Part 1: AGW skeptics, what would change your minds?

Question

What would change your minds about AGW? Please be specific about the sort of evidence/proof that would make you agree that humans contribute to global warming/climate change.

Because this question is for AGW skeptics, BA will be awarded to a skeptic, then I will post part 2 for the AGW proponents.

To be fair, I will post the exact opposite question.

Answer 1

An AGW computer model that could accurately reproduce the 450,000-year historical temperature/CO2 record.

Answer 2

Skeptics seem to give solid answers using reasoning and logic looking for good information and finding none on the AGW side become even more skeptical of the whole thing. The promoters as per usual not having anything to really convince anybody looking for proof with fall back on political sound bites and gutter talk about on the same level as gangster rap. But I second thought maybe even rappers would not wish to associate with such filth.

Maybe that is another reason I can not stand the pro AGW crowd, they are just so vulgar and low class I could never see myself associating with such people as they seem to be. My grandfather used an old German term for people such as these wisenheimer. For those who do not know the meaning of the term a link is included!

Answer 3

1. Proof, not opinion, that Global warming is both real and man made

2. Proof, not opinion, that Anthropgenic CO2 has caused the Global Warming.

I've not seen any evidence to convince me that the warmings and coolings that have ocurred since, say the 1900's, are anything abnormal.

I've not seen the evidence that Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have  altered the greenhouse effect to any measureable extent.

Direct measurements of CO2 over the last 180 years (measurements, not proxies) show several times when CO2 concentrations were higher than now. Current CO2 concentrations are not abnormal

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ms...

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tung...

Oceanic outgassing alone is over ten times more significant as a co2 source than Anthropogenic CO2. Increased Oceanic outgassing is well documented. Google "oceanic outgassing"

The IPCC itself doesn't say that that the consequences of AGW are catastrophic and unsurvivable, quite the reverse. They predict small changes to occur slowly over time...  changes that we can easily adapt to.

The real problem I have with AGW is not AGW itself... which I can confidently ignore, but the political response to it around the world. Sudden switches of land use to bio-fuel production and Emmissions Trading Schemes are doing far more damage than anything the AGW itself might throw at us.

Answer 4

Wow those are all great answers! I'm not sure if I can top any of them. Okay here goes nothing:

I'd like solid evidence that CO2 holds in more heat from the sun than any other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

I'd also like a solid reading of how much human activity is causing the CO2 levels in our atmosphere to increase versus what nature is contributing to the increase in CO2 levels. (I've read reports inregards to oceans and deserts giving off more CO2 when their warmer.)

I would also like to know why humans aren't considered a part of the natural cycle of the planet.

Answer 5

Spontaneous combustion of my testicles.  

Answer 6

well,..for starters...maybe fewer accomplished scientists who "DON'T" go ga-ga over it might help! But,since there are plenty of them....I'll stay sane for now,thanks!

Answer 7

First, proponents will have to show a detailed understanding of the mechanisms that drove historic climate change.  Only then can they hope to convince me we've deviated from where we're supposed to be.  

The claim is, after all, current warming can't be explained without factoring in human emissions.  The problem is:  Scientists can't explain ANY historic climate change with any certainty.  There are no equations or models to accurately trace historic changes.

Answer 8

actual scientific proof,studies with controls and acurate data collecting

Answer 9

To have the basic data sets the proponents used to reach their conclusions validated independently by at least 6 other science teams and the comparisons openly published showing the results, So far the scientific community has requested this but it has never happened. The only item ever subjected to review was the data set used for the hockey stick graph and that was proven to be faulty math calculations in the graphing program that ignored any and all temperature events before 1998 that matched or exceeded the 1998 temperature.