Originally Posted by Longhornmaniac8

That is patently false. They're respected by people within skeptic circles, but people like Spencer, Christy, Soon, Nova, Lindzen, Michaels, et al. are rightfully shunned in academic circles. Their work is dubious at best and psuedoscientific hackery at worst.

It's also noteworthy that it's the same small subset of names that are continuing to cash in on non-scientists' inability to determine good science from bad science.

There are valid scientific inquiries in the climatology realm. Be very careful of how arguments are framed. Real science acknowledges what it doesn't know. Go read the Executive Summary of First Working Group of the Fifth Assessment Report. You won't see any hedging or acknowledgement of data gaps in the skeptic papers, even if they can find an outlet to get them peer-reviewed.

Occam's Razor. Is it more likely there is a vast conspiracy within scientific realms across multiple disciplines to shun the truth or is it more likely that the "few doctorate level Climatologists" are actually full of s#!t?