Climate Change Deniers? Follow the Money!

John Vechey of PopCap Games recently joined The Motley Fool for a climate change summit. His first panel guests were Dr. Rachel Cleetus and Dr. Joe Casola. Rachel is a Climate Economist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, where she advocates for effective global warming policies at the state, regional, federal, and international levels. Joe is Program Director for Science and Impacts at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), which works to assess the current state of knowledge regarding climate change and its impacts, and to promote actions that strengthen climate resilience.

Rachel defines "skepticism," and what it does and does not mean in the climate change "debate." There are some valid issues and questions to be asked regarding climate science -- Joe shares several of them -- but the fact of global warming, and humanity's role in causing the change, are not among them. Their message is important pushback against companies like ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM  ) , which spend heavily on efforts to deny climate science in the public domain. With growing momentum behind efforts to deal with the climate change threat, ExxonMobil may find itself on the wrong side of history.

One home run investing opportunity has seen the writing on the wall, and is becoming a part of the solution to the climate challenge. It's been slipping under Wall Street's radar for months, but it won't stay hidden much longer. Forward-thinking energy players like GE and Ford have already plowed sizable amounts of research capital into this little-known stock... because they know it holds the key to the explosive profit power of the coming "no choice fuel revolution." Luckily, there's still time for you to get on board if you act quickly. All the details are inside an exclusive report from The Motley Fool. Click here for the full story!


Read/Post Comments (59) | Recommend This Article (10)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 8:25 AM, OnTheContrary wrote:

    An interview with a couple of flacks for organizations of self-interested grantsmen who are milking the public purse, and playing off the general gullibility and scientific ignorance of the general public, has nothing to do with science. The normal attitude of real scientists is skepticism, and in an area that is as poorly understood as weather and climate, no one who claims otherwise can be considered a scientist, or even scientific, regardless of their credentials.

    AGW isn't even a scientific hypothesis, because there is no conceivable way it could be falsified, which is precisely why its true believers have to insist that it must simply be accepted because they, and lots of their fellows have been swept up in the movement (really a cult), or because they have been corrupted by the big money.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 8:45 AM, drgroup wrote:

    Global warming is a scam used to take advantage of ignorant minds for the purpose of extorting money by any means. What does exist is temporary spikes in localized temps which are then trumpeted by these charlatans for the purpose of financial gain. Good gig if you can threaten companies like Exxon and have them shut you up by funding your stupid research of GW which happens to take place on a layed back beach in Tahiti.

    How many times does this scam have to be disproved?

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 10:48 AM, thecleverbulldog wrote:

    So a couple of 'scientists' who are employed by the global warming industry declare debate is over? OK, so where is your AGW PROOF? <crickets> . There is no way to prove this idiotic 'theory', in a world where temps fluctuate by tens of degrees on a daily basis, claiming to be able to detect a tenth of a degree increase is just silly. All the so called global warming evidence would be drastically different if the locations where temps are collected were moved a small distance. In Austin in the summer, it is common for temps to be 10 to 15 degrees different around the metro area.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Snakepit456 wrote:

    Such an interesting word: "deniers." Redolent of religious extremism, it derives from the same psychological root as "heretic," "blasphemer," and "apostate." It is designed to be isolating, moralistic, and most importantly, damning.

    What it actually accomplishes is to remove "global warming" from the realm of the purely scientific and move into the religio-political spectrum. That so many of the warmers are completely illiterate in terms of science it comes then as no surprise that absent technological sophistication, and given the fascist underpinnings of their belief system, it has taken on all the trappings of a primitive religion complete with saints and devils.

    It is the logical outgrowth of a class of population which has no belief in the supernatural, but still possesses the need to sense something greater than itself and to divide the human population into good and bad complete with a political solution for eradicating that part they view as insufficiently docile.

    In their system, "deniers" serve Satan and little greenies serve God. Watch out deniers - they'll be after you with updated versions of Torquemada and the Iron Maiden next!

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 11:00 AM, RobertMKRC wrote:

    The climate change panic began in 1999 when the "hockey stick" graph of world temperature change went before the U.N. - no peer reviewed study, and the response immediately caused a community and a new "green" industry.

    Thorough, peer-reviewed studies began to be released in 2010, confirming that less than 5% of global warming is caused by man, and that we are in a warming cycle out of the "Little Ice Age" that lasted from roughly 1300 to 1850.

    And, in the 650,000 years of weather history on record, NEVER has carbon dioxide increased before temperatures have, and it is not today. The average difference between the occurrence of raised temperature and raised CO2 is 600 years - and that is because the temperatures cause more CO2 to be released from the oceans.

    "Global Warming" is a complete scam that has made many people, from Al Gore to the entertainment industry rich, and continues to be propagated even in the light of the facts that we have.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 11:02 AM, pixelpusher220 wrote:

    I do love the irony of the article summary "Letters to the editor and fringe websites not withstanding" And front and center we see examples of these in the comments.

    AGW is quite real, it's measured, it's happening.

    If it wasn't happening and could be definitely disproved, don't you think Exxon and the Koch brothers would be making scientists very very very rich to show just that?

    They aren't because they can't.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 11:26 AM, wck50 wrote:

    Both sides of climate change have great presentations to protect the turf they either are being paid to or have studied and believe in.sides, behind their hands and not in front of a mike would also state they have problems with rapid changes by the power and auto needs of todays world society.

    I fully agree we have climate change. I fully agree the human species is a part (how much is unknown) of this cycle of change. What I have missed from both sides is the meeting of the minds, economies, political power and future of billions of people if we make huge changes or no changes.

    To begin the conversation start with the simple idea that earth, our planet is for most of its billions of years not a warm water planet but an ice ball. Starting here, at this point, we have a point each side can agree on. Then begin with man's power to change our world while mother earth again heats up and then gets cold. I suggest we do talk about man's ability to survive as a species as we talk about how to feed, make jobs and live threw a womans PMS on a global scale.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 11:46 AM, klausmager wrote:

    Here is a speech "Can civilization survive really existing capitalism" by Professor Noam Chomsky from MIT he gave in Ireland this April. When you listen to his summation of what is happening in the US political process, it seems we have an uphill fight. It is astounding. But from an investment pov, carbon is getting increasingly more risky.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uuYjUxf6Uk

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 12:14 PM, longvista wrote:

    The amount of money spent by ExxonMobile and all of 'Big Oil' for that matter, is dwarfed by the amount of money raised and spent promoting AGW by the likes of Greenpeace, Sierra Club, WWF, Audubon Society, IPCC, NASA, NOAA, the current WH administration, etc. The reason being that propaganda based on false premises and disinformation is a lot more expensive to get out there than educating people with real scientific facts, not wishful conjecture of over-zealous environmental activists.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 12:26 PM, kmitchel2 wrote:

    It's rare to find such disagreement between scientists and the general public when the issue is not related to religion. Scientists are conducting the research, and are in near-unanimous agreement that AGW is real. The pundits, policymakers, and industry leaders only share their opinion on the evidence provided. You should listen to the scientists, not these secondary sources. It's embarrassing that so many Americans deny AGW. There certainly aren't two well-developed sides to the debate in academia, and I personally don't know of any graduate student researchers or faculty in my department who would claim that AGW is false.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 12:30 PM, 2smartforlibs wrote:

    When following the money how much did ALGORE rake in off the scam?

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 12:31 PM, fpl1954 wrote:

    To me it's fairly simple. Climate science is science, which means defined by rules which are determined by observation of facts. For example, a high pressure system impacting a low pressure system will have a measurable pressure difference between the two and a measurable size with measurable locations - thus the wind speed and direction between the two systems can be predicted within an absolute range, perhaps two small systems might not definitely give exactly 40 knots from the South, but they will give 35-45 knots from the SE to SW. Two huge systems will be more predictable, etc. There is a far larger % of scientists who think the world is flat than doubt Global Warming, so those who believe the affect of Global Warming on Nature is anything but proven, are clearly fools.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 12:34 PM, GuitarJim wrote:

    There is no debate because proponents of AGW theory refuse to have one.

    They claim their models have predicted global warming since the 1980's, but refuse to share either their data or their model for independent analysis.

    They predicted drought and melting ice, but their original predictions did not include inland flooding, major storms, or record cold winters. Nonetheless, we're told those things too are caused by a warming world. Meanwhile, they quietly stop referring to "global warming" and start using the phrase "climate change" so that virtually any variation from last year's weather can be blamed on carbon.

    They didn't predict the period of global cooling in the first half of this decade, and when they were exposed trying to "hide the decline" by smoothing over the data they said it was one rogue scientist without ever addressing the fact that the temperatures had dropped.

    They have been asked repeatedly why the rise in CO2 in historic warming periods has often FOLLOWED the rise in temperature, sometimes by hundreds of years (cause, by definition, cannot follow effect). They either ignore the question or blame the seeming conflict on an "imperfect temperature proxy".

    They have vilified, marginalized, and even threatened any credible scientist who dares to even question their conclusions.

    For the first time in the history of the environmental movement, they succeed in having a compound that not only occurs naturally in the atmosphere, but is essential for life to exist on earth, declared a "pollutant" by the Supreme Court in order to grant the federal government the authority to regulate it.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 12:34 PM, alwaysdoubtfirst wrote:

    What is truly interesting is that many global warming advocates reassure themselves in shallow assertions that their own beliefs are based on science, while their critics, in the exceptional circumstance in which they are not simply “stupid”, can only be either religious fanatics or spurred by financial gains from industries that have a stake in the energy markets. While the latter certainly exists, it would be preposterous to imagine that a large portion of skeptics have any motivation based on such financial gains. Follow the money? It is undeniable that billions of dollars change hands daily in the world's carbon exchanges; markets that did not exist before the global warming scare. Little or none of these financial gains are reinvested in developing nations or climate protection infrastructures. These are the only markets in the world in which the underlying commodity has no intrinsic value. The markets, like all other markets, run on trust, but in this case it is trust in the core value of the intrinsic guiltiness of man. Protestant Al Gore knew very well how compelling this value would be in western societies, and some contributors here might do well to examine more closely the belief system to which they adhere, with the question of whether it is as firmly rooted as they purport in irrefutable science, which they often caricature.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 12:53 PM, wskadavis wrote:

    There are three types of climate change deniers, large business that doesn't want change, politicians who take money from large business lobbyists, and ideologues who believe anything their politicians tell them. There are also three types of climate change believers. Scientists, entrepreneurs who want to start businesses due to climate change, and those who listen to scientists. so it's a question of who are you going to believe? Big business and politicians, or scientists. So, what's it gonna be punk?

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Plantman57 wrote:

    You will forgive me if I make some typos here, but it's hard to post while you're laughing...I happen to be someone with a degree in hard science, and there is no such thing as "settled science" or "end of scientific inquiry/debate". By its nature, science is a continually ongoing pursuit of knowledge, not an expeditious arrival at a convenient consensus that serves ulterior motives of the "scientists". If you want to follow the money, follow the insidious nature of the grant process, which requires compliance with the orthodox view in order to continue to receive funding. If you really are interested in "following the money" on the climate issue, follow it straight to the federal government and the United Nations, both of which are actively involved in subverting real scientific inquiry and instead employing the work of useful idiots to support programs like cap-and-tax, hobbling our energy infrastructure with more restrictive regulations, taxes and fees, limiting our domestic energy development and gratuitiously and punitively forcing higher and higher utility rates on consumers and businesses while they dream up more and more ways of spending the loot. Any real scientist with no dog in this fight will tell you that the notion of human-induced global warming is impossible to prove, given the myriad uncontrolled variables involved in studying the causes of climate change and the very limited history of measured climate records on which to base the contrived computer modeling programs that "prove" it. Don't believe everything you read, especially if it has the government's fingerprints on it...

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 12:56 PM, DrP79 wrote:

    One might want to follow the money of the climate change propagandists too

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 12:59 PM, diggsc wrote:

    I personally know every single scientist in the world. They all say global warming is happening, that it is caused by humans, and that the best way to stop it is to give them more power and money, along with Al Gore.

    They also all agree that the climate we have now is the perfect climate for the earth, or Gaia, and we need to do our best to keep this climate. They also all agree that any change in the climate will have detrimental effects on 100% of earth's living organisms, no exceptions.

    They also all agree that money spent on global warming studies by supporters of the theory that global warming can only be stopped by larger government intrusion into our personal lives is good, well intentioned money, while money spent by anyone who might want to question the theory is evil, and comes straight from Satan, and is only spent by evil people who want to see the earth destroyed.

    So there.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 1:03 PM, jtsgrandmom wrote:

    I suppose it takes a Motley Fool to believe that story. But, since MF is also a financial outlet, vested in global economics, they see money "in them thar hills." What price your nation, I wonder? What price, your freedom?

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 1:05 PM, redfox435cat wrote:

    Really, is this backwards day again? Follow the money, Follow Al Gore and his cronies, Follow how the reserchers potition for their funds, if they claim anything against climate change they get denied funding, if the report shows anything against climate change they get their funding cut. The fool is becoming as bad as msnbc. Allot of fact are left out of every report I've ever read. Thing like himans produce about .006% of the worlds co2 output, the oceans discharge more co2 in a day than mans entire existance but ya, follow the money on those against it.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 1:08 PM, AllenElliott wrote:

    Why should there be any skepticism, climate change has been going on since the flood?

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 1:22 PM, John1821 wrote:

    Whether the globe has warmed is not what is debated. It's the "why" that is debated. There are valuable questions that anyone who is a fan of science must take seriously. The politics of this has to be removed if we are to have honest discussion. I for one am FOR cleaner energy, but not because I believe "The Day After Tomorrow" movie is coming true.

    According to HadCrut 3 & 4 satellite temperature measurements there was accelerated global warming from 1979-2002; however, since that time HadCrut 3 & 4 show temps level then gradually drop. The global mean temp has dropped since 2002 although atmospheric C02 has climbed to almost 400ppm. This is important because our super-computer climate models projected global temps to be much higher by now. That tells us that maybe we do not understand clearly the effects of atmospheric C02 increase.

    One issue hardly ever mentioned is what percentage of the increase of atmospheric C02 is from humans. A 2000 study by the U.S. Department of Energy shows that only 14% of the increase is from human activity while 86% were natural additions to the pre-industrial baseline of 288,000ppm. In other words, nature is adding much more than humans right now. Now it seems in the mainstream media we're led to believe that it's entirely the cause of humans. Not true!!

    Let's also address the fearmongering tactics used so often in the media about tornadoes & hurricanes. Strong to violent tornadoes ARE NOT INCREASING. NOAA data is available for anyone to go see & you'll see that the data shows that strong-violent tornadoes were much more frequent from 1954-1974 than today. Who would have ever guessed that? Also the U.S. is experiencing the longest period of time since the 1860's without being hit by a Major Hurricane (CAT 3 or higher). The last CAT 3 or higher hurricane to hit the U.S. was Wilma in 2005. Who would have thought?

    Also U.S. wildfires so far in 2013 rank dead last in number of wildfires over the last 10 years compared with those years through July 1. 2013 ranks 9th in total acres burned. Who would have thought?

    Also a lot hype with these summer heat waves in the west. Well, in 1913 the hottest temperature ever of 134 was recorded in Death Valley, Cal. And in 1915 Yukon, Alaska recorded the highest temp in Alaska in recorded history of 100 degrees.

    My point...stop the fearmongering. Data dismisses it. But by all means....we still need to always be looking for better alternative energies that are better for the air we breathe & the environment.

    Thanks

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 1:24 PM, longvista wrote:

    From kmitchell2: "Scientists are conducting the research, and are in near-unanimous agreement that AGW is real." I'm afraid you have been suckered by the big bucks spent by the WWFs of the world.

    You should check this very useful fact-packed article out, and then talk to me about "near-unamimous agreement" by scientists on AGW.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scient....

    This is one hard scientist who is happily outside of this so-called 'consensus'.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Vanamali wrote:

    Science has given us so much - just 2% of the american working poplution is able to feed the whole of the country with plenty left over. We drive cars over highways, take a flight, use medicines, work at night under bright lights, the TV, tablet, cell phones enrich our lives immensely - so many innumerable things that Science has benefitted us with. But here comes Science saying something that makes us uncomfortable & suddenly everyone is a skeptic of science - what do they know? They can't do this, they can't predict that - use any & every excuse not to make a little change that will benefit the planet

    They say that if you put a frog in boiling water it will jump out immediately, but put the frog in a pan of cold water & heat the pan slowly, the frog will stay and be boiled to death! Maybe we are no better than frogs after all!

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 1:43 PM, CharlieTX wrote:

    According to a recent article in "Scientific American" titled "Ice Cores Reveal Green Artic", the Arctic was reasonably green, supporting Douglas fir and Hemlock until 2.2 million years ago. So, Mother Earth is just taking us back to where she once was. It brings to question, then, how much money is to be made by those screaming "global warming".

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 1:59 PM, CrazyDocAl wrote:

    I don't care if it's real or not. I have to earn a living so I can put food on my table and a roof over my head. That also means I need to own a car to drive to a job. Everything that makes it more expensive for me to do that means I have less money to spend on the items I want. That has a huge impact on our economy.

    I can't afford Al Gore's solution. Unlike him I do not have a spare hundred million sitting around. I can't have a mansion with more air conditioning in it than my entire block. I can't fly by private plane or be driven in a limo to work.

    So while all you "it's real" guys keep crying about how we have to act and anyone who thinks differently keep ranting I'm going to do everything I can to stop you. You may win but it will be a hollow victory once you realize you were duped.

    The fact is that to reverse the CO2 trend you would need to revert back to a time when populations could be measured in millions, not billions. A time when there were no TVs, air conditioning, cars, or any other modern convenience. I time we can never go back to. Once you realize that CO2 has been used by scientist to suck the dollars out of your wallet (never to return) leaving you with little to nothing you understand why some of us didn't buy into the hype.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 2:18 PM, longvista wrote:

    To Vanamali: The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is spending billions of dollars now chasing windmills and tens of billions later if you and other AGW proponents get their way.

    And it will do nothing to change the planet's climate back to.......wait a second --- what is the climate that we want, anyway??? Oh, yes, 1990 was a particularly 'good' year....let's go for that one.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 2:24 PM, John1821 wrote:

    Take away all the human carbon emissions & atmospheric C02 is still sitting at 385ppm! By all means I'm for cleaner energy for more reasons than one but let's quit acting like atmospheric C02 currently at 400ppm is totally a human cause. That's bologna according to a U.S. Department of Energy report. Nature is the MAIN CAUSE of atmospheric C02 sitting at 400ppm not humans. Let's not be stupid & add to the problem but let's be truthful in identifying the problem.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 2:25 PM, John1821 wrote:
  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 2:36 PM, kilroy50 wrote:

    No one is denying that global warming (and cooling) is taking place. The +problem+ is that there bad decisions being made with information from the hysteria which is being created by the alarmists.

    International Socialists like Gore are creating a false hysteria in order to scare the masses into giving up freedom and to submit to more government control, more “international” government control. Wake up, America! He who controls energy controls the world.

    As Margaret Thatcher put it: global warming is proving to be “a marvelous excuse for international socialism.”

    Global warming is indeed real and has been documented with ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years.

    What is NOT real is the quackery that humans caused (or can even affect) global warming.

    The scare tactics being perpetrated upon us are only a money/power grab scheme by bottom-feeder politicians accompanied by their so-easily-led sheeple who take their prattle, even their movies, as hard science..

    To find that my statement above is true, follow the money. See just who it is who will profit from the carbon offset, carbon tax, & etc.

    Here is truth about global warming:

    Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.

    The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.

    This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.

    Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is

    becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).

    As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).

    When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

    It's been happening for millions of years.

    The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.

    As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

    Global warming (AKA "climate change")

    Humans did not cause it

    Humans cannot stop it

    Global warming is indeed real and has been documented with ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years. What is NOT real is the quackery that humans caused (or can even affect) global warming.

    The scare tactics being perpetrated upon us are only a money/power grab scheme by bottom-feeder politicians accompanied by their so-easily-led sheeple who take their prattle, even their movies, as hard science.

    To find that my statement above is true, follow the money. See just who it is who will profit from the carbon offset, carbon tax, and other so-called green enterprises.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 2:38 PM, exposingthehype wrote:

    The author of this article is factually incorrect and needs to release a correction. She states:

    "Their message is important pushback against companies like ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM ) , which spend heavily on efforts to deny climate science in the public domain. With growing momentum behind efforts to deal with the climate change threat, ExxonMobil may find itself on the wrong side of history".

    Except this is wrong. Just see the following link: quoting the Exxon CEO as stating that global warming is quite real, but different solutions are required:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/27/us-exxon-climate-i...

    Don't believe the hype!

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 3:04 PM, valorius wrote:

    "You can never cross the same river twice."

    ~Heraclitus, father of history

    Change is constant, ubiquitous, and natural.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 3:19 PM, klausmager wrote:

    This is truly scary; clearly no one viewed the article I posted above. Let me try again to those who think that science has not taken a clear position, or that this is all some big dispute amongst scientists.

    Here is the most recent update on the status of ice in the Antarctic:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsPHytEnJM

    Here is a consensus opinion from science around the world that explains that the jet stream (trade winds) is collapsing, which is the cause of the climate changes we are experiencing today.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37wcfLeZ9u8

    Don't be a fool!

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 3:41 PM, MogumboGono wrote:

    A few scientific facts:

    • Carbon dioxide [CO2] is essential to life on earth. Plant life cannot exist without it. And we cannot exist without plant life.

    • CO2 has been up to twenty times (20X) higher in the past — when the biosphere teemed with life.

    • If we burned all the fossil fuels available, atmospheric CO2 would not double from current concentrations.

    • Atmospheric CO2 is only 400 parts per million [ppm]. Nitrogen is 780,000 ppm; Oxygen is 209,000 ppm. Argon is 100,000 ppm. Thus, "carbon" is a tiny, harmless trace gas.

    • The demonization of "carbon" [CO2] is tax-based, not science-based. There is NO testable, measurable scientific evidence showing that CO2 causes any global harm. None. AGW is an unproven conjecture; a scientifically evidence-free, untestable belief. An opinion. That is all.

    • You can see in this chart that the rise in CO2 has nothing to do with global temperature — which has been steadily declining since the 1990's:

    http://tiny.cc/ddppzw

    The entire "carbon" scare is an unscientific false alarm. I am quite surprised that the MF would print such an inflammatory, unscientific article.

    The MF needs to interview some of the many skeptical scientists who can easily show that the wild-eyed hand waving over "carbon" is based entirely on world governments wanting to tax the air we breathe.

    "Anthropogenic Global Warming" [AGW] is not a testable hypothesis, it is merely a conjecture. Therefore, it is not part of the Scientific Method.

    And without the Scientific Method, we are back in Witch Doctor territory.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Blknblue wrote:

    They ignore the facts reported in a news story back in April that included interviews with global warming experts that showed the fact that the average temperature has been stable for a decade despite a massive increase in greenhouse gases. The "scientist" had no clue how that was possible but warned it could just be a pause before the warming up. Then idiots like this come out and say it is a fact

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 4:19 PM, omckinn1 wrote:

    The cigarette companies did the cancer cover up for years with their scientists lying for them. Mean while all of my Aunts and Uncles died of lung and smoking related cancer deaths. When will this country pass laws that put company CEO's and lying scientists into prison for long periods of time for their deceit filled criminal activities.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 4:29 PM, longvista wrote:

    To omckinn!: If that were the case, I'm afraid that Mr. James Hansen, formerly of NASA and now of Columbia University, would be in jail right now. Some would argue that is exactly where he belongs - and in fact he knows the inside of several quite intimately.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 4:48 PM, steve1307 wrote:

    How exactly are deniers preventing the man made global warming crowd from implementing their solutions?

    Are they blocking windmill installation? Protesting nuclear power? Outlawing solar panels? Or, would that be other progressives?

    Did deniers add a 30% tariff on low cost Chinese solar panels, just as the price was approaching the tipping point?

    Are deniers preventing research on alternative fuels?

    For that matter, what is the alternative source of energy? A patchwork of intermittent, low density, power sources, and no means of storing energy for use at night, or on windless nights.

    Are there alternative fuels for transportation? No. We see how CO2 "neutral" ethanol is. Cars run on veggie oil / home brew bio-diesel were a big hit until the environmentalists got in the way.

    Have any of the "breakthroughs" they tout gone beyond the funding stage? Where is algae oil (IMHO, the only viable solution), or alcohol from switch grass?

    Have they even pushed hard to convert all the coal fired plants to methane to reduce CO2 emissions by 50+% (no - they are busy protesting fracking).

    Those want to kill productivity and the economy by halting the use of coal and oil, without having any viable alternative, are the true deniers, as they are denying the obvious.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 5:20 PM, agsb02 wrote:

    Remember Global warming has not won any Nobel Science Prize or any science prize that I am aware. As far as I know, no professor that believes it has had any paper on it written in any prominent scientific journals!

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 5:57 PM, JePonce wrote:

    Man-made global warming qualifies as a hypothesis at best.

    Consensus is not science.

    Scientists cannot explain gravity except in general terms, but would have you believe they can re-engineer Mother Nature. Not a chance.

    The fastest way to destroy a free market economy is to insure there is insufficient energy to meet the growing needs.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 6:44 PM, SaviorKing wrote:

    Al Gore tried this before, back when it was called global warming. Only problem there was he was caught in a scandal trying to cook the numbers they received to make it look like mankind was directly involved with the temperature change on the earth (look up Climate-gate for more information). The actual numbers showed that there was no conclusive evidence that human beings directly effect the planet's temperature. Now they have repackaged it, scrapped Gore as their spokes person and call it climate change. Same exact cause as before. This time they have the already adjusted data exposed in climate gate, with all the phony hypothesis' to back it up. They want to tax us for breathing folks. This is all leading to a carbon tax. That is what the whole purpose of words like 'carbon foot print' and 'o-zone depletion' come from. There is NO conclusive evidence that CO2 emissions directly impact the earth. Its just another global money making scheme.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 7:02 PM, RJFL99 wrote:

    Follow the money, alright, right to algore's pockets!

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 8:11 PM, spydercoendura wrote:

    "DENIERS" is the same moniker attached to those of us who insisted that the Benghazi attack was NOT over a youtube video.

  • Report this Comment On July 04, 2013, at 9:51 PM, je4sprentall9 wrote:

    Man made globel warning makes no since at all. I have done lots of reading on this and it is a joke on all people to get more money out of your pocket and you really think your saving the earth........it is the biggest lie ever told and everyone has bought into it like a flock of dumb sheep! yes the earth is warming a little but in order to make man made globel warming fit the charts they left out the 70s data all togather a/c them they said we were going in to anthor ice age at a rapid rate! Just follow the money right to Al Gore and Washington! Make yourself feel good and pay lots more money in taxs and for all other goods! Please do your reserch and you will come to the same conclustion I have, just study it and don't believe all this crazy lies out of Washington......our Gov. is already out of control and think they can do whatever they want to do to the people and we will just take there crap..wake up and think for yourself..thanks JES

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 3:08 AM, anamandy wrote:

    Hey Libs, I'm still waiting for the impending Ice Age you guys were trying to convince us was going to happen in the '80s. Or how about the population explosion you warned us about in the '70s? You know, the one were there would be so many people on earth there wouldn't be enough food to feed them all so people, as a result, would be forced to cannibalize each other? The movie Soylent Green was even produced during that hysteria. Thanks to that massive theoretical mistake accepted as fact by liberals seeking a campaign to control the masses, millions of abortions and sterilizations were performed, lots of them against the victims will I might add, and families discouraged from having children, that a majority of the countries on earth now have populations so low they can no longer sustain themselves. And now you want us to accept as fact your latest scam? Why should we believe any theory you have when your tract record is so deadly wrong?

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 5:53 AM, luckyagain wrote:

    The US military says that global warming is real. Maybe the US military has been taken over by Al Gore but I kind of doubt it. Do a search of "us military global warming" to read about it.

    NASA says that global warming is real. Maybe the scientists at NASA are lying about it but I kind of doubt it. Do a search of "nasa global warming" and read about it.

    Or listen to Fox News which is full of scientists kike Rush and believe them.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 11:55 AM, pixelpusher220 wrote:

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/13-graphs-that-suggest-the...

    The one thing in common? We started industrializing right about the time these massive changes started happening.

    Coincidence? Possibly, but the likelihood is staggeringly low...

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 12:20 PM, anamandy wrote:

    luckyagain, global warming has been going on since the planet was formed else how would you explain that 6000 years ago the Sahara Desert., a land mass the size of North America, was once a savana? Mankind couldn't have caused that change could they? Unless you think a caveman's campfire did all that damage.

    Bottom line is liberals are trying to capitalize off a natural phenomenon that is unmanagable.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 3:38 PM, kmacattack wrote:

    Some Kook just set a world record for posting replies under 20 different handles. He's such an intellectual that he's unable to change his verbiage at all in order that readers would be FOOLED. I guess he thought that since this article was written for the benefit of all the "Motley Fools" that we would never notice.

    A few months back, the Koch brothers' lead "scientist" severed ties with the Kochs. He was the man who FAUX pretend "news" could always dig up to recite the corporate position for his employers, the Sons of Birchers. The father of David and Charles Koch was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society which was laughed out of Washington in the 1960's.

    The Birchers, Atheist Sociopath Ayn Rand (Congressman Paul Ryan's IDOL), and the American Nazi Party were all viewed as so extreme that they made Barry Goldwater look like a Communist.

    The Birchers were best known for littering the nation's highways with billboards demanding that congress "IMPEACH (Supreme Court Justice) EARL WARREN.". The Birchers now call themselves "Libertarians", which translates into "If I want to poison the air with my smokestacks, buy Congress, Governors, State Legislators and even County Commissioners with campaign contributions I should have the right to do so. If I don't feel like paying taxes, I shouldn't be forced to do so either."

    Ms Rand made the same mistake as many republican candidates made in the last election. She TOLD THE TRUTH about what she believed and what she would do regarding public policy if she had the opportunity. She was Interviewed by Mike Wallace, father of Fox's Chris Wallace, who, unlike his son, was a great Investigative journalist. "Intellectual" Ayn Rand was dumb enough to tell the American Public that she believed ALL SOCIAL PROGRAMS were evil and should be ended. The few people who were still listening were then told that if they believed in God, or even gave to Charity, they were idiots. For 25 years, Congressman Paul Ryan worshiped Ms Rand and her wacky ideas, until it was pointed out to him about a year ago that she was an Atheist. And he could probably win the republican nomination in 2016, despite his "corrupted hard drive." If she had only left out the part about religion, he would still describe her as his "Mentor." Why did it take him 25 years to discover that she was an Atheist if he is so bright?

    The American Nazi party gained fame by dressing up like the Hitler Youth on Saturdays and marching through Jewish communities like Skokie, Illinois.

    The Randians, the John Birchers (now called Libertarians) and the Nazi wanna be's now prefer to be called the TEA PARTY. The biggest difference in the Nazis and the Tea Party members is that the Nazi's had a spell checker proof read their signs before they appeared on TV. If you would like to know the history of where the Tea Party obtained their wacky ideas, watch Mike Wallace's 1959 interview with Ayn Rand on You Tube. The interview was proudly posted for the world to view by a right wing "think tank" group

    Much like the sons of Kings, who are born Princes, David and Charles Koch were Sons of Birchers without having to earn the title. They have certainly made their departed father proud as he looks UP at them. They were born millionaires, since their father owned oil refineries, but they have expanded and diversified to the point that we can't take a good CRAP without the Koch's collecting a royalty, since they are the largest toilet paper manufacturer in the world.

    One of their more interesting business ventures is their partnership with a "Christian non profit charitable" group which donated millions of dollars to "Good conservative Christian republican candidates" in the last election. The Business is a Chinese Whore House, Gambling Casino, and Abortion clinic complex in the Northern Marianas Is. The whore house is considered a "missionary project" since the hookers are all given a Bible when they arrive on the boat from China. The only Missionary aspect to this "business" is the position assumed by the hookers in their daily work routine. The abortion clinic is mostly used by the prostitutes if they become pregnant. This "Christian Mission" demands that if they get pregnant, they can either get an abortion, or be on the next boat back to China. Family values at work in real life?

    Like Karl Rove's "non profit charitable" organization, I'm pretty sure this was a group which was "targeted" by the IRS as a tax dodger.

    At least the Birchers weren't stupid enough to dress up on Saturdays like the Hitler Youth and march through Jewish suburb Skokie, Illinois. The John Birchers just made themselves known by littering the nation's highways with billboards demanding that Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren be Impeached.

    The Birchers/ Libertarian/ Koch brothers leading "expert" who had been denying the FACT that global warming is occurring resigned his position with the Koch brothers when he came to the obvious conclusion that he was WRONG. The global warming that he said WASN'T CAUSED BY HUMANS. The man held a press conference and apologized to the country for aiding those opposed to carbon restrictions. He said that he had come to the conclusion that Global Warming was indeed occurring, and that it was the result of human activity.

    The story is very easy to find by Googling it. In July of last year, the story ran in the Christian Science monitor. "Richard Muller, Koch brothers funded scientist now admits he was wrong about global warming."

    What does the poster who used aobut 20 different "handles" above think about this reversal of fortune for the Kochs? The Kochs, Big Oil and the Coal Lobby, which are all huge polluters, bought Mitch McConnell with $550,000 in campaign money just before the energy bill was due for a vote. 59 Senators, and the desires of 85% of Americans, were defeated with ONE VOTE by McConnell who filibustered the bill.

    This obstruction has prevented the US from becoming totally energy independent of OPEC within 5 years, but despite that obstacle, the natural gas superhighway is about 50% complete, and the nation's trucking fleet is beginning to convert from Dirty Burning OPEC diesel to clean burning 100% American made natural gas fuel. Compressed Natural gas fuel, by the way, sells for as low as $0.79 per gallon in this area.

    Natural gas will FORCE Big oil to lower gasoline and diesel prices. If they don't, they risk not only losing the trucking industry, which consumes 60% of transportation fuel, but they risk losing the entire country's business.

    Oh well, I guess all that oil being transported to the Gulf coast on the Keystone pipeline can be loaded on ships and sent to China, which I think was a contingency plan all along.

    Thanks again to the Koch Brothers former employee, physicist Richard Muller, for stepping up and admitting that he was wrong and that HUMAN CAUSED Global Warming is a FACT.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 3:50 PM, kmacattack wrote:

    If you read the above comments, it is pretty apparant that ONE person posted about 20 times under different "handles." The guy isn't stupid, he's just not smart enough to know how to reword his posts to the point that it isn't obvious what he has done.

    I suspect that he is employed in the oil industry, and is reciting the Exxon Bible word for word.

    The problem he now has is that the leading scientist who appeared on Fox every time the energy bill was coming up for a vote, resigned his position with Koch Industries so he could talk freely. Physicist Richard Muller APOLOGIZED to the American public about a year ago for his denial of Global Warming and admitted that he was DEAD WRONG. He said that not only is Global Warming a FACT, it is WITHOUT QUESTION mostly caused by Human Activity and carbon emissions.

    I guess that blows Rush Limbaugh's theory out of the tub that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by FARTING COWS in California, since Rush was a first semester college drop out. I'd like to see a monitor attached to Rush to see exactly how much methane HE is responsible for emitting.

    I thought he promised to move to Costa Rica if Obama won re election. What Happened? Would they not let him import his warehouse full of Oxycontin?

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 9:58 PM, longvista wrote:

    OK, 2 questions:

    1) what are the aliases of the 20- times transgressor? who is he/she?

    2) Not that it has any impact in the science, but please provide a link to Muller's apology.

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 12:52 PM, borneofan wrote:

    The War on Weather is so similar to the War on Drugs, Crime, Poverty, Immigrants, Health and the endless Wars on not-white-enoughs internal or external.

    Demonize opposition, pay off and paper over dissenting opinion, proselytize the greater good, say nothing of the risks of concentrated government power. Government science need not be good, or even science. Its purpose is to manufacture consent and concentrate power, and then monetize policy for the insiders. Witness the "science" behind the red-light cash flow camera industry.

    The same bureaucrats in the IRS, NSA, TSA, DOT, FICA... will now "control" the weather. They are too big to fail. I suspect taxes might go up to support YAM, yet another mandate.

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 1:43 PM, EBerg13 wrote:

    Suggest that those who believe in global warming -- which I think is akin to believing the world is round -- but do not like government intrusion, should check out Fuel Freedom Foundation (http://www.fuelfreedom.org/) which believed that DEregulation can solve a great many of our fossil fuel problems.

    Big Money supports the climate change deniers, and makes it impossible for individual citizens to change. This foundation lays out some guidelines that simply make sense whether or not you accept the notion that the world's weather is getting strange and that man is the cause.

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 4:38 PM, wjcoffman wrote:

    Why didn't Nadal and Federer make it further at Wimbledon this year?

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 4:42 PM, lwbaum wrote:

    Wow! I think the most interesting thing about the above debate among readers is that there is so much debate. Why?

  • Report this Comment On July 08, 2013, at 7:50 PM, todamo13 wrote:

    Wow, a lot of ostriches pulled their heads out of the sand to comment on this article...

    The legacy we leave can either be a world that is polluted, degraded, and broken, thanks to our short-sighted greed and stupidity (Big Oil)... or one where we've gotten our act together and switched from dirty fossil fuels to clean renewables and a generally more sustainable lifestyle.

    And there's so much opportunity in making a better world! Solar gets more affordable every day, and there are millions of rooftops that could have panels... As more people wake up to the nightmare of our industrial food supply, we'll need many, many small sustainable organic farms to replace the CAFOs and corn monocultures. And on and on.

    The massive corporate interests (Big Ag, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc) certainly won't make it easy, but if enough people realize we don't need them and that there's a better way, we can succeed.

    Thanks for the article.

  • Report this Comment On July 13, 2013, at 5:02 PM, cwon14 wrote:

    We should consider the massive malinvestment and special interests associated to climate fraud;

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/orig...

    I think it's mostly driven on political dogma, hard left anti-market dogma but money has an impact for some.

  • Report this Comment On July 21, 2013, at 2:08 PM, greencharlie wrote:

    Looking for NAMES of insurance companies that are betting against climate change. Then I can put all my money in those companies so I can make billions of dollars! Names please. Just want to put my money in such a sure thing. Fellow deniers - here's our chance to take all those greenies money! SPREAD THE WORD!

  • Report this Comment On January 18, 2014, at 2:25 PM, geezer42 wrote:

    I skimmed the comments. Almost all deny the widely accepted science. Almost all raise issues with it that are well addressed at the sites mentioned in the video.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com has a list of the professional deniers' favorite talking points, and explains the mistakes in each. If you prefer a video, the one at http://www.jamespowell.org/ explains the evidence for manmade global warming (AGW) in 12 minutes.

    Two years ago the Guardian and the Independent investigated the anti-science public relations "industry", and last year Robert Brulle at Drexel did it with scientific rigor. Search "Brulle pdf institutionalizing delay" for his peer reviewed paper implicating the crackpots you'd expect.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2523406, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/2/2014 12:47:57 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement