Other Answers (8)

• Everything you said is equally applicable to religion. Lots of people have studied religion and people who belong to religious faith can by quite critical of those who deny their faith.
  
  Or have you bought into the propaganda that 99% or all experts agree, and the ones that do not are lunatics and paranoid conspiracy theorists. A survey done by climatologists shows that only 56% of them agree with the notion that the rise in temperatures are due to man. And of those 56%, only 9% are absolutely, 100% certain. Which begs the question, if they are dishonest about this issue, what other issues are they being dishonest?
  http://downloads.heartland.org/2086111.p...
  
  Peter Chylek from Los Alamos National Lab published an article on the cooling impact of aerosols and found it to be much lower than expected. He also concluded the climate was not as sensitive to rising CO2 as once thought.
  http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate...
  
  Stephen E. Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab, and the scientist responsible for the Acid Rain legislation in the 1990s, published a peer-reviewed paper with a new estimate of climate sensitivity of rising CO2. He concluded the climate is only about one-third as sensitive as the IPCC had estimated.
  http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCa...
  
  Just recently, people have begun to do %26quot;forecast verifications%26quot; on predictions about global warming. James Hansen offered one prediction before Congress in 1988 (when Al Gore was still a senator) and the IPCC published one in 1990. It seems both of them dramatically overestimated how much temperatures would rise. We now have 20 years of data to look at and they were just flat wrong.
  http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2602
  http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet...
  
  Why should we spend billions of dollars to mitigate something the science tell us is not going to be a problem? We should be investing our money into developing new energy technologies, not into carbon credits. Al Gore%26#039;s company will make hundreds of millions of dollars trading carbon credits and we will not be any closer to independence from foreign oil.
  
  Even the Washington Post admits that the number of skeptical scientists is growing. The science is no longer on the side of the alarmists.
• Fred, I am a skeptic, not a denier. I believe in Global Warming, but I am not yet totally convinced that man made CO2 is the cause. It is important we get it right.
  
  I have no problem with using alternative forms of energy to reduce pollution and our dependence on foreign oil. It is all good.
  
  I believe well meaning %26quot;Environmentalists%26quot; like yourself killed our primary viable option for alternative energy in the 80%26#039;s by killing Nuclear power, when our engineers and scientists were trying to get off oil. Now we are worse off because of decisions based on %26quot;Feelings%26quot;, not facts.
  
  I am an Engineer. I have spent probably more years than most on this site have lived studying energy sources and their cost/viability.
  
  Why do you assume skeptics are %26quot;Ignorant%26quot;, %26quot;Dumb%26quot;, etc.? Obviously, this is not true. If you read or study many of the skeptics papers, they are at least as well educated and experienced as the IPCC, and much more educated and experienced than the Politicians and Actors which are proponents.
  
  Have a great day, mate.