I think part of the misperception that some people who've bought the pro-AGW conclusions hook, line and sinker make - as evidence by this thread - is that all skeptics share the same capability and capacity to understand science, and that we use all the "tactics" to argue against some of the conclusions of the pro-AGW camp.
For me, it's simple. I'd like to see a fundamental re-assessment and independent validation of the methodology used to generate the conclusions to date. But, my concerns with the current "state of science" have lead some to label, and then dismiss me, as a "denier". This is an easy categorization that, in their minds, serves to effectively end any meaningful debate and nullify concerns.
I have problems with the methodologies, and have stated them on several different scattered threads on this forum, that have lead to the current conclusions. They don't need to be re-stated here. But, the primary assertion is that increaed CO2 levels are definitively causing global warming is not clearly proven to date. If you really dissect what's out there, you will see that this is true, no matter how much rhetoric the pro-AGW arguers generate. This requires, though, a complete stripping of what some currently think they know to be fact. This would clearly result in severe cognitive dissonance in a large portion of scientists and laypeople who believe their conclusions are correct and have become emotionally invested in them.
Personally, I'm very well capable (perhaps more than many) of looking at the methodologies used to draw these conclusions, and what it takes to rigorously and validate scientific models in a way that minimizes bias in the multitude of forms it can take. That is very different than making a counter-assertion that global warming is not occurring and that, if it is, man hs nothing to do with it. I've never stated that anywhere in any of my contributions to this argument. But, I have been accused of that. Again, this is but one way how people who are serving their own belief system in what they perceive to be a phenomenon that's occurring dismiss any questioning of what they think they know.
But, much of the process that has been utilized to come to the current conclusion is suspect, as are many of the tactics of the pro-AGW camp that serve more to rhetorically suppress dissent from what they perceive to be broadly held opinion than they do to actually address and clarify concerns with the current methodology and to undertand the data produced by those methodologies as well as the conclusions generated from that data.
Again, this sentiment is clearly evidenced by the philosophical circle-jerking occurring on this thread. Which is kind of why it's pointless to attempt to argue them in this type of forum. Lines have already been drawn in the sand. People are becoming recalcitrant in their ability to consider other possibilities. Conclusions about the science are becoming set in stone, as are their perceptions of those that don't happen to fully agree with them.
Address the arguments, not the people. This very thread is the operative definition of an ad hominem.
-Dr. Imago
.
.