Instead of lists of scientists, what I would really like, from a skeptic, is to see a dialogue between, not simply an open letter—an actual dialogue between a renowned skeptic (i.e. someone with real scientific credentials) criticizing the most widely accepted climate model(s) showing AGW and a renowned climate scientist defending that model.

It is easy to say there are all sorts of flaws with a model, and without getting the climate scientists response I have no idea whether the criticism is even relevant or not.

I am a scientist. If some older nobel prize winning biologist started to criticize my research, because it proposed controversial policy, he would probably know jack-shit about why my findings are solid, because no such biologist knows my specialization better than me and maybe 5 other people in the world. If those 5 other people and I agree on something in my research, it’s probably true.

My real-world experience in the scientific community is why I am so skeptical of random skeptic claims. I spend every day of my life thinking about the scientific problems and contingencies. I know the worst criticisms someone could make of my work better than any potential critic, and I constantly work to address them in further experiments. Instead of targeting these relevant weaknesses, most (but not all) criticisms are completely irrelevant, because my colleagues don’t even really understand the system.

This is not to say skeptics can’t have good points, just that there is a good chance they are lacking an enormous amount of relevant information, making the response from climate scientists crucial in evaluating their evidence.