And, I’m back.

This may or may not be true, but you, at least, discount all of the scientists you disagree with and say that any paper they published is flawed because of the supposed flaws in the peer-review process. I would think there is a good chance that scottb is doing the same thing here, and just discounting the smaller number of scientists (minus the peer-reviewed caveat).

This is interesting. I am going to spend some time looking through these… though I don’t have a lot of hope using them to prove or disprove AGW. I did, however, find an article about that list here and while it does not remove all question, it does eliminate some of the papers from that list and urge caution in accepting that there is so much dispute in the peer-reviewed scientific community. Just for full disclosure, I felt that if the one was posted, the other, refuting, link should be available as well.

I am fairly sure that no one on this site that is arguing for AGW has a hat in the ring, politically, about this issue. There is simply no political benefit to hold this view for non-politicians. For one thing, how does AGW legislation benefit me or Occams or scottb (if it is false and we falsely claim it true). Isn’t it far more likely that we do care about the science and give the majority of climate scientists a heavier weight than you do? I feel that I have been arguing for science much more than arguing for AGW. Because if AGW is false, then you are right and science is broken. Therefore, I feel it unfair to characterize disputing anti-AGW claims as unscientific. Fin.

As for possible benefits for falsely arguing AGW is true? Hmmmm… worse future for my kids, higher costs for current lifestyle, possible carbon tax, etc. I am not seeing enough reasons here for me to support AGW if I didn’t care about the science. Can’t speak for scottb, but I would assume that those benefits wouldn’t ring his bell, either.

Nope. I’ll repeat myself again, because you’re clearly stupid.

The overwhelming majority of those who are in a position to evaluate the evidence agree with the AGW hypothesis. Based on that, the most reasonable position for a non-scientist to take is to assume that the AGW hypothesis is true. For a non-scientists to take the denialist position is arrogant and foolish.

You are a crank, and even if by some miracle the current consensus turns out to be wrong, you’re still a crank, because you have no legitimate justification for your beliefs.

Nope. They’re thoroughly addressed by the other scientists. Which is as it should be. If those other scientists are convinced, I’ll switch my position, as it’s the only rational thing to do.

Meanwhile, here’s a brief rebuttal to your sham list of “peer reviewed” papers.