Is global warming skepticism in its death throes?

Both figuratively and literally, skepticism of anthropogenic global warming seems to be dying off. The two most famous signatories of the "Oregon Petition", Edward Teller and Frederick Seitz, are long gone. Fred Singer is 94, Freeman Dyson is 95. Giaever is 90. Happer and Lindzen are 79. With the uptick... show more Both figuratively and literally, skepticism of anthropogenic global warming seems to be dying off. The two most famous signatories of the "Oregon Petition", Edward Teller and Frederick Seitz, are long gone. Fred Singer is 94, Freeman Dyson is 95. Giaever is 90. Happer and Lindzen are 79.

With the uptick of catastrophic weather events in the U.S. in recent years (fires, floods, hurricanes) the American people are becoming more aware of the dangers of climate change.

In this group there is no science-based criticism of global warming anymore. Denial is dominated by a troll, cheered on by the geologist and others who are unable to make science-based arguments. The few skeptics that would bring science into the discussion are gone from the group.
Update: Just a few minutes after this question is asked, the troll shows up. Does he actually answer the question? Nope, he gives everyone the finger and makes a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations. His answers helps prove my point--global warming skepticism id practically dead. Trolling and political arguments is all... show more Just a few minutes after this question is asked, the troll shows up. Does he actually answer the question? Nope, he gives everyone the finger and makes a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations. His answers helps prove my point--global warming skepticism id practically dead. Trolling and political arguments is all that is left for them.
Update 2: JimZ has chimed in now, too--he starts off by naming a bunch of dead communists, as if that was relevant at all to the science. He is just adding proof to my thesis, global warming skepticism is clearly dying, if all you can do is name communists and call other people "cultists", you clearly don't... show more JimZ has chimed in now, too--he starts off by naming a bunch of dead communists, as if that was relevant at all to the science. He is just adding proof to my thesis, global warming skepticism is clearly dying, if all you can do is name communists and call other people "cultists", you clearly don't have any science to back up what you're saying.
Update 3: One of the answers (probably a sock puppet of the troll) says "Looks like this question is not going the way the o.p. wanted." Actually, it's going EXACTLY the way I expected--it is mostly dominated by the non-answers from the troll, with the geologist rambling on about communists, as if that had... show more One of the answers (probably a sock puppet of the troll) says "Looks like this question is not going the way the o.p. wanted." Actually, it's going EXACTLY the way I expected--it is mostly dominated by the non-answers from the troll, with the geologist rambling on about communists, as if that had anything to do with science. They are all proving my point!
Update 4: The Yahoo Joker "Quack account". Your plot of tornado frequency has little to do with the question. I would love to talk about what it means, though. Why don't you ask a question about it AND unblock me so that I can answer it? I can't really debate if I'm blocked.
Update 5: I apologize for changing my avatar repeatedly. The Yahoo Joker is using his fake Dirac account to post fake comments, etc. Changing avatar pics at least slows him down.
Update 6: graphicconception, I didn't expect this question to have science-based answers. It's everything else in this forum, where skeptics could ask science-based questions, but they don't. Instead the deniers seem content with endless trolling and lying.
21 answers 21