Their primary arguments are "it's a hoax", "it's a con", "you're lying", "the world is cooling" or "Al Gore invented global warming". What are these claims based upon, where's the supporting evidence?
Further, why do skeptics avoid the science of global warming like the plague?
As an example, if you look at those who think the moon landings were a hoax they have an intelligent and well constructed argument to counter every claim made by NASA. They are capable of constructing a reasonable case which merits consideration. Why are global warming skeptics incapable of doing the same?
If the skeptics are to be afforded any credibility then surely they must be able to provide explanations for these basic observations (I've avoided anything even remotely technical or scientific so as to make it easy)...
• The net reduction in global ice mass in 2008 was nearly one trillion tons
• Global precipitation has increased by 10%
• A million square kilometres of Siberia has melted
• Malaria has spread to Europe
• 2009 will be one of the hottest years on record
Further, why do skeptics avoid the science of global warming like the plague?
As an example, if you look at those who think the moon landings were a hoax they have an intelligent and well constructed argument to counter every claim made by NASA. They are capable of constructing a reasonable case which merits consideration. Why are global warming skeptics incapable of doing the same?
If the skeptics are to be afforded any credibility then surely they must be able to provide explanations for these basic observations (I've avoided anything even remotely technical or scientific so as to make it easy)...
• The net reduction in global ice mass in 2008 was nearly one trillion tons
• Global precipitation has increased by 10%
• A million square kilometres of Siberia has melted
• Malaria has spread to Europe
• 2009 will be one of the hottest years on record