Back to the discussion about a sceptical approach:
Saying, "I don't know" is fine; saying, "I don't know
yet" is also fine. Saying "I don't know so the experts are alarmists" is... eccentric, to say the least.
I am an engineer with a background in physics, so am not an expert on climate. I do however have familiarity with simple statistical tools that I use in my professional capacity, where we are very interested to see if parameters drift over time, and whether they are actually "drifting" or just moving about within their normal spread (gausian and non-gausian).
Even using these simple techniques, you can see how the climate is warming up, as I posted earlier. (
post#138,
post#148 and
post#150 and
post#159
Other observations such as earlier springs, days of snowcover, and animal migrations also support this assertion.
I can assess a small part of the data; this is enough to show me that global warming is real (but not enough to show that it is manmade). I have seen several claims that global warming doesn't exist, I can easily discount these sources as less credible "authorities" than
myself.
If these same people initially said that global warming wasn't real, but now say it is real but that mankind isn't to blame, I have every right to look at their track record of statements about the climate and see that they seem to know less than me on the subject. I then look at many of their claims and find strong and believable refutations presented by experts who agree with the scientific consensus.
This is especially the case with the assertions that "global warming stopped in 1998". I can see straightaway from a scatterplot that the noise is such that some years are going to be hotter. Anyone who makes such a statement either can't read a graph as well as me, or is being dishonest, either way their statents can be discounted. If the claim was that there is less evidence for global warming in the last 10-years because these years were cooler than 1998, then that, by paying lipservice to the variability in the data, could be slightly more believable.
Similarly, if I find that some of the most vehement AGW "skeptics" also denied the link between smoking and cancer, then I begin to suspect short-sighted economic self-interest.
I then find that many governmental agencies in many countries are saying that global warming is real and manmade, and if anything, (like the BSE crisis in the UK) economic interest would provide incentives for governmets to play down the risks.
This gives me confidence that there is less controvosy than sometimes claimed by AGW "Skeptics".
The scientists involved seem to disagree with JdG:
The UK Met-office is pretty independent and has handily produced a list of fcts and myths about clmate change:
Here (with links in the headings)
Fact 1: Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it
Fact 2: Temperatures are continuing to rise
Fact 3: The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle
Fact 4: Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone
Fact 5: If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix
Fact 6: Climate models predict the main features of future climate
Myth 1:[/B] The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate
For example:
I have seen people claim that global warming exists, but that it is only due to increases in the solar output, Fact4: (partially quoted below) refutes this.
Also note that unlike many of the "anti AGW" sites, the Met-office have stated some of the uncertainties, and the reasoning for discounting them too: "There is some evidence that increases in solar heating may have led to some warming early in the 20th century, but direct satellite measurements show no appreciable change in solar heating over the last three decades."
Fact 4: Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone
Over the last 1,000 years most of the variability can probably be explained by cooling due to major volcanic eruptions and changes in solar heating.
In the 20th century the situation becomes more complicated. There is some evidence that increases in solar heating may have led to some warming early in the 20th century, but direct satellite measurements show no appreciable change in solar heating over the last three decades. Three major volcanic eruptions in 1963, 1982 and 1991 led to short periods of cooling. Throughout the century, CO2 increased steadily and has been shown to be responsible for most of the warming in the second half of the century.
:13:
The free market 
