Why do denialists of anthropogenic climate change also deny researching the peer-reviewed, proven science?

Yes... ... and please bare with me, I know that this is a long post. There are a few scientific articles that are skeptical of anthropogenic (man made) greenhouse warming. These articles can be lumped into two broad categories: (I) An increase output from the sun is driving climate change (II) Cloud cover is affecting global temperatures.

So forget all of the hype and nonsense floating around out there on blogs and opinion pages. Nonsense such as, "But, the climate has always changed naturally" and "Well, the ice caps are melting on Mars too!" and "I just had to shovel 4 feet of global warming off my sidewalk" and let’s focus on the science. (I) Everyone agrees that changes in solar output has affected the global climate in the past, but the real question is whether changes in solar output are responsible for our recent global warming.

Scientists named E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen published an article that made a very strong case for this connection in 1991.

“Solar irradiance has various phases, such as an 80-90 year phase and the 11-year sunspot cycle. … This variation is causing a significant part of the changes in the recent global temperature.1” Here is the graphic that when along with his article: http://www.sepp.org/publications/images/... . However, it was soon discovered that Friis-Christensen’s graph was based on an embarrassing and trivial mathematical error.

Basically, Friis-Christensen had smoothed the graph, (which means he filtered out the background noise and odd anomalies). This is a common practice, and scientists filter “noise” out all the time. However, Friis-Christensen did not filter the most recent data that he used, because not all the data needed to do the filtering was available at the time of publication.

When the data did become available, the graph showed that any correlation between solar output and global temperatures ended during the 1970’s: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/ima... 2. Since the correction of the Friis-Christensen and Lassen article, published article have nearly unanimously agreed that changes in solar output can not be responsible for most of earth's recent warming: Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming" Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is?1.3% and the 2?

Confidence level sets the uncertainty range of?0.7 to?1.9%." Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings." Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."

Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

Benjamin's still got his list of scientist who agree the suns contribution is somewhere in a ball park of -1.6% to 30%. Do you suppose the scientist who worked so diligently to come to a -1.6% conclusion would concede that the scientist who guessed it's 30% is probably more correct? If you told them both to sit down and come up with one number do you think they could?

I wonder if those 2 guys had there studies reviewed by the same peers? Kinda reminds me of the link I saw earlier, 57 billion tons of ice lost in Antartica give or take 52 billion tons. Let's see the evidence; given all scientific studies (excluding of course those not in the main stream) it's not the sun because the sun's influence because the sun is only responsible for somewhere in this 30% ball park, it's got to be CO2 because we've made calculations, and we know it's warming because Antartica has lost somewhere in the range 2 billion to 109 billion tons of ice, we know the amount of warming is unprecedented because proxy history's that we know are accurate, except when they need to be thrown out because after calculating and comparing to actual temperatures we found our calculations were wrong, show that until know it usually takes the earth of thousands of years to warm up 1 degree celcius.

As you can see from AGW proponents, scientist who disagree are not part of the mainsteam and therefore must be wrong or simply being paid to lie. Please forgive me if I don't find the concensus science compelling or the conclusions realistic.

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.