Global Warming is a Scam

I can accept that. So what would bother you? How (other than by whether you like the result) do you identify good climate research?

Any climate research that does not automatically jump on the carbon dioxide bandwagon or that only includes both positive and negative feedbacks and considers the influence of low level clouds.

What other kinds of feedback do you think should be included?

Most likely the 'only' was a typo based on the thrust of the sentence. He started off talking about the type of research he disliked and ended up talking about what he does like.

Is the above a way of saying "I don't believe in anthropomorphic climate change?" Because it sure looks like you have locked in on a particular explanation against it.

It shoud bother you as much as going to an unlicensed doctor who has never gone to medical school. It is a fact that CO2 absorbs heat. The argument is really focused on how much CO2 will increase temperatures, not whether CO2 absorbs heat. If we took all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere the atmosphere would absorb less heat. Trying to claim that CO2 cools the atmosphere is serious quackery.

Ah, yes. I see what you mean.Hopefully FEY will correct/clarify/expand on his post.

It doesn't because doctors who have gone to medical school are not pushing an agenda. Climate scientists who have graduated college, do have an agenda or already had their mind made up before they went to college, otherwise any paper they published that severely contradicted current CO2 dogma would be denied. Only climate scientists who have been in the field long before the carbon dioxide caused global warming scam took hold in the nineties actually disagree with the consensus and still hold onto their positions like lindzen from MIT and Roy Spencer from UAH.

Why should I believe in anthropomorphic climate change? The only evidence for it is circumstantial. When there is another valid mechanism for the current warming trend and for past warming trends other than CO2, there is no reason for me to believe in AGW.

You should believe in Global Warming.Once you cross that threshold you should ask the next questions.Will global warming have a negative impact?Which of the things contributing to global warming can humans change?AbE:The best reason for you to hope and believe that Global Warming is anthropomorphic climate change is that that is the best possible scenario if humans are to survive it. It is only those anthropomorphic contributions that we have any hope of addressing in a reasonable period of time.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Do you agree that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere?

Imaginary ones. (Math joke.)

And what is this agenda? Please provide some sort of evidence for this assertion?
Is there a conspiracy? If so why? Who is leading it?

I'm not a climate change sceptic. But I am a solution sceptic. I think we have already left it too late to realistically do anything meaningful about climate change and that we would be best served by seeking to predict what the effects will be and how best to mitigate them.Investing in flood defences, working out how we are going to feed the world population with more extreme weather conditions disrupting agricultural production capacity, evaluating which parts of the world are likely to be worst hit by climate change related natural disasters etc. etc.I think we need to start looking as much into these things as we do ways of reducing CO2 emissions.

The only evidence you are ever going to have for or against AGW will be circumstantial. The only reason to believe in AGW would be if it were true. Regardless of the whether there are alternate possibilities, if those possibilities are not realities, they don't matter.In essense you are saying that you don't want to believe in AGW. To be honest, I don't want it AGW to be real either. But I cannot let that influence my thoughts on the matter.