valuable information and perspectives-Chem Flunky is one, and Ottawa Mike is another.

A lot of times the questions that are asked are not even things that someone like me would think of asking. And quite often, the anti-science brigade brings up questions or comments that are so off the wall and uniformed it puts their failure to grasp basic concepts in sharp relief. So despite the frustration, name-calling and personal attacks and affronts, this is a pretty useful place to visit to keep up to date.

But are the bulk of the participants here qualified to pass judgment on climate change? Ha.

Trevor, I had a long answer about my qualifications and lacks thereof, and I dumped it to sum it up this way: I fall somewhere between SkepticalScience and RealClimate in my abilities. I have no math anymore. I do have a bachelor's in chemistry from Manhattan College some 4 decades ago.

But I didn't use it professionally, at least not directly. Indirectly was an entirely different matter. I also did models and simulations for my job, and as a hobby which I'm trying to turn into a game design & production business, so understand them at a level comparable to the rest of my knowledge.

That's me. What do "ordinary" people really need to know to be able to make competent judgments, and how do we get them there? People need to learn enough about science and how science is done, with actual experience, so they can "feel it in their gut" oddly enough to have a "trust" in science and how it is self-correcting, rather than a "belief" in science which equates science with magic done by wizards, essentially.

The recent US educational system has allowed students to dodge science classes, and avoid learning what scientific thinking actually is. This leaves most people with only one more chance to really understand climate change and what is currently happening. Barring adequate scientific knowledge and thought patterns, we're left only with logic, and the ability to understand what credible and non-credible sources are.

I asked a question here back a year or two ago about why all the obvious signs of global warming are not enough to prove it is occurring. No science denier could answer. Therefore, an uneducated but intelligent and logical person could see from the evidence that climate change is real.

Because the migrations of animals, plants, insects, anything that can fly, walk, wriggle or stretch is on the move trying to get to a better climate. Because the tundra is greening, the sea is rising, and the glaciers are shrinking - in aggregate. When the evidence is looked at clearly, we are either causing increasing & increasingly fast warming or we all live in the Matrix.

Any intelligent, logical person of good will, trained or not, is capable, with some necessary work, of making a competent judgement on what is actually going on. This will require different levels of proof for different people. SkepticalScience uses that approach nicely.

**************************** EDIT: There is a somewhat related conversation about teaching science and how to do it effectively, over at RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc... But I don't think they all get the idea. From training roughly 3000 people in various aspects of postal automation, I know you have to grab people fast within a few - very few - seconds and in some way, where they live. You have to connect, and keep that connection.

And if you personally are not paying them, you better be entertaining. I point out this 3 minute video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKmUoDyQ... has well over 100,000 views 134,397 and counting. And the audience cheered at the end.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.