Why do global warming skeptics tend to confuse their opposition of GW solutions w/issue of whether it exists?

Self-explanatory question and evidence when you read "peer-reviewed" conclusions from many who also advocate for AGW. --------------------------------------- Climate Realist - If you read the link, you'll obviously find that the peak of the warming happened at the end of 1997 beginning 1998 and most of 1998 was in a cooling trend. A negligible difference and hardly proves that your goofy comment deserves any attention.

Since the El Nino started in early 1997 and was a natural event anyway, then the time lapse between the beginning and end of the El Nino period can be discarded. Hence, the 1997 reference. -------------------------------------- pegminer - Offender?

Excuse me? Hundreds of failed AGW claims were not founded by myself. Current weather is a big part of climate science when you consider the last 30 to 40 years.

This time period is the "basis" for the claim of human induced climate change. All of the "failed science" on the link provided by the asker has nothing to do with me. I'm just acknowledging it.

You seem to be the one "denying" it. The history of AGW/Climate Change stems from outlandish claims of what will happen if we don't stop using fossil fuels. That's the truth of the matter.

"Runaway Global Warming" is still in the minds of people and is a fear that you seem to be perpetuating. If I would see more from your side of the argument to tamp down these fears, then I'm sure a better consensus can be reached by more of the science community. Much of the fear is perpetuated in political bodies and it is also where the alarmists have gained their strength.

This can be plainly seen in the amount of "borrowed money" thrown at it from Governments which further make people subservient to political bodies (who are subservient to borrowing money from centralized banking). Of course, you refute any connection just as you try and refute empirical evidence that is contrary to what you believe to be true. There are more reasonable explanations to explain current (the last 30 to 40 years) weather anomalies.

---------------------------------------... Gary F - Proven to whom and in what context? That it's a greenhouse gas? Point taken and considered by all.

The issue of telling people that it will cause "catastrophic" warming is still a serious matter and a serious accusation. It has been shown on several occasions from top scientists who know most all of the formulas in calculating CO2's warming capabilities that CO2 is not the driver of average global temperatures and that CO2 is there to sustain life along with enhancing it. These scientists don't claim to know all things about the climate and what effects temperature specifically (as most climate scientists don't either), but their extensive research on how the atmosphere works with the simple chemical compounds that make up the atmosphere and their percentages (via established formulas) gives them a much better understanding than most.

I would believe them over someone who only badgers others and calls them stupid. The scientists that I am talking about are people like Roy Spencer (very acclaimed climate scientist), Richard Lindzen (another very acclaimed climate scientist at MIT and a member of The National Academy of Sciences), and Bryce Johnson (another very acclaimed nuclear physicist). CO2 is and always will be a very minor greenhouse gas with limited warming capabilities.

The IPCC has even downgraded future warming projections from CO2 emissions because they are still having a hard time understanding how the climate could be staying as cool as it is with the continued rise of CO2 levels. Saying that the warming is "hiding" doesn't answer the question of its claimed warming capabilities. ---------------------------------------... Zippi62 - Everything is subject to interpretation.

It seems the proponents of AGW will do whatever it takes to vilify any messenger bringing common sense to the issue. Climate science still doesn't have a grip on what is happening in our atmosphere. This is clearly shown in the IPCC Assessment Reports.

Giving the Government more control over natural issues such as health care and the environment takes away your individual liberties and freedom. This is the precise reason for our Constitution in the first place. As you can tell by the way AGW advocates talk here, they think Government controls are the answer instead of just bringing information.

Forced Governmental answers is only another form of tyranny. We know how detrimental Government solutions are when they gain more power over the people instead of working with them.

Zippi your just banging your head against a wall, all the failed science, all the failed predictions in the world will not alter the beliefs of these brainwashed AGW fanatics.

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.