What are some legitimate global warming skeptic’s arguments?

what are some arguments that global warming skeptics use, that actually may have some merit ?
please link me to any sources

Chosen Answer:

1) AGW is based on computer models that predict horrible things that fail to happen.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/03/30/southern-hemisphere-hurricanes-%E2%80%93-not-changing/

Kuleshov, Y., R. Fawcett, L. Qi, B. Trewin, D. Jones, J. McBride, and H. Ramsay. 2010. Trends in tropical cyclones in the South Indian Ocean and the South Pacific Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, D01101, doi:10.1029/2009JD012372.
2) The alarmists keep blaming things on global warming that have nothing to do with global warming:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/01/27/upward-trend-in-hurricane-damage-in-china/#more-406

Zhang, Q., L. Wu, and Q. Liu. 2009. Tropical cyclone damages in China 1983-2006. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90, 489-495.
3) They use data with known bias to make unsubstantiated claims.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/01/14/listening-to-johnny-chan/#more-402

Chan, J.C.L. 2009. Thermodynamic control on the climate of intense tropical cyclones. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 465, 3011-3021.
4) They note every trend in weather/climate data, and make a case that man is causing unprecedented problems without regards to accurate knowledge of natural variance as it may have happened in the past.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/02/09/1000-years-of-boston-hurricanes/#more-359

Besonen, M.R., et al., 2008. A 1,000-year, annually-resolved record of hurricane activity from Boston, Massachusetts, Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L14705, doi:10.1029/2008GL033950.
5) The IPCC reports that dictate the AGW beliefs are based on assertions unsupported by science.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/30/slingo-wing-and-re-frame/

6) The IPCC carefully cherry picks the data to make its case

http://climateaudit.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/mcintyre-workshop05.pdf

when there is a mountain of data that suggests otherwise.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

The whole idea of the science behind AGW is that if it cannot be proven wrong, it must be correct despite a lack of any rational reason to believe it to be.

@Jeff M:
Fascinating link you provided. Thank you. I note that you are correct in that the ocean’s temperature and heat content can be reliably measured. Unfortunately, your link shows that there is a serious lack of good measurements in the polar regions, and none below 700 meters. Also, the measurements that they have show the temperature anomalies get progressively colder as we get closer to 700 meters. This suggests that they ocean bottom is likely cooling while the surface is warming. However, we do not know for sure. This is just like the rest of AGW:

Indications are that the ocean is not storing any net heat, but it might be, so we will assume it is. Since the surface is the part that is heating, that explains the reason for the raise in CO2 despite the ~5 year longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere, but we are not certain, so AGWists assume that the explanation is that the longevity of CO2 is longer despite the fact that all indications say otherwise.

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e

by: NW Jack
on: 8th April 10