Without good answers to [sceptics» concerns about various attempts to measure global warming and its effects], global -
warming skepticism seems sensible.
Not exact matches
One reason for advertising it here at an early stage is that the denizens of Climate Etc.
seem well motivated to poke holes in theories of global
warming, which I view as a positive benefit of
skepticism, as distinguished from flat denial.
So again —
seems to me that debates about the magnitude of sensitivity are consistent with
skepticism (as opposed to «
skepticism»), and debates about the physics of AGW are consistent with
skepticism (as opposed to «
skepticism» — and despite the attempts of some to throw those who doubt basic AGW physics under a bus)-- but to say that you don't doubt the basic physics yet assert that global
warming has stopped is either illogical or the view of a «skeptic» (as opposed to a skeptic).
These numbers are actually very crude, because poor questions are asked, but it
seems clear that the public is split roughly equally between
warming and
skepticism.