Given a 95/5 skew towards any scientific theory, why should the 5% be given equal time to present their case. After all, if their case were so compelling as to peel off some of the members of the 95, surely they would've added to the scientific literature and published their treasure troves of data into the journals for peer review. It's not like only 1 side has access to experimentation and methods of data collection. Climate scientists have been publishing papers for 20 years+. And over that time the consensus has grown stronger and stronger amongst the experts in the field. Ask yourself, why is that??
The 5% usually counters with, well we're being silenced. Science doesn't like debate. All of the funding goes towards pro AGW scientists. Oh really? Shell, BP, Koch industries, etc have something to say about that.
Anyway, my default position is that we train our scientists to do science. Like we train our doctors to keep people healthy. Like we train our teachers to teach children. If 95% of doctors are telling you vegetables are good for you, or that you need insulin for diabetes, or warning you that smoking causes cancer, do you say "now hold on a minute, I need to hear the 5% response"? Maybe you do, and that's ok, more information is never a bad thing. But 95/5 is what it is, and at some point you've got to trust the people who's livelihoods and reputations are at stake when they tell you something is going on.

In which I claimed UP FRONT that I'm thoroughly outclassed on the details of the skeptic position, which is why I never tried to engage him on that front, and was clear about that. You guys can keep slapping each other on the back though.
I made my simple point ages ago, backed it up with lots of independent evidence, and yet here we are still reliving that time Matt thrashed me in a debate I never asked for or participated in. You twist and convolute my message, my intent, and ignore my content. Site of the year...
And who are you to judge how sharp his position is anyway? Didn't you say already that you don't really know the sides of the debate that well, and that you don't really care that much either way? An endorsement from you on this topic is worth its' weight in paper plates. Used paper plates.
While you are taking your most deserved victory lap, consider how lucky you are to have your own old boys network all to yourself, where end zone celebrations and high-fiving in the face of a 97/3 uphill battle are just another day at the office. Get a clue man...
-----------
I'm sure there are some NECists that would kick my teeth in in debate format. Their knowledge of geological systems and mechanics would dwarf mine. I'd look like an absolute idiot on stage, and 75% of the audience might leave the arena thinking his position is clearly superior. But you know who would kick his teeth in? The 99.8% of earth and life scientists who can expose him. Maybe you see the parallel I'm trying to draw. Or maybe you wish to take another short sighted victory lap.

Well said, jellison. I mean that.
Here's the problem though...the changes we're experiences in the last century...they aren't unique. According to our best attempts to reveal temperature trends from the past, we've seen countless changes on this scale and much larger long before humans could have had much an impact on climate at all.
In fact, there is a fierce debate between climate skeptics and AGW proponents (in academia, we're not talking politicians or laymen here) as to whether the recent warming has been duplicated in the recent pre-industrial past. One scientist - Michael Mann - who had no real knowledge of the atmosphere, but was good with statistical methods - used tree ring data to formulate a correlation that covered the past two thousand years and showed that this was the warmest we'd ever been in the last two millennia. But his approach has since been completely discredited. By skeptics. But the problem is that his findings, though utterly wrong (and inconsistent with an anthropologist's view of history from that time...including things like an ice-free arctic that Vikings sailed across, and wine grapes growing in northern Norway and the UK back around the turn of the last millennium) , remain in peoples' minds...we start to believe that this is as warm as it has ever been since we started seeing huge population expansion.
Don't get me wrong...I'm not so skeptical that I don't believe we've had ANY impact...I think at least some of the recent warming has likely been due to us...my question isn't so much whether we've had an impact, but whether all of the temperature change we've measured is due to us and therefore, whether our models are based on the proper assumptions.
But I appreciate the well reasoned commentary...I can have that sort of conversation all day.

Many in this thread have questioned this claim of 95/5 slanting. I would be a yes vote in the surveys that claim a 95% consensus on climate change. The question asked is: has man had an impact on climate? Yes...yes he has.
Most skeptics, these days ,do not dispute that. The skeptical position is that some of the trend is man and some is natural, related to the sun and its influence on low clouds (and, indirectly, on ocean temperature cycles).
I am not going to say anything further here - not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't believe your mind is open enough to have any further dialogue that would lead to enlightenment for either of us, and I certainly don't need the abuse you've been dealing out.

Here's how conversation works:
If you back a position, state an opinion, make a claim, and someone else comes along to counter that position/claim...that's a conversation. The first thing you said in this was not your question as to whether Dr. D was a creationist. You stated an opinion about climate change in the previous thread and applauded the original comments of J Ellison. You clearly took a position (an abrasive, not-factually-driven one) on the subject of climate change. I was in the process of correcting Mr. Ellison's claims regarding the supposed dishonesty of the skeptical position when you asked your question of Dr. D - I think we all know why you asked that question - don't pretend you didn't have a mission to sideline Dr. D from having an opinion of relevance. So I countered you on that front as well.
I am no more hot-headed than you, sir. You've been slamming around these threads the last three days "sticking your chest out" and claiming superiority - if such strident commentary ticks me off, I wonder why that might be.
And BTW - if you claim not to want a debate on the nature of climate skepticism, then why are you even talking? You're the one who first stated a position, not me. You used climate change as an example of the consensus WORKING...I believe it's an example of the exact opposite. Which goes to the heart of these threads - should we question broad scientific consensus? Should the burden of proof always be on the theorist? We know where each of us stands now on that broader question. So perhaps, rather than looking for reasons to marginalize people who disagree with you, you can recognize that you don't have anything of value to add to a discussion about climate change and keep your commentary focused on something you do know something about.
And no...I don't say that because I'm some top expert in the field of climate change or because I am trying to shout you down as an expert - that runs against my basic believe that subject matter experts are overrated. I say that because every time you open your mouth on climate change, you go against your own claim that you don't want a debate on climate change.

I'm sure you are aware of the Cook study from 2013. Oreskes from 2004. Anderegg from 2010. In case you're not, here are some links for you to not click on.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf
Here's a little snippet from Doran 2009.
Doran 2009
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
---------------
Study after study shows that climate scientists who actively publish research on climate change are nearly unanimous that human carbon emission is the MAIN, DRIVING FORCE behind climate change. It's consistently been 97-98% for about a decade now. You don't believe me? Click the links friend.
---------------
If you think it's an even balance between man made and natural causes, you don't belong in the 97% group. Well, actually, you already don't belong in that group because (maybe I'm wrong) I don't believe you are a climate scientist, nor do you actively publish research on climate science. So rather, it would be more accurate to say that you don't agree with the 97% position among actual climate experts that humans are the main and dominant cause of climate change. Trying to skirt around it and say "I'm no dummy, of course humans play some part in GW, but I believe natural factors play just as big a role" isn't endorsing the 97% position. That position leaves you outside the 97%.
---------------
I told you I don't want to get bogged down in a technical debate because I'm not well educated on climate science. I would have to spend days and days going over studies, reading research, and every time I could post something challenging satellite readings or water vapor in the atmosphere, you'll have 3 more things lined up to keep me running around. You're a moving target. Again, if this debate between you and I were based on who knows more about climate science, you win the debate. Hands down. But thankfully, this debate isn't just between you and I. It's also between you and the consensus which you incorrectly put yourself in. And I do know a little bit about that.
It's like my NECist example. Put me on a stage with a highly trained NEC, and I'd probably get embarrassed. Put him on a stage against a competent geologist, and he would get embarrassed. With those links, and others I could post, I'm putting you on the stage against experts. Your position that natural causes is a significant part of climate change excludes you from the expert position. It just flat out does.

Or did I merely ask for a place at the table?
Matt asserted what I believed to be true, btw, that he accepts much of the CO2 orthodoxy. And from what I understand, that is all you need to do to be counted in the 95%. But he is among a significant percentage among that 95% (scientists who believe CO2 contributes to rising temperatures, man made or otherwise), who also say "Whoa there, buddy."
I am ok with accepting minority status on issues like AGW and ID. I've argued in the past not to toss out Darwinian theory from our texts - I want the accepted theories taught. - it is insane not to. Just make sure you include dissent in those texts - scientifically based dissent, perhaps offset with a border, to indicate this is optional reading. That's what I want. But that is too much for the socio-scientific-government orthodoxy. Dissent must be drummed out, mocked, ridiculed.
I don't like Young Earth Creationism because it is a horrible way to do science - to insist the facts fit an ancient text, otherwise it gets tossed as a valid explanation. That is not science to me. But my respect for those ancient texts grows as I understand science more and more, as Doc shared earlier regarding Hugh Ross (who I admire as a smart man, but to be honest do not fully trust as completely honest). At the same time, I share his and Doc's awe of Genesis, and am often amazed that intelligent people don't share it as well. I stopped reading Ross when his website posted a quote from Einstein once they could not attribute. I contacted his staff for attribution and was blown off. But he is right about the majesty of Genesis, and St. Paul for that matter, who calmly stated that God and creation stands outside of time. Pretty good for pre-Einstein, I'd say.
Anyway, a place at the table is what I seek. It's earned. James earned it in baseball. I see similar dissenters in science earning it as well. But academia is not as accepting of new theories as is baseball ( or business) if they do not have practical application. AGW however does have lot of that - look at Solyndra as one example.
Glad to hear solar panels are proving their worth,, Jonesie. I'm perhaps a decade behind the times there. It seems this stuff needs heavy subsidizing to get off the ground. Nothing wrong with that, unless you're already sitting on a gold mine of easily accessible energy at affordable costs, which we are. I've watched too many dollars in my day go to the well connected and their unworthy ventures during my days chasing government dollars to not be skeptical.

That I wish to silence anyone with a differing viewpoint. I would agree, what's key to scientific discovery and ultimately truth is allowing anyone to present ideas. I'm all for letting scientists research and publish anything they want. But that's ultimately my driving point. The research has been going on for decades, for both sides. And as a result, the scientific argument against AGW is on life support and the science behind man's contribution as the DRIVING FORCE of CC has grown paper by paper, year by year. Study after study after study has proven the rising of acceptance among climate scientists.
So when I say the position doesn't deserve equal time, what I mean is that the 3% opinion ALREADY has a place at the table. It's called the scientific community. They are free to produce any research and submit it for peer review. That's exactly what science is, a large table where everyone is welcome to submit and work to prove their ideas. In fact the main reason there is such confusion on this issue among the general public is because tons of money has been poured into the denial side trying to produce work that creates doubt. And it's working. The gap between scientific acceptance and public acceptance is vast. The examples of this are well documented and well known, no need to rehash all of that.
---------
You know how James earned his place at the table? He worked hard and collected data and opened his ideas up to the public to scrutiny. And then over time smart people started adopting his ideas. The same thing has happened in the CC debate. That's why there's over a 95% consensus now.
--------
Anyway, I appreciate that you are a Bible believing man. More power to you. I'd rather not open up that whole can of worms. You think the global warming debate is drawn out and contentious, yeeeesh. lol. Thanks for joining the discussion :)

And my thumbs too fat to weigh in on a tiny iPhone. I apologize for the typos I have not caught in my posts. German hotels are notorious for offering weak internet and my iPad refuses to play their game :-).
I am excited for the developments in technology, and look forward to the day I can be freaked out about global cooling again because we've developed the right batteries.
I am amazed at times and have told Germans that we are impressed with their ability to integrate East Germany into their economy. One replied that they appreciate it, but they are still being taxed 20 euro a month for the task, which is complete. Death and Taxes: both inevitable. But to remake the energy system at the same time, and carry the EU monetarily - truly impressive. Of course, they no longer have an army :-).

John Paul II: "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer."

I've reade most of his writings now...he really did understand people and the core of his faith.

Read the question, LR. Seriously..read the bloody question.
Do you think manmade C)2 increases are a significant factor in global warming?
I would say yes to that...and I'm a skeptic. Do you kinow what the meaning of the word significant is, LR? The people who made out that survey apparently don't, but scientists do.

Because...I don't see much evidence that any of the major questions currently posed by skeptics is being seriously addressed by the climate community.
The skeptical position is on "life support" only in so much as governments who fund research are unwilling to pursue real questions posed by skeptics. Seriously, LR, do some real research on the skeptical position.

In the climate change community, significant means dominant, and most likely means 95%. The links I posted, which again was an exercise in banging my head into the wall, clearly express that climate scientists who actively publish agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities are the DOMINANT cause of rising temperature. Since you equate signficant with, oh, more than 10% apparently, I'll start using the word Dominant. If you had bothered to click on any of those links and read them, the conversation could have moved along.
From the Oreskes link I posted:
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
From the Anderegg link I posted:
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
----------------------
Heres what significant or most means:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AttributionAll50.jpg
Each of those bars represents independent research papers authored by teams of climate scientists into the cause of the warming in the last 50-65 years. This is taken from 7 independent studies ranging from 2004-2012 and was published as one research paper to address probabilistic quantification of AGW.
http://skepticalscience.com/wigley-santer-2012-attribution.html
Since I know you won't click the link, I'll just give you the cliff notes. 6 of the 7 studies shows that human activity is responsible for 95-120% of warming in this period. The other one reports it at 170%. All 7 studies show the natural contribution as somewhere between -30% and 15%, with 5 ranging between -15%and 15%. Most research suggests the Earth has been in a slight cooling phase, which is why some of the figures for human cause exceed 100%.
----------------------
Anyone else still unconvinced what the consensus means? What significant means? What most likely means? Aren't you a scientist?

Really, you should be embarrassed that a layman such as myself (which I really am) with an internet connection needs to explain what significant means in the climate change debate to the person who considers himself an expert. Anybody still watching these verbal gymnastics is seeing the kinds of arguments seriously posed by the skeptic position.

Significant to any scientist...including climate scientists...means statistically significant. As in...the contribution humans make to climate change is non-random and can be found through proper analysis.
Just because you wish to make it mean something else doesn't mean every potentially skeptical scientist who answered that question does. And really, you should be embarrassed that you feel so threatened by my position that you feel the need to be so abusive.
I suggest you stop with this behavior.

...I really think it's a truly wonderful statement about lr's position that he insists I'm not listneing to him or reading his links because I don't agree with his conclusions drawn from them. I assure everyone here...I've read nearly everything he posted (I ignored anything that came from an obviously biased source like Think Progress, but checked out everything else he included) - the problem with just about everything in his link lists is that it's someone REPORTING on a study, and it generally comes with a decent helping of the same kind of sneering condescension that LR is delivering in this thread.
The guy admits he has no clue at all what he's talking about regarding climate change, and yet he continues to insist that I'm the one who won't listen to alternative viewpoints and that his position in this debate is secure enough that he doesn't need to go do some research on what my side is saying.
Talk about an exercise in banging my head against the wall. I have a fact-based case...I'm made that case. I am done with LR...he adds nothing but distortion and anger to this discussion.

I have tried to keep up with all of this as well... and I have connected with every link. There are a lot of conclusions made with a lot of verbiage, just not much in terms of real data to back up the verbiage. I'll also admit I know next to nothing about AGW, but I have not worried about it too much for many years until I heard that so much money and planning was involved with these decisions.
I still have yet to find any real data from any source that explains the released emails from scientists that said that several scientists had manipulated and faked data to support the conclusions that they needed to keep their financial grants. Further, since the release of those emails, the explanations from the PRO AGW side have included very little answers - lots of attacks and denials, but little proof. I find that disappointing, because an open public debate with data is all that many of us are asking for. If there is reason to react quickly, I think most would if the proof was there.

After LR's last volley, it took me too long to ramp down my blood pressure - a sign that the debate has run its' course. :) LR can say anything he wishes - I've stated my case and will leave it at that.

Reading back through my last few posts, I don't feel good about the way I come off. It doesn't promote a debate atmosphere where either side is being heard. Truly, apologies. From here on out, you have my word that the tone of my argument will be much better.
-------------------
This is what I'm really trying to understand about your position.
When you said, and I quote, "The skeptical position is that some of the trend is man and some is natural" you are implying that it's around an even split. Some here, some there. If that is the skeptical position, and you (or anyone for that matter) endorse that position, then you do not subscribe to the 97% position. The 97% position explicitly endorses that man made emissions are the MAIN cause, and natural causes are dwarfed by human activity. Stated thus in the IPCC report. And from Anderegg2010.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understandin...
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
--------------
To quantify what "most" means, WS12 set out to put a number on it.
I would've posted the WS12 paper in my previous post, but the actual paper is behind a paywall, so I posted the condensed, though still very thorough version from skeptical science. It is very thorough, and doesn't cherry pick which data it pulls from the original paper. And it includes links to all of the papers it used in its research. Here is that link again.
http://skepticalscience.com/wigley-santer-2012-attribution.html
The takeaway from this paper:
"Tom Wigley and Ben Santer have published a new paper in Climate Dynamics entitled A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming (hereinafter WS12). The paper seeks to clarify this statement about human-caused global warming in the 2007 IPCC report:
'Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations'
As WS12 notes, this statement has been criticized by various individuals, including Pat Michaels in testimony to US Congress and Judith Curry. Some of these criticisms stem from a failure to understand that the term "very likely" has a specific numerical definition, meaning greater than 90% probability. Some stem from the fact that the other terms used in the IPCC attribution statement like "most" and "mid-20th century" are somewhat vague.
WS12 attempts to add specificity to these more vague phrases by quantifying the magnitude of the human contribution to global warming in probabilistic terms. Their overall result (dark green in Figure 1) is consistent with the rest of the global warming attribution scientific literature.."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Attribution50.jpg
"All of these studies, using a wide range of independent methods, provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are the dominant cause of global warming over the past century, and especially over the past 50 to 65 years."
"over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%"
---------------
Now, just in regards to the consensus position, do you agree with my assertion that the 97% consensus referenced by multiple peer reviewed studies takes the position that ACC accounts for nearly all of the temperature rise?

AGW skeptics are pointing out the massive flaws in the thiinking of the experts of the climate priesthood. You are wrong when you say the anti AGW is on life support, lr. It's actually the other way around. To paraphrase the great philosopher Forrest Gump - I'm not a smart man. But I know when an argument is being won or lost. Matt's side is winning this one. 18 straight years of the great pause in warming is the biggest piece of evidence here. You all might want to quickly claim victory and go home. Wouldn't be a bad idea. After watching Obama boot away Iraq, I'm surprised he doesn't do so here as well: "Just as I ended the war in Iraq, just as I killed Bin Laden and put Al Qaeda on the run, I stopped the rise in temperature on our watch. Just as I promised."
Hey, weigh in on baseball know and again, lr. We only hear from you when it comes to metaphysics, climate science and such. Would like to know your opinion on a potential Saunders trade. Or at least how the Seattle weather affects our offense.

...there is an increasingly vocal wing of climate scientists actually getting published of late who are questioning some of the core assumptions in the climate models. Not sure the skeptical side is "winning" the argument as of yet, but people like Judith Curry and Roy Spencer are publishing serious blows to climate orthodoxy these days, which lr would know about if he knew anything about the skeptical position. Curry's latest - to which I will post a link, knowing full well it is an exercise in futility with someone as biased as lr - can be found here - in which she finds through a more advanced statistical analysis of the climate models that the climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is half what the IPCC says it is.
http://niclewis.wordpress.com/the-implications-for-climate-sensitivity-o...
This is a huge problem for the standard theory...I personally believe that the climate does not respond log-linearly to CO2 forcing the way it is assumed to do by all, including Curry, but rather with an exponential decay (the more CO2, the less extreme the climate response after reaching some critical threshold, similar to a population growth curve) because there will come a point when the presence of CO2 does not add significantly to the heat trapping...but the fact that everyone has made this log-linear assumption and they still can't agree on how strong the signal is...is a major...major problem.

Having been embarrassed on my lack of technical knowledge on a subject which I obviously care about, I've spent the last few days educating myself. I'm catching up pretty quickly, and part of my research has included one Roy Spencer, a prominent AGW skeptic, as referenced multiple times now by Matt.
Roy Spencer is a member of the Heartland Institute, and contributes to the George C. Marshall Institute. Both of these organizations have clear and direct ties to the oil industry, more specifically, to Exxon Mobile and Koch Industries. Heartland itself has received 676,500 since 1998 from Exxon Mobile alone. The George C. Marshall institute has received $865,000 since 1998 from Exxon Mobile alone. Anyone think the research they publish might have a clear agenda?
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
Don't worry, the links contain corroborating links documenting exactly where the information comes from. This isn't an opinion website.
-------------
Roy Spencer isn't an isolated example among the skeptical position. Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow of the Cato Institute, which was created in 1977 by Charles Koch and Edward Crane, is another prominent skeptic. He's appeared all over cable news, and has published work that takes the skeptical position. If you'd like to see his own admission that 40% of his work is funded by the petroleum industry, and then debate one of the best climate scientists on the planet (Benjamin Santer, who co authored that paper I linked to earlier titled WS12) in front of Congres, well, get your popcorn ready. It's a thoroughly entertaining exchange, filled with detailed scientific arguments (which some here have been calling me to address), not just conjecture like you might see on a cable news debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwPnz3AJ0qQ
-----------
Again, these aren't just isolated examples. The skeptic science is filled with examples of research being paid for by organizations that have direct ties to funding from oil and gas companies. Some of these organizations are the same ones that funded the research proving that cigarettes AREN'T harmful, that the OZONE wasn't depleting, and that DDT wasn't a harmful chemical. I'm not going to post name after name, if you are interested the information is pretty easy to dig up. I'm just providing a jumping off point.
------------
I implore anyone reading this, please, take 5 minutes out of your day and watch this. Seriously, if you care about the CC debate even just a tiny bit, this is paramount to understanding the debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhDacrl1aSA&feature=youtu.be
-----------
And Matt, I do have more to say about the specific paper you are talking about from LewisCurry, but I don't want to jam too much stuff into one post. I'll wait to see what you think about my findings and then I'll respond directly about Curry's research.

If your reaction to having real tangible proof presented that many (not just one or two, I told you I could provide more names) of the most prolific skeptics in the CC debate are members of organizations with direct and detailed and documented ties to Exxon, Koch Industries, Western Fuels Association, Shell, and on and on is to argue, "you're not addressing the skeptic argument, you're just labeling and dismissing him", then I really have no idea how to articulate it any better.
Is it merely coincidence that many of the skeptic science juggernauts, for example Roy Spencer and Pat Michaels, have direct ties to the Oil and Gas industry? They're even on record saying as much. Again I state, some of these same organizations, specifically the Marshall institute, have waged campaigns in the past against cigarettes being harmful, the OZONE depleting, and DDT being toxic to humans. Time and time again, they have shown us that doing pure science isn't their objective. If this doesn't call into question the veracity of the science these people produce, then there is nothing more than can be said to change your opinion. Might I call into question your agenda?
------------
Look, I understand your argument. Because I have an agenda (which I most certainly do, to promote scientific thinking devoid of bias) the research I am presenting in this thread is to be ignored because it lacks specific scientific detail. I'm not allowed to use anything but purely scientific arguments. I can't give consensus information. I can't show proof of where tons of the funding comes from for the skeptic position. To that I would say...
This isn't a climate science blog teeming with climate scientists. It's a baseball blog. If you really want me to post detailed science explaining why Spencer and the like are wrong, well, I invite you to click on some of the 10-20 links I've provided throughout this discussion. In them, and others I have at the ready, I can show exactly what science and the scientists doing that science are doing to the papers the skeptic position puts out. They are eviscerating them. With science. For every study that Spencer puts out, I can show you 4 or 5 scientific rebuttals exposing gaping holes in his science. Here's one from John Abraham, addressing the gaping holes in Spencer's latest paper trying to pin much of the natural warming on ocean cycles. If nothing else, just read the paragraph long abstract at the top. You can clearly feel the annoyance that every time a skeptic paper comes out rife with obvious mistakes, he and his colleagues have to take time to demonstrate why the science was poor.
http://omicsonline.org/open-access/issues-related-to-the-use-of-one-dime...
-------------
If you would like detailed scientific rebuttals backed up by paper after paper after paper, I suggest delving into a blog like realclimate.com. It is run only by actual climate scientists. It isn't left wing propaganda. It's a very detailed science blog. On it they frequently correct mistakes made by the likes of Curry and Spencer, and in doing so they cite dozens of studies refuting specific arguments made by skeptics.
------------
You are right about 1 and a half of the 3 charges you leveled at me. I do have contempt. I have contempt for the obvious obfuscation that is such a part of the skeptic side. Read some of the science blogs and how they grow tired of refuting paper after paper from the skeptic side. It's their job to do it, but at some point most human beings get tired of correcting the same mistakes over and over again. Scientists don't want to spend their time studying things that they have already convincingly shown such a strong scientific basis for. They'd rather spend time studying the current holes in the theory, not the extremely well established parts. So yes, I do feel contempt for the industry on the other side trying their best to create doubt. And yes, it is an industry.
Censorship, no. I believe strongly in freedom of speech. Everyone should get to have an opinion. The problem comes when you start mixing opinion with science. Science isn't about opinions, it's about facts. At what point in this thread have I said, you don't get to have an opinion because you don't know the topic? I have argued strongly to show why your position is wrong, but I've never tried to silence you. And I wouldn't in any other debate.

Did you miss that, lr? He even gave personal testimony regarding how that basic observation colors academia, and his pursuit of a possible career there. The implication was obvious: you come in here, you come in to pursue a certain agenda, if you want to succeed. Confirmation bias practically demands you fund those who will agree with your own interests. I'm not going to hire a salesman who doesn't sell my product.
LR, nobody bought the pro-smoking research. Even smokers didn't buy it. Smokers were either addicted, or weighed the risks. Everyone else decided to do without. People still need to drive their cars, warm their homes, eat their food. The crappy science that pushed the smoking agenda is not the same windmill you are tilting at, however, regardless of who's funding it. "Everyone lies," Dr. House said. "Everyone has an agenda," Dr. Matt began his discussion. Here's mine:
The global alarmists have waited far longer for the hockey stick temperature rise than the Mariner fans waited for their escape from futility. One of those groups are still waiting. That's a long, long wait. During that time, the alarmist crowd changed PR to fit the reality, like the Mariners change their own slogans to deal with reality ("True to the Blue"). "Global Warming" is out, "Climate Change" is in. You know, ever increasing hurricanes and such - with Katrina being the poster child. Well, I just read this morning that violent tornados are on a decline here in the US. And that was a pretty uneventful hurricane season we just had. Anybody notice it? Meanwhile, the Antarctic is recording record levels of ice. An AGW tour boat went into the area recently to advertise the disappearing ice and had to be rescued because, you guessed it: too much ice. The Midwest was frozen over, and Chicago streets are still pock marked. But hey, anyone else catch the report out of The Guardian ( http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/17/aid-trade-reduce-acute-po... ) that had good news: poverty rates world wide are plummeting as the amazing economic growth rates are eradicating starvation and offering a better life for all those on the planet (those who aren't dodging religious extremists on their way to work or to the fields, anyway). Turns out the third world is pretty darned terrified however - not by the rise in carbon, but by the plans do-gooders have for them in dealing with it (I watched a few YouTubes below the ones you recommended, lr). Can't say I blame them. First world guilt is not always the savior to third world problems.
Like the smokers of 1964, we are all weighing the costs, the benefits, the realities, and the track records of those who both say things are fine and those who say things are not. And like the Mariners, the answer isn't necessarily to act drastically to convince your fans you care.
Final thought: There are two groups of workers in this country who are impossible to fire: tenured professors and federal government workers. When you aren't accountable for results, you tend to produce work that reflects it.

In response to LR's concern about skeptics receiving what funding they get from groups that have ties to the energy industry, I would ask you to consider:
Given my personal testimony and the generally accepted knowledge that governments around the world that have money to fund climate research are all taking the orthodox position and only funding research along those lines...where else will someone who has ideas that are skeptical of the orthodox position get their funding?
Everyone has an agenda. The skeptics, the alarmists, and everyone in between, and generally, the agenda is money. My question, LR, would be - why is the orthodox position more trustworthy to you? Just because one side is publicly funded and the other side privately funded? Because one side has more members than the other (because the money available to the orthodox side is much larger)? Or do you have a strong-form scientific argument to counter some of the key points I've brought up as common concerns of skeptics?
Hack YouTube videos purporting to "out" the funding sources for skeptical opinions aren't of much interest to me...I know all of that. I'm aware that Michaels, McIntrock, Soon, Spencer, and a few others get a lot of funding from Heartland and I know what Heartland's agenda is. I didn't take their side because they had awesome PR or because I think their reputation is pure. I took their side because the science they offer persuaded me, as did the really shoddy science I witnessed coming from the orthodox side of the aisle.
I'm not going to be brought to the orthodox position by people telling me things I already know about the influence of the fossil fuel industry on skeptical science. This isn't the same as the slanted science done by tobacco companies - science done directly on the company payroll. This is an organization that has an agenda funding scientists who do not believe the orthodox position - most of whom didn't begin their careers getting funding from Heartland. Spencer didn't come straight out of grad school with a job working for Heartland Inc. He was successful in academia until he couldn't get funding due to the orthodox bias against skeptical science and turned to heartland to fund his research, for example.
The only way you'll score any points with me is if you actually counter the scientific questions I've posed.
How can we be confident that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is really log-linear as the climate models assume? And if it is, why is there now a huge cluster of papers arguing that the true sensitivity is half what IPCC says it is?
Where is the increase in water vapor that was supposed to happen to create the amplified warming effect? Why aren't we seeing that?
Why hasn't the topical upper troposphere warmed as climate models continue to claim should occur first under global warming?
Why is the Antarctic marine region experiencing record cold and a massive expansion in sea ice that completely counters all sea ice loss in the Northern Hemisphere?
Why is there an increasing collection of papers suggesting that most of the increase in Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies and upper ocean heat content is directly correlated with ENSO and why does Bob Tisdale (who is not funded by Heartland, not that that should matter to you when evaluating the science he presents) make such a convincing case that global SST warming is driven largely by El Nino events and not by the atmosphere?
What of the recent work by physicists that confirms the claim that changes in galactic cosmic rays related to variations in the solar cycle can cause significant low cloud cover changes on Earth and the ISCCP satellite records that appear to confirm that Earth experienced a huge dimming during the most aggressive periods of warming (late 80s through the 90s) as cloud cover decreased?
And why do good scientists who are NOT in the climate science game tend not to believe the prevailing AGW theory. When you poll engineers, straight meteorologists, physicists, and statisticians working on the periphery of climate science, you don't get anywhere near the consensus you get when you poll just those people working in climate science full time. Why? If their case is that strong, shouldn't it persuade anyone looking at it objectively with scientific eyes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU - a non-Heartland scientist on the periphery of climate science who has been watching this all play out and explains why climate models are absolute junk.
Just FWIW.

A lot of today's democrats look at EU socialism (places like Sweden, ICeland, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands) with envy, thinking - their form of state-funded better living and alternate energy exploration etc. works for them...why can't the knuckle-dragging Americans follow their lead? You hit on it. The EU doesn't have to pay anywhere near as much for defense or for basic maintenance of their economic infrastructure or for internal security because the US is doing it all for them. NATO would be utterly toothless with the US. The UN needs American dollars to accomplish what little it actually accomplishes. In one way or another, American power pays for all of the leftism of Europe. If we copy them, our economy will not hold because we will still need to pay for global security and economic stewardship.

People ask me all the time why EU countries appear to do better on some particular measure of medical performance. Or why they can afford to insure more of their population etc. I point out that the EU style medical systems simply could not exist in their current forms without the US. EU governments are able to spend so much on social programs because:
1. As Matt point out, the US taxpayer heavily subsidizes the security of the EU, something I think the EU has long taken for granted until recently when "stuff got real" with the Ukrainian crisis. The US tax payer essentially foots the bill for world stability, and the EU countries have been happy to allow us to do so (I don't blame them, they are only acting rationally). Sure, the US benefits from world stability also, but we pay for it.
The US nuclear umbrella and NATO (and our willingness to risk our home cities in a nuclear conflict) render it unnecessary for EU member countries to run their own nuclear programs. This reduces the risk of another nuclear arms race.  This is especially true of Turkey, Japan, and South Korea.  
The US keeps open the sea lanes of communication, to the advantage of EU economies which are heavily dependent on imports and exports. The US could use its dominance to direct strategically and economically important resources like oil to US advantage but instead uses its dominance of the seas to ensure a free market in energy (oil). This makes it less necessary for China to build a blue water navy, for example (taking huge pressure off of Japan, S. Korea, and Australia to do so as well).  The EU has about 2-3 functioning aircraft carriers, and the only member able to project force beyond its borders is Great Britain, and even there only to a very modest extent.
Our very expensive efforts in preventing nuclear proliferation also benefit the entire world.  Imagine how the world would look with a nuclear arms race between Japan, China, North Korea and South Korea?  Or between Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran?  Remember, the US-USSR Cold War was stabilized by Mutual Assured Destruction. With distances of thousands of miles there was always time to evaluate and launch a counterstrike.  But distances in the middle east and over the Yellow Sea/Sea of Japan are so small that it makes it possible to get in a preemptive first strike without a guaranteed counterstrike.  This factor would be immensely destabilizing.  We've already seen India and Pakistan come to the brink of a nuclear exchange several times, and only the heavy involvement of the US provides any stability there.
2. The US also directly injects billions of dollars a year into EU economies by basing troops there.
3. The US acts as a near limitless dumping ground for all of the high margin luxury goods that these other countries' own markets can not absorb. Sure, trade goes both ways. But can you imagine a world without the markets that the US provides to the EU, China, Japan, Korea, and the developing world?
4. The US pays both the development costs and the entrapreneurial costs for most medical advances, and these advances go on to benefit the rest of the world.  EU and other government run healthcare systems use their monopsony purchasing power to negotiate prices for new drugs and devices at ~ cost or just a little more. The US market is the only market that pays full price (or maybe even above full price since so many other economies are paying so little).  Most new drugs and medical devices are developed with the US market in mind.  In this way, the US market is the main driver for innovation in the field of medicine and for new surgical products.  We pay full price, which covers the direct costs of development, as well as the costs of taking the risk to develop new advances (entrapreneurial costs).  Particularly with new medical/surgical devices, we also then figure out which new technologies are actually worthwhile once they are on the market.   The EU is plenty wealthy enough to pay its fair share of these costs, but they refuse to do so (again, they are just acting rationally).  Of course, once developed, new drugs and devices are then available to the rest of the world.

Found this today and thought it would be of interest to you folks.
Prominent economist and AGW-believer Richard Tol - whose career has been spend analyzing the economic impacts of climate change and remediation strategies - took the Cook paper that everyone cites as proof of 97% consensus on climate change and absolutely DEMOLISHED it. Brought it to RUIN.
http://richardtol.blogspot.it/2014/10/erl-does-not-want-you-to-read-this...
In short...whether intentional or not, the folks reviewing climate abstracts evidently worked toward a predefined conclusion and there was no attempt at producing a consistent, objective standard. They changed rating schemes multiple times after discussing their results, and each time, the changes were to make the consensus larger.

Interesting fellow, Matt. He definitely falls in the AGW "consensus" yet counts himself as a "skeptic". His problem is the uselessness of the models that are getting all the funding, and the areas that get ignored have the least funding but the most useful information. His suggestion that land use methods to capture more carbon on the ground and thus not forcing it into the atmosphere is an interesting alternative to carbon offsets and destroying the fossil fuel market. As an Oak Ridge scientist, it's pretty hard to put him in the pocket of the Koch bros. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/freeman-dyson-speaks-out-about-cli...

And I happen to agree with him that sequestration concepts make a heck of a lot more sense than attempting to force the global economy to slow down until renewables can power it. As I've said...I think humans are causing some of the climate shift of the last century, and that's probably not good long term...I just don't see a need to panic about it. The amount we're altering climate is probably on the order of a few tenths of a degree per century - enough that we might want to consider plans to sequence CO2 in the future. Not enough that we should feel compelled to give up our economy to Mother Gaia.

Since neither your nor Dyson are deniers regarding GW, I propose we divide into three camps: Alarmists, Denialists, and Realists. I'd put lr and Al Gore in the first camp, you and Dyson in the third, and I'm somewhere between second and third, leaning third.

...but they no longer represent the majority of climate skeptics...there's been a tug of war on that front for years. I would put Willie Soon, Lord Monckton, and Dr. Coleman (former CEO of The Weather Channel) in group 2. I have doubts about the instrumental temperature record too...but Spencer's satellite data is pretty solid and shows a similar level of warming in the most recent 35 years, so I tend to believe the general shape of the reconstructed climate record back to 1880 or so. I also believe natural cycles are contributing a good half to 2/3 of the signal. I guess that would put me in group 3, but with some remaining skepticism about the magnitude of warming we're causing.

Haven't been on and won't for the next month. Internet works ok some days, other days nothing. I can't devote the amount of time researching the specific scientific questions you raised that I'd like. But I do feel compelled to make a few more comments while I'm here.
1. You don't like Cook? Throw it out then. I've referenced and given links to 3 other independent papers spread years apart covering the last decade producing similar consensus figures. You can cherry pick which data you don't like, you can cherry pick which papers are bad, cherry pick which holes in AGW mean what to you all you'd like. That's fine. That's why I've posted many many links from different sources, which is something I've noticed a lack of in your responses. Read the other papers that I linked to.
2. At this point I'm starting to understand why, but am still amazed at the counter arguments I hear when it comes to the energy companies funding ALL of the denial side and tons of the skeptic side. These poor oil companies, they're up against these shady governments from all over the globe conspiring with each other to produce only work that promotes AGW so they can.....what was it? Sell us high efficiency light bulbs? Take us back to the stone age? Control our lives?
Think about that argument for a second. The Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil and Western Fuels create and fund all of these shadow companies and organizations so they can fight back against the cult that is climate science. After all, since the government won't let scientists produce papers that question the 97% claim, someone has to stand up and fight for good science. That's what the gas and oil company knights in shining armor are here for! You know the funny thing? There may be people arguing in this thread that would read that last paragraph and not detect the sarcasm.
People think that because our government is corrupt in some areas, and it obviously is, that means anything they have their hands on is pure biased propaganda garbage. Again, I say, fine. You don't like the sample of our government? Throw it out. You're still left with the over 100 countries that have signed onto the IPCC's assessment. They must all be corrupt too? The science coming out of Europe, and South Africa, and Australia, and pick a country all must have an obvious slant. Please.
3. One side claims denier is a pejorative. Fine. Then they use the term alarmist to define the other side. Then they invent a new category called realist that they coincidentally put themselves and the people that think like them in. LOL
4. This has gotten old and this is the last time I'm going to comment on it. I've given strong evidence that you are not in fact a "realist" or a part of the consensus. I don't like debating when I spend lots of time arguing specific points and coming up with lots of unbiased data to prove them, and then you counter with a mountain of technical questions without addressing what I'm asking you to address, and what I spent my entire post showing evidence for. This is a lousy debate. When you say things like, half to 2/3rds of the change is natural cycles you are CLEARLY putting yourself outside of the consensus position. Not according to Cook, whom you don't like. According to other papers showing an over 90% consensus for the last decade and the IPCCs own conclusion. Because you don't like the stigma associated with being part of the denial side, you put yourself in another camp to give cover to your opinion. But I've shown you exactly why that defense doesn't work. I've done it more than once.
If I had internet access and more time, I would love to delve into the specific questions you are raising. But given that I have neither, combined with your habit of ignoring some of my detailed arguments and then just throwing out a link here and a link there challenging secondary issues that I'm not even really arguing for just makes me want to move on. You and Rick ought to declare yourselves victors of this thread and head down to the realist bar and grill to celebrate. Take care man.