The statistic that 31,478 "American scientists" is nothing short of a sham. Check out the website that collects these signatures. Anyone regardless of their expertise or education in the sciences can sign this petition. There's no verification process. See for yourself http://www.petitionproject.org/

I strongly disagree with your assertion that the Petition Project is evidence of a solid argument against global warming. The website relies on a single article from Robinson, Robinson, and Soon to support the petition. However, red flags should immediately go off when the reader sees that the article was published by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the same journal that as recently as 2007 published an article questioning the link between HIV and AIDS. What does medicine have to do with climate science anyway? Would anyone in the HVAC industry consider this journal a reputable source of research on radiant floor heating? I doubt it. So then why would someone trust it as a key source for global warming research?

It is hard to give climate scientists and environmental fanatics much creditability. The climate scientists get their income and expensive toys by continuously upping the ominous predictions. If they said today everything looks okay. Tomorrow they’d all be out of a job. What you will not read about is the fact that Antarctica sea ice is over 1 million square kilometers over its 1979 – 2000 statistical mean for this time of year. Refers: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
The sea ice in the artic is the greatest quantity for this time of year since 2002 and heading toward a predicted path that is near or above the 1979- 2000 statistical norm.
Refers: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

What you will also hear very little about is for the past two years glaciers in Alaska and Norway have started growing again for the first time in two hundred years. This all coincides with the failure of Sun Spot Cycle 24 to start contrary to all computer models and expert opinion. Cold periods have in the past show strong correlation with sun activity. Refers: http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=346 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum

Man Made Global Warming is religion and scientific and political opportunism much more than fact.

Pardon the tardiness, I was on vacation. As for Tom and Robb, you have a point. Maybe hanging the arguement on the petition project was a bit shortsighted. In my defense, the petition project was meant solely to pose a question...to get folks thinking.

There are other sources out there. Not everyone agrees wholeheartedly with the causes of global warming and their effects. In March 2009, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works posted a blog covering a United Nations Conference. Part of it read — "The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore." The latest number of dissenting scientists reported by the site was 700. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6)

As for a religion CommanderBill, not sure I would go quite that far, but I agree that the actual cause of global warming (if it exists) is more than just one culprit. I don't negate that we have climate issues, but I am concerned that many Americans are just following "the crowd".

Just because much of the world believe's something is true, doesn't mean that it is. Don't forget, in Columbus' day, it was commonly thought that the world was flat.

Tom’s comment that the Petition Project is “nothing short of a shame” is not accurate. There has been much consternation and denial by the Green movement when this petition was first published. Attempts at attacking the project’s validity on the basis of false representation have resulted in little documented determination of such fraud. Moreover since that time numerous peer reviewed articles have been published attacking the premises of Man-Made Global Warming. Refers:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Ms. Harris did not approve of my characterization of the Man-Made Global Warming movement as religion. The Green movement in general is the perfect storm of cultural phenomena. It is promoted for opportunism; political, scholastic as well as economic motivations. It has a strong anti-Western and anti-modern industrialism flavor. Many of the movement’s foot soldiers are fanatics who express saving the “environment” in religious terms. Science is often the dressing to a core of other motives many having a deep hatred for humans and their industrial culture.

Climatology is inexact science like many fields that can be politicized and used for other reasons. There is much precedence for this prostitution of inexact science to serve a political ends. Eugenics of the 1920s-40s as eloquently discussed by Michael Crichton has many parallels to the Green movement of today. Refers: http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

More recently the nature / nurture and gender / behavior debates of the 1960-80s are excellent examples of where grants, dissertations, tenure, positions, fame and fortune were obtained by the professing what was political correct but contrary to actual science.

The concept of Man-Made Global Warming would be humorous if it weren’t the fact that its adherents wish to essentially destroy much of modern technological society with expensive solutions to none problems.

The science is loose enough to fit any conclusion their political master’s desire. The popular media is malleable enough to publish gloom and doom predictions of biblical proportions while ignoring contrary opinion.

Factors like the fact when Sunspot Cycle 23 was at maximum there were noted and inconvenient observations that there was global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Triton and Pluto. The preponderance of evidence historical, observational and related to ice studies show climate and sun associated phenomena closely related.

Now Sunspot Cycle 24 refuses to start and significant evidence amasses of a global cooling trend the true believers ignore these facts and continue to promote an economic policy that will cost trillions and negatively impact the economy of the Western World.

Ms. Harris is correct to ask the question of what if it isn’t true and we are going down a road of economic destruction for no reason. More people need to become aware of the costs associated with the Green movement and the lack of Science behind the passion.

Yes, there are some climate scientists that are skeptical or disagree with global warming. Scientists often question and disagree with each others’ work. But it is really an issue of the quantity and quality of science that is available. Do we as society choose to act on the findings of hundreds of scientists with peer reviewed articles that support the idea of human caused climate change or do you believe the small minority that have little in the way of research to support their skepticism.
There are likely some fringe groups among global warming believers that want to see all technology destroyed, but let’s also acknowledge the fact that among the global warming skeptics including Senator Inhofe whose blog has been referenced several times in previous posts has a powerful incentive to do whatever he can to refute the existence of global warming and protect the oil and gas interests that contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.
Even if one is skeptical of global warming, isn’t it prudent to begin to address it while we continue to do further research. We wear seat belts and insure our cars to protect as and help us recover in the event of accident even though we only have a relatively small chance of being involved in an accident on any given trip. Why shouldn’t we take steps now to reduce our risk of climate change, and if at some point in the future we find out that global warming science was wrong, what will we lose? We will have had to invest a significant amount of money, but in return we will probably have a more energy efficient economy and more renewable energy assets. We will probably import less oil from volatile and sometimes hostel areas of the world and have less of a need to rip apart our mountains for coal to burn and as a result our air and water will be less polluted with mercury and other pollutants. Our civilization will be that much closer to weaning itself off of fossil fuels, which I believe we can all agree will run out some day and long before that become increasing expensive. I wish I could get these sort benefits from my auto insurance premiums.

Thank goodness for Angela! someone has finally decided to not follow the political pied-piper. Does anyone remember about 10 years ago when when the politicians were warning us about global cooling?

Robb’s comments though sounding reasonable on the surface is filled with misconceptions, misunderstandings and misstatements. The nature of the inexact science of climatologically predictions makes their validity even less than that of say economic or any sociological prophecy. Using super computers, advanced models, PhDs and Nobel laureates a five year economic prediction isn’t worth the paper it is written on. Weather is forecasted using essentially the same physical understanding of nature and the advanced tools of the trade as climate studies. It is still impossible to predict the weather with any accuracy more than a day or two into the future. For humanity to spend trillions of dollars and in a very real degree deindustrialize for predictions of gloom and doom 30 to 100 years hence that are absolutely guaranteed to be wrong is foolish in the extreme.

The Green movement has a long history of “sky is falling” predictive nonsense. Refers: http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-predictions-of-1970-the-reason-you-should-not-believe-earth-day-predictions-of-2009 Year after year the more main stream scientific community gives their own prophecies usually with equal inaccuracy. Hurricanes, global sea ice, raising temperatures and tornadoes all have been the fodder for the media. Virtually none of these well publicized forecasts of doom have occurred at the predictive intensity. For example just one year ago it was wildly reported that Scientists of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado predicted an ice free North Pole during the summer of 2008. What actually occurred was an increase of coverage by over 300,000 square kilometers from the year before. North Pole sea ice has been thickening and expanding ever since now being not very close to its historic statistical mean.

Just last month the media widely reported the results of a study by of group led by Jonathan Bamber, a professor at the University of Bristol in England about the potential disaster if the Antarctic ice sheet melted. What was totally missing in the report was the fact that Antarctic ice has been thickening and expanding in recent years. Presently there is over 1,000,000 square kilometers MORE sea ice then the historic mean surrounding Antarctica.

Robb implied that positively impacting the climate in a meaningful way will be painless and without substantial cost. You know like putting on your seat belt? Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Obama administration has already blocked drilling for oil off the coasts, other federal lands and the development of oil shale. Gas prices are once again on the raise and the only solution being articulated is to drive a scooter or a expensive dangerous mini-cars that serve the needs of only a few. Americans will die because of a self generated fuel crisis.

50% of electricity is generated from coal. The Obama Administration has shown a hostility to coal electrical generation under the doctrine of Global Warming. To shift energy production to wind and solar would be almost incomprehensively expensive and would result in an unreliable system that covers the landscape and provides power three to seven times more costly than present technology.

Modern civilization is based on cheap readily available energy. Without such a source civilization will stagnate. In particular the 3rd world will starve and fester in disease and chaos. The move to produce energy out of food has already harmfully impacted the 3rd world’s ability to buy food.

Indeed the climate must be protected and petroleum will eventually run out. However stopping development of known domestic resources because of inflammatory and inaccurate self serving prophecies of disaster is unjustified and ill advised. There are solutions like nuclear power and hydrogen that in a logical well engineered long range plan can be implemented that can protect the planet as well as allow for continued wealth generation and technological development. Refers: http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/Poweranddamstoc/energy/meltdown.htm

I agree with Gary ... thank goodness for Angela and Commanderbill. The world needs more people to do the research and not follow what main stream media tells us.

Thank you to those who support and those who don't support my different opinions. It is our differences in opinion that make the world a more interesting place to live. I am always glad to have an open discussion.

Keep the comments coming.