Americans Are Becoming Global Warming Skeptics

Reader Comments
Back to article

In over 20 years of trying to prove man is respnsible for climate change, not one study has bee able to do so. There are 800 peer reviewed papers that show the AGW theory is either false or deeply flawed. There are over 31,000 confirmed working scientists here in the US who have signed a petition stating they do not buy the AGW theory. For the past 10 years CO2 levels have been increasing while temperatures have decreased. We have billions of years of geologic history to refute AGW. CO2 levels have been 20 times higher than today and yet there was no catastrophe, in fact the times of highest diversity and life on Earth have been at times of higher CO2 levels. The current level of CO2 is one of the lowest in the history of the Earth and man produces only about 3% of all CO2, the other 97% is provided by nature. And on top of that, CO2 comprises onlu about 4% of all greenhouse gases.
Our sun is the driver of climate. We are well aware of the fact that our Sun goes through cycles that mainly effect ocean temperatures. Oceans comprise over 2/3's of the Earth's surface and retain heat for years. I doubt there is anyone who has not heard of el nino nd la nina events.
There is nothing unprecedented about the rate or amount of warming we have seen over the last century. Our planet goes through ice ages and interglacials, if the IPCC were honest (and they are not) they would be warning us of the dangers of cooling. Cooling phases will cause food shortages which result in starvation and many more deaths from exposure. Historically we know warm periods are times of abundance and expansion, not catastrophe.
There is currently a $10,000 challenge out for anyone who can prove man is altering the climate of the Earth. After over 2 decades of massive funding of studies by the leading scientists in the world and after all the hype about the "science" being "settled", isn't it odd noone has claimed this prize?

Gator of IL 7:32AM January 10, 2011

Arguments about global warming & pollution usually break at the point where "Who has asthma, emphysema or other breathing difficulty and who is still healthy." Age has a lot to do with what side a person takes..the older we are, the more we worry that we can't last if breathing problems are added to other physical weakness. From an aesthetic point of view, surely clean air is to be preferred over smog? I moved from smoggy LA County to the fresh air of a small town among breezy mountains, with forests sending out oxygen. I'm glad to be away from gridlock, road rage and the fact that "you can't see Catalina the way it used to be." How can a person say there is no global warning when they see blacktop roads and roofs all over the place, sending up heat waves? Gore was cheated out of the 2000 election but his study of past and present living conditions will not be forgotten. Gradually, we will see beneficial changes, thanks to people like him. I am so glad Portugal has new wave machines, and there are more wind machines & solar displays all the time. I think the motion of windmills is charming; a reminder of times past when there were fewer factory smokestacks & revolving blades drew water for homesteads.

aURa dawn veirs of CA 5:09AM May 31, 2010

50 my ago we were considerably warmer than today. The Arctic ocean was 23 deg C.Then plate tectonics caused the subcontinent of India to ram into the underbelly of Asia closing the Tethys seaway which had long accommodated a vigorous equitorial ocean current. Spinoffs had supplied warm currents to our polar regions causing a global cooling mode that continues today. Antarctica iced over 32 my ago and our N. Pole iced 14 my ago. Cyclic glaciation of N. America began with the Pleistocene period only 1.75 my ago (a mere moment of geologic time). We are currently in the 5th Interglacial epoch (Holocene) and our present average world temp is a few deg C below normal "walking a tightrope" where falling could precipitate another glaciation. This is definitely NOT a time to expect an "unstoppable" heat wave. A condition that there is no evidence of ever happening in the geologic record. Actually our Sun is too weak to prevent another snowball earth event without robust greenhouse gases (GHG) in our atmosphere to trap available long wave radiation from solar heating of our land
masses. How does this fact fit Greenie obsession to severly limit GHG's? The few climate scientists on their side must be desperate for money for supporting this humongous scam. I have to believe we are far more likely to go into our 6th glaciation of 100,000 years duration of the Pleistocene than to become too warm.The preceeding 4 warming periods of the Holocene were of enormous benefit to mankind. Another glaciation would be a disaster for man at the very least. The worst would be extinction of the homosapien species. Modest warming is best!

Robert R. Reynolds, Geologist, retired of AZ 3:30AM May 31, 2010

As a scientist who signed the "petition project" to our Senate in 2008, to reject a bill designed to commit the USA to the Kyoto Protocols,(there were over 30,000 US accredited scientists signed at the time and they were still getting signatures for several months later). Fortunately our Senators did not pass the bill. I am ashamed to admit that as many as 1000 of my colleagues were bought and paid for by research grants of over $30 billion from our Gov't who liked the political possibilities, and elevated this shoddy hypothesis to the status of Political Correctness. In my opinion, these relatively few scientists that still back man caused global warming (AGW)have prostituted themselves for the allmighty $. Since climategate has revealed at least some of their actions, I fear their professional status and credibility is at stake. In view of the huge misuse of Gov't funds involved here it may well lead to criminal charges against some. Al Gore must share blame for vigorously promoting this scam and profited greatly from it.

Robert R. Reynolds, Geologist, retired of AZ 1:05AM May 31, 2010

Climate change is a natural process that goes back nearly to the
beginning of the Earth, but following the accretionary process of incoming cosmic debris and development of an atmosphere. The early sun was weak and Precambrian rocks of glacial origin (tillite)occur near the equator over 2 billion yrs ago and again in late Precambrian time 700 million yrs ago, 2 episodes of a snow ball Earth and survival as algal life in the seas. Complex life did not appear until the Cambrian seas 500 my ago.
Obviously there were wide temperature changes in early Earth time. As the strata becom progressively younger, proxy data yield more and better results showing wide variations in the climate. Minor variations, weather, is not apparent until the last 10,000 yrs or so when ice cores, stalagmites in caves,tree rings and cores of ocean sediments have been correlated. Fossils,spores and isotope data of certain elements are clues to the temperature. Air samples from bubbles in ice and rosin from tree sap give clues of content. Since the 5th (Wisconsin) glacier melted 11,000 years ago, a climate graph to the present resembles a roller coaster with the part since 1850 (blamed on man) by the Greenies as an unprecedented temp rise,actually peaked in 1940, decreased until 1970, rose to 1990, and has been flat ever since (admitted by Dr. Jones of CRU). A far cry from the shameless exaggeration by AGW supporters. So lets face the truth,Global Warming is pure political POLICY, not backed by science. 20 years and $30 billion spent on modeling climate research can't even reproduce past climates let alone predict the future. The desire to curtail CO2 to control climate rise is an expensive exercise in futility. Natural forces, mostly of cosmic origin control climates period. The insane desire of the enviro crowd to drastically reduce greenhouse gases (GHG)shows ignorance of the fact that our sun at times requires GHG help to prevent our planet from becoming a lifeless ice ball. Their plans to reduce CO2 are counterproductive and a total waste of money.

Robert R. Reynolds, Geologist, retired of AZ 8:02PM May 30, 2010

Let's all hope that ALGORE is right. The alternative, the end of the current "interglacial period" with another period of glaciation, would doom most of the world.
On the other hand a slight rise in sea level (levels have already risen over 200 feet since the last ice age) really wouldn't effect the world much. Further, the increase in agricultural growing zones would improve food production.
The alternative, glaciation, would diminish the the land available for habitation and agriculture.
The added benefit of more rapid and larger plant growth in high co2 conditions is well documented.
I suppose that's why they grow things in green houses (very high co2 and humidity) instead of in freezers.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 11:10PM May 29, 2010

Before you start saying I'm just a lemming of Al Gore, go read what top scientific institutions say about this. AAAS, NAS, and others, all validate the claim than humans are significantly influensing global warming.
If only the "skeptics" applied the same skepticism to articles that come from the "pro-business" community as the ones that come from the scientific community. Especially since this is about science.

Markus of IN 10:09AM May 29, 2010

I laugh my self sick every time I hear "Global Warming Deniers are paid by big oil"
Big Oil, that is David Rockefeller (Standard oil, ARMCO) and Maurice Strong, have been behind this scam since 1972. Strong chaired the UN's First Earth Summit in 1972, fathering the Global warming movement. Strong paid the way for Greenpeace to that summit and told them to go home and raise hell. Maurice Strong was Power Corp. President, an oil company in Canada. He also ran the semi-national Petro-Canada. “…Ontario Hydro, an industrial concern, headed by Earth Summit secretary general Maurice Strong, which is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in Canada..."
Strong, a former Rockefeller employee is a Rockefeller Fund trustee and the Rockefeller Foundations fund Greenpeace and WWF. The IPCC cites Greenpeace and WWF as their "peer reviewed" source for a lot of their findings.
On top of that Strong is Senior Advisor to the World Bank and the World Bank holds a "luncheon" after their annual meeting at the David Rockefeller Estate in Westchester. Is it any surprise that the Leaked Copenhagen Document (draft agreement) hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank???
None of the "carbon trading" schemes do anything about pollution except increase it by moving industry to unregulated China and India. At the same time the scams make lots of money for financiers and collapse the economies of the western world.
I suggest you better start learning Chinese.... Strong has left the UN after being implicated in the "food for oil scandal" and is now in China as a Senior Advisor.

corrine N of NC 6:02PM May 28, 2010

I'm no expert on global warming, but I do read and listen a lot. For instance, the latest issue of National Geographic has a big spread on ice melt and causes in Greenland. Today's morning newspaper had an article on glacierless Glacier National Park and the negative effects there induced by the rising of mean temperatures over the past half century. I also in the past few days listened, as usual, to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Both had unkind things to say about the alarmists who dare suggest there might be some truth to this global warming thing. I don't remember ever hearing them have kind things to say about those who suggest global warming might be something to worry over.
Where do I stand? Global warming might be something to worry over. That's where. Therefore, I say, we ought to be careful what we're about. We ought to pull back on the old full steam ahead with the use of carbon-based fuels and develop alternative forms of energy full steam ahead. That's caution, not panic. That's a better safe than sorry approach. And it's what our daily companion, Sean Hannity, calls "common sense."
If we human beings have had a role in environmental degradation--and we certainly have in ways other than carbon emissions alone--maybe by doing something proactive we'll learn in time to save the earth. By not doing anything, will we learn in time that we are having adverse affect?
I say look at Greenland. Look at Glacier National Park. Look at the two polar regions. Look at reduced snowpack levels in the Rockies and Himalayas. Try listening to or reading those who are scientists to discover what they have to say. And spend a lot less time taking the word of the paid- handsomely-to-talk-and-write crowd who get their information from political think tanks like American Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and others.
The next time you hear someone use the word "scam" in relation to global warming, decide for yourself who's doing the scamming. Maybe it's time to be skeptical of the skeptics.

Ron W. Smith of UT 12:40PM May 28, 2010

The average American will, in the end, see through the AGW religion for what it is, garbage. Leading scientists that fabricated surface temperatures and tree ring proxies to create false graphs to propogate this farce and the IPCC that depends on scare tactics to drive support, will face justice.
The billions of dollars already spent globally should have been used to address true issues such as lack of clean drinking water, proper medical care and food.
Most skeptics support the fact that increased CO2 does result in global warming and that man does have an influence in the warming. Bottom line is, that a doubling of CO2 will result in a maximum 1.1 degree increase in temperature. This temperature increase actually supports a greater diversity of plant life and animal life and is, therefore, good for the world.
I do not support the transfer of $10 to $20 trillion to developing nations and taxing carbon to address a theory that has not been proven and worse yet manipulated by the likes of Michael Mann and Keith Briffa, in an attenpt to show current warming is unprecidented over the last 1,000 years.
I am proud to be an American because the average citizen will not fall for this false religion and hyperbole.
You may call me a skeptic and I will be proud if you should. T. H. Huxley wrote, "Skepticism is the highest of duties, and blind faith the one unpardonable sin." I will not pardon those that follow, as lemmings, the dogma of AGW when there are more serious issues the world's scarce resources should be used for.

Zman of WI 1:09PM May 27, 2010