Why should we believe global warming "skeptics" given their history of being wrong?

AGW "skeptics" love to criticize James Hansen because his global temperature projections in 1988 weren't perfect. They were off by about 17%, but it turns out, if you reconstruct a temperature projection based on "skeptic" Richard Lindzen's comments in 1989, he was way, way, way, way... show more AGW "skeptics" love to criticize James Hansen because his global temperature projections in 1988 weren't perfect. They were off by about 17%, but it turns out, if you reconstruct a temperature projection based on "skeptic" Richard Lindzen's comments in 1989, he was way, way, way, way further off than Hansen.
http://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illu...

Then of course there's the fact that "skeptics" Spencer and Christy screwed up the satellite temperature data analysis and claimed for the better part of a decade that the planet was barely warming, until another set of scientists discovered their errors.

Given that AGW "skepticism" is heavily dependent upon the arguments of these three "skeptic" scientists, and given their history of being wrong (and the fact that their arguments today aren't much different than their previously erroneous arguments), why should we believe them and put future generations at risk in the likely scenario that they are still wrong?
Update: OM: "Seriously, get back to us when you have some empirical data that supports CO2 warming causing a positive climate feedback due to increased water vapor and changes to cloud cover." I'm back. Seriously, get back to me when you're willing to pull your head out of your nether-regions and look at the data. show more OM: "Seriously, get back to us when you have some empirical data that supports CO2 warming causing a positive climate feedback due to increased water vapor and changes to cloud cover."

I'm back. Seriously, get back to me when you're willing to pull your head out of your nether-regions and look at the data.
Update 2: Expeller - "We should use reason and common sense." That only works if your "reason" and "common sense" are well-informed, which unfortunately, they are not. Just one example of your many incorrect statements: http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton...
Update 3: I should clarify, this question pertains to the layperson who can't accurately assess which "side" of the climate "debate" is correct, and thus is unsure who to believe. If you understand basic climate science, this question may not apply.
Update 4: *sigh* Expeller, sometimes you really make me wonder about you. What you're arguing is that LN(390/300) is as large or larger than LN(900/390). Those are the CO2 changes over the past century vs. projected next century. I can't put it in any simpler terms than that. You really look bad when you try to mock... show more *sigh* Expeller, sometimes you really make me wonder about you.

What you're arguing is that LN(390/300) is as large or larger than LN(900/390). Those are the CO2 changes over the past century vs. projected next century. I can't put it in any simpler terms than that. You really look bad when you try to mock people who are right.
15 answers 15