Posted in: Theories

Global Warming Losing Support In US, Climate Change Considered A Hoax

Global Warming Facts Losing Support In US, Considered A Fake Climate Change Hoax

So-called global warming facts are losing support in the United States, with some claiming it’s all a fake climate change hoax.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, when it comes to the polar vortex, global warming had some Americans questioning whether climate change science messed up big time. After all, it seems counter-intuitive that the global temperature average would cause some locations to experience colder-than-usual weather. When photos of the frozen Niagara Falls came out, some people pointed out this was similar to weather conditions in the early 1900′s.

Of course, highlighting one temperature extreme over another is not what is at stake. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is based upon the entire world’s average temperature, so while North America is freezing, Australia was experiencing record highs. It’s also possible for the global average to be still rising while some localized weather conditions experience a cooling trend over a period of years.

Global Warming Hoax?

Claims of a global warming hoax have spread since the latest UN IPCC report on climate change. Recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007. Unfortunately, climatologists are forced to rely on statistical computer models in order to derive their predictions. These climate models have difficulty accurately simulating all the potential parameters and can vary all over the map as shown by this graph:

Global Warming Climate Change Prediction ModelAs you can see, some of the climate models predict a cooling trend starting around 2050 while the majority predict various degrees of warming, with some ending in a plateau.

Regardless of the science, those claiming a global warming hoax are the usual suspects, with Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, and Sean Hannity denouncing climate change science. This divide seems to fall along political lines since the Huffington Post claimed “this frigid weather is another example of the kind of violent and abrupt climate change that results from global warming.”

Climate Change Polls

Apparently, Americans are increasingly being convinced that global warming is a hoax, rising seven percentage points over the last year to 23 percent. But 63 percent of Americans still believe in climate chance science, and 53 percent are “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the long term ramifications. But the polling data also suggests belief in global warming remained the same, but the numbers of the minority rose because of people who previously “didn’t know” now made up their mind.

Interestingly enough, it’s also stated that when it comes to active climate scientists “more than 80 percent” agree with the consensus on climate change science. But out of the Americans who believe the same, only 47 percent agree that human activity is the primary factor while 37 percent believe natural variations to the climate are at fault for the warming trend.

Considering that less than half of all Americans believe in anthropogenic human warming specifically, it’s perhaps not surprising that Pew Research Center found only 28 percent believe “dealing with global warming” is a top priority, which has gone down from 38 percent in 2007. Interestingly enough, even among Democrats the political support for implementing policies based upon global warming has fallen down to 38 percent.

Besides the recent cold weather snap, it’s possible Americans have been influenced by the Climategate scandal, which claimed to show the scientists are “concealing” data, focused on politics instead of science, and are readily admitting internally that climate change “science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.” Some of the other predictions made about the United States also did not come about, with the major one being an increase in hurricane activity.

Do you think so-called global warming facts are based upon a hoax? If not, do you think the climate change is due to natural fluctuations or do you consider human pollution an overwhelming factor?

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

56 Responses to “Global Warming Losing Support In US, Climate Change Considered A Hoax”

  1. John Lair

    Given that the sun is responsible for 97% of our weather, with Earth's natural phenomena accounting for nearly 3%, man's influence on global temperatures is negligible; but the scientists don't want to talk about that.

  2. Ryan Johnson

    I didn't realize you were a scientist yourself. Which degrees do you hold exactly?

  3. John Perram

    Please explain why no global warming for 17 years and 4 months according to RSS satellite data.

  4. Alex Moore

    I'm afraid you're wrong there. The sun has very little effect- sadly. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes the infra-red (heat) radiation to get trapped in the atmosphere. That's why most planets are cold as fuck: they have no atmosphere to trap the heat. what we do to our atmosphere has a big impact on how much heat it retains, and thus our climate.

  5. John Lair

    WRONG! – Many planets have atmospheres, including Mercury & Venus ( very hot) and Neptune & Uranus (very cold). Temperature differences are due to distance from sun. As far as carbon monoxide: At 38 parts-per-billion, it's up less than 1 part-per-billion in the last 100 years. Also, plant life thrives on CO2; that's why our planet is so green. And last, volcanoes spew more CO2 in one eruption than man produces in 100 years. check your college science.

  6. Alex Moore

    John Lair Mercury and venus are hot because they have atmospheres full of CO2- somewhat my point…neptune and uranus are very far away, so yes, they're cold.
    however, how do you explain mars, which is right next to us, but very very cold. what about the moon? which has the same average distance from the sun as us, but is also very cold? clearly, i would be foolish to suggest that our distance from the sun is not of massive importance, but we are talking about very delicate systems.
    I study physics at university, fyi.
    C02 from volcanoes has, fortunately, kept the planet warm by keeping the greenhouse effect in play. when the earth was more geologically active, in the age of the dinosaurs, the planet was indeed a lot hotter. what's alarming is that we are pumping so much greenhouse gases (carbon DIOXIDE (not monoxide) and methane, which is 4x more potent) that we are disturbing the very sensitive balances. 2 degrees may not sound a lot, but it's enough to disturb the inter-continental air currents- that's what's caused the very cold weather in the north US atm.

  7. Harry Moutzalias

    You easily frightened fools need to forget about this global warming nonsense and worry about real problems like the economy for crying out loud.

  8. John Lair

    I wasn't saying that CO2 doesn't play a part, I'm saying man's contribution is insignificant. You didn't address the fact that CO2 levels have increased less than 1 ppb in a hundreds years even with Mts. St. Helens & Pinatubo erupting, which combined produced more CO2 than man. You also don't address the historical sun cycles which German scientists say reached its highest point several years ago & now we are entering a cooling era. Finally, who can say what the natural temp of the Earth is supposed to be? Remember, Greenland was green when it was named; now it's covered in ice.

  9. Alex Moore

    if we don't sort climate change the economy is fucked. simple as.

  10. Josh Felton Mathews

    Alex Moore, Mercury does not have an atmosphere at all due to its proximity to the sun.

  11. John Lair

    Alex – I don't trust the liberal scientific community who bases all their conclusions on computer models that rely entirely on information inputted. It's called GIGO – garbage in, garbage out. My information comes from a college text, not the consensus (opinion) of a bunch of scientists who rely on the myth of man-made global warming for funding by liberal governments and institutions.

  12. Glen Herbert

    Remember the new ice age was coming in the 70's. The new green is the old red.

  13. Alex Moore

    Josh Felton Mathews you're picking up on a point completely irrelevant to the argument. it's hot. it's really fucking close to the sun. so for the sake of our argument of whether an atmosphere makes a planet warm it's irrelevant. only planets near earth (or, tbh, just earth) can be considered.

  14. Alex Moore

    John Lair believe me, my university, imperial college, gets most of funding from big corporate giants (like shell) who would LOVE IT if global warming went away. scientists, however, are bound by the "scientific method" to report only what they find. scientists just aren't as interested in politics as everyone presumes them to be…they just care about science.

    and you say "garbage in". do you think that the Mauna Loa Observatory (in hawaii) just 'makes up' the readings about C02? and would you address the fact that C02 has gone up by nearly 25% in 40 years (a huge amount, by the way). It is estimated that the levels of C02 are the highest for over 800,000 years. that's pretty significant, imo.

    ps, if you want to find me the figures that say C02 has gone up by 1 part per billion (as opposed to 100 pp MILLION) i'd be happy to take a look. What remains, however, is multiple observation stations, all around the world, from Hawaii to the arctic, that have all found the same thing: a massive rise in C02 levels that shows no signs of abating.

    I also want to tell you (no judgement- i had to google this myself) WHY C02 means the planet retains heat. The C02 molecule is of such a size and shape that it absorbs and emits radiation of the infrared (heat) type (think infrared cameras). rather than allowing this heat radiation from the earth's surface to pass straight through it the C02 gas absorbs it, and then emits it again. HOWEVER, half of the radiation gets emitted BACK down to the earth, rather than away harmlessly into space. herein lies the problem- too much C02 means too much heat is trapped. unfortunately, it's a bit of a slippery slope: as increased temperatures mean less polar ice. less polar ice means less of the sun's light is reflected straight back into space (the ice caps act like mirrors) and so the earth gets EVEn hotter. As i said before, although we're talking about a tiny portion of the atmosphere (only 400ppm- that's like, what, 0.04%) we are also talking about a very delicate balance. imagine if the level of oxygen went down by 25%!! it would be catastrophic!!

  15. Josh Felton Mathews

    Alex Moore, I am just debunking some of your credibility. If you were a physics major at a university, then why wouldn't you know that simple fact? Furthermore, it proves you did not do your research when posting that comment. I will say that during the day, Mercury is much, much hotter than during the night, only because it doesn't have an atmosphere to even-out the temperature. That's what atmospheres do for Venus, Earth, and even Mars. The three planets' temperatures are relative to their position to the sun. Venus is hot, Earth is mild, and Mars is cool. You're right, Venus' atmosphere is composed of mostly carbon dioxide with a hint of nitrogen. You're right, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It allows thermal energy from the sun to permeate to the surface, but it blocks the heat from escaping. But Venus is an extreme.
    And it also receives higher concentrations of energy due to its closer proximity to the sun, yielding average temperatures in excess of 400 degrees celsius. Now let's compare that to the Earth, where the average temperature is instead 14-15 degrees celsius. According to CO2Now.org, the concentration of Co2 has risen from about 315 ppm to 396 ppm. This was measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory. If you know your geography, Mauna Loa is the big volcano in Hawaii. Volcanoes produce CO2. Even NOAA gets these CO2 concentrations from Mauna Loa. But why not get averages from different locations all throughout the world? Did they even take into account that Mauna Loa is an active volcano? Of course there's going to be more CO2 there, its pumping CO2, SO2, and a number of other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Sure Co2 emissions probably slightly effect the average temperature of the Earth. Or it might be more evenly spreading out heat energy from the sun. It snowed in Egypt and Israel just a few weeks ago. The snow caps are warming. It seems to be getting cooler in warmer climates and warmer in cooler climates. But then again, we've only been tracking the warming of the Earth in relation to Co2 concentration since 1955. 70 years of research are insubstantial on the grand scale of the earth's history. Who knows, maybe this is just a cycle.

    But forget all of that. Forget global warming. It is not the issue. And the media doesn't realize that. No one really realizes that, no matter if they are conservative, liberal, or "unbiased" scientists. The real issue is pollution in general. We pollute co2 into the atmosphere which reacts to form carbonic acid destroying coral reefs. We pollute a hell of a lot worse things into our drinking water and the air we breath. Pesticides, benzenes, paints, things totally unnatural. These pollutants destroy ecosystems and are detrimental to human health. We need to stop putting the cart before the horse. Global warming in the grand scheme of things does little to human society and life itself. Pollution is an immediate threat to all forms of life on Earth. Both are related, but pollution effects us first and leaves the biggest blow.

  16. John Lair

    Alex: I had my decimal misplaced. CO2 level is .038%; sorry. But you missed my point. I didn't say CO2 wasn't a problem; I said man plays an insignificant role in it. Man's contribution is about .14% of the .038%, which puts man's contribution at about .00053% of the total. By the way, if the ice is melting so much, how did scientists investigating polar ice melting get stuck in the ice in the middle of Antarctic summer?

  17. Josh Felton Mathews

    John Lair Its actually the land ice that's melting. That doesn't mean the sea ice isn't freezing. At the same time, that would not make sense, as salt water has a lower freezing point than freshwater.

  18. Robert Rodriguez

    John Lair Isn't Hannity on yet with the latest scientific facts about global warming from professor Rush Limbaugh?
    Let face it, you are not convince because of your political view! This isn't about being liberal or conservative, it about being responsible to our environment! So your smoking gun that global warming is a hoax is because a ship got stuck in the ice and I bet Fox news were all over this story. Why? Just to show you there's no such thing as global warming. When it get very extremely cold down north, again Fox is there to reassuring you that those loony liberals don't know what they are talking about. However when summer come along and we get stuck with 90 plus temperatures for weeks, where is your right wing media?
    Maybe there a very tiny chance you're right and those thousands of scientists who spent their life studying weather are wrong! But what if those scientists are right. Let not forget hurricane Sandy was called a superstorm because of it size, a size that was never seen before since weather been recorded. And what about super typhoon Haiyan? That was the biggest recent storm to ever hit the Philippine and millions are still are displaced! I can go on about the signs of global warming but I'm no scientist however I'm convinced and quite concern that there are still many people who don't believe that this is a growing problem and they all might end up like those people in the Bible who didn't listen to Noah.

  19. John Lair

    I guess for you guys it is political (I don't watch Hannity or listen to Rush). no one has refuted any of my facts, you just get rude and sarcastic when the facts get in the way (kind of like liberals do).

  20. Josh Felton Mathews

    Robert Rodriguez Storms, it has been hilarious that people believe it is "just a hoax' or 'just a theory.' Those two beliefs indicate lack of education. Scientific theories are actually legitimate, Now, I would call Global warming to be a hypothesis in its current state of development. But its hilarious how people miscategorize information to fit their own political agenda, aiding to their own conformational bias, and ultimately leading them to look like total idiots to people who actually understand what's going on.

    I'm not going to say that global warming isn't occurring. It very well could be. I will say that scientists should be using a lot more data throughout the world to link humans to the cause of global warming. But who cares if we are causing it when we know we are polluting the earth with pesticides and other chemicals, directly leading to the destruction of our planet. But the media, liberal or conservative, prefers to talk about global warming than talk about more immediate problems like pollution. And if we address pollution, a topic which most people in the world will agree on, we can eliminate the human impact on global warming too. The two are interrelated.

  21. John Lair

    AS I know I can't convince people who ignore the facts, just a couple of things then I'm gone. first, 40 years ago scientists using the same argument they use now warned of global cooling caused by man-made CO2 emissions (sound familiar?). In the early 80s they went to 'climate change,' and warming by the late 80s. Now they're going back to climate change in preparation for global cooling again; all using the same CO2 data to justify BOTH positions! Second, I know you won't read it, but here is a link to an article about the roots of global warming and where the scientists got their information, and the lengths they will go to protect the lie. Remember, the latest UN report ADMITTED there has been no warming! http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/the_inventor_of_the_global_warming_hockey_stick_doubles_down.html?utm_source=1-21-14&utm_campaign=AT+Newsletter+1-21-14&utm_medium=email

  22. Anonymous

    Yup, it's a hoax and it's all about the money. What would these poor people do without this rice bowl? Maybe stock shelves at Walmart.

  23. Anonymous

    Yup, it's a hoax and it's all about the money. What would these poor people do without this rice bowl? Maybe stock shelves at Walmart.

  24. Andrew C Livingston

    This is not a report. It is an op-ed piece. There IS a difference. The great thing about science is it doesn't really matter whether you believe it or not, it is still valid. The earth is round, my friend.

  25. Anthony Sciacca

    You could not possibly have read this entire paper. Mr Peden has put forth scientific arguments, IMHO, that make sense to me. I am certainly open to read, if you or anyone else can reference scientific reports that refute the issues of this paper.

  26. Anthony Sciacca

    Mr Livingston – What is in Mr Peden's report is either true or false, regardless of whether he is a scientist or not. I submit that you are just stating your opinion. I'm not here to argue, I'm trying to get to the truth, regardless of what side I am on. Not looking at all points made on an issue is not following the true sense of scientific investigation. It sure looks like Mr Peden has referenced legitimate scientific evidence. CAN YOU REFERENCE LEGITIMATE SOURCES REFUTING THE ISSUES IN MR PEDEN'S REPORT? HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE LATEST IPCC REPORT? If you read Mr Peden's article, you would know why us "deniers" lean toward HOAX as opposed to the "warmists" that accept alleged AGW science as true. Has the majority of scientists ever been entirely wrong on an issue in the past? I think so. OH- AND NO NEED TO RESORT TO INSULTING ANYONE! That does nothing to strengthen your position.

  27. Sally Carlson

    Global Warming = jobs for Scientists….Scientific Method can take a Holiday….There are enough corrupt Scientists to fill the Algore approved positions.

  28. Robert Ashworth

    CO2 and all other normal gases in our atmosphere cool our planet. The AGW idiots include only one-half of the mass and energy balance, that from the earth to the atmosphere; they forget we get our energy from the sun and the same atmosphere that reflects energy from the atmosphere back to earth also reflects incoming energy from the sun back to space. The overall effect is cooling, not warming because more energy comes from the sun to the earth than is reflected from the earth. Stupidity by these IPCC "so-called" scientists is abhorrent. they must have IQ's of gnats.

  29. Anonymous

    Andrew C Livingston why don't you rivet us all with the scintillating revelation what other ''scientific'' field teaches children a sphere – earth – heated in vacuum of space by light from a fire – the sun – can be immersed in frigid nitrogen/oxyen and have it's temperature rise above even what it was in vacuum. Before there was a cold nitrogen oxygen bath.

    And when you're through mesmerizing us all tell us how you figured out suspension of a reflective atmosphere blocking 20% energy to surface sensors,
    around that sphere,
    makes surface sensors show more energy when there's 20% energy to them
    than when they really did have more energy -20% – to them.

    You've been taken for a ride, you forgot to check whether those peoples' ''Hockey Stick"style pseudo science
    even makes sense vis-a-vis the laws of reality.

  30. Anonymous

    Grammar there is supposed to say "show more energy to them when there's 20% less energy to them, than when they really did have more energy – 20% – to them.

    You bought a story that an object warmed in vacuum got a cold atmospheric envelope of fluid nitrogen gas, and got hotter than before there was a cold nitrogen bath, because of it.

    And that more specifically the exact part of the cold bath making sensor covered sphere warmer, was the action of the water and CO2 reflecting 20% energy in
    from ever arriving.

    You believe in a pseudo science religion that teaches you insulation between a fire and rock with heat sensors on it, made the sensors show more energy arrive on them

    than when there was no reflective bath keeping 20% from them.

    LoL.

  31. Jeff Taber

    The grand majority of any change….and it's been extremely little for 17 years now ….is not due to human input. And yet, for political reasons, this topic's being used to the hilt. Too bad. It's costing Americans lots and lots of money. It's unfortunately shutting down energy businesses. It's artificially bringing countries together via a global control scheme, which will ultimately hurt the United States. It's all just a natural swing…up and down….

  32. Pamela Jones

    The HOTTEST Summer in MN was back in 1936! The Temp reached 114 degrees. It's NEVER been anywhere near as hot since. And there really isn't any 'Average Temp" here. Sometimes the average is in the 90's and sometimes it's in the 80's throughout the Summer. In other words, There is NO Rhyme or reason when it comes to the Temp!
    In fact Many Scientists are now saying the Earth is cooling. And that the so-called "Melting Ice Caps" were bigger then ever this last winter. That's why those Imbeciles who thought Climate Change was real, GOT STUCK! They thought their little boat would sail right through. LOL IDIOTS!
    Only imbeciles with NO COMMON SENSE and a whole lot of arrogance would actually think we mere Humans can have ANY effect on the Weather! How butt-up stupid is that?
    And look back to the Early 1600s for Pete's Sake! The Reason the Pilgrims had trouble with their crops was DUE TO THE MILD WINTER! So what caused that "Global Warming"?! Hmmmmm? Back in the 1600's?! OH I know! I know! It was those darn Pilgrims driving around in their SUV'S when they wen tout hunting. But let's be fair. Those darn Indians (I'm part American Indian BTW) kept insisting on flying around on their private jets. Shame on my ancestors. What were they thinking.
    The temps GO UP and the temps GO DOWN! It's NOT called Climate Change though IT'S CALLED SEASONS! We've had those forever! Sorry if some so-called scientists are too stupid to Either Figure it out OR Are too morally bankrupted to point that out.

  33. Pamela Jones

    And hello to the moron who is babbling about Carbon Dioxide. What kind of imbecile thinks Carbon Dioxide is bad for plants?! RME THAT'S WHAT THEY BREATH IN! IDIOT! Then they breath out Oxygen!
    An Atmosphere rich in Co2 would make the plant life lush and greener not sick and dying! That's like saying too much Oxygen is bad for Humans. It has no Health Benefit but it doesn't do us any harm either.
    And that info came from several Medical Doctors.
    Seriously, it's like those supporting the Climate Change HOAX failed Grade School Science!

  34. Jeff Harris

    We don't need to "Save the Planet" we aren't capable of destroying it.

    We don't need to worry about the planet. Earth will be just fine. It will continue and probably always hold some form of life. Unless there is no more H20. There is no arguing this point.

    As our Great President says "Now let me be clear" (I wonder who he thinks is stopping him) The only concern really is the quality of life ourselves and out ancestors might enjoy. Cutting down trees does not jeopardize our ability to breath 02 . As much as 98% of our 02 comes from algae.

    I'm a forklift driver but I remember 9th grade science class like it was yesterday and my wife who has a masters degree and is endorsed by the common wealth of VA (requiring some of the highest scores to teach in the nation) to teach science K-12 daily discusses her classes with me. We constantly dig into deep as well as the most basic principals of science and since global warming/climate change is a current event we discuss the latest findings constantly.

    ITS A HOAX

    Yes it is very easy for to humans to change their environment in a negative way. But it is next to impossible for a volcano, earthquake, even asteroid to destroy this planet. I promise, so sleep a little easier tonight knowing humankind will not be ultimately responsible its own destruction through global warming/climate change or what ever they decide to call it next week. If it were a genuine threat to the continuation of the species the numbers wouldn't be so vague and the new media/politicians wouldn't have to exaggerate the matter by saying "Save the Planet" everyone would know that the species was near the end and every waking hour would be spent on a solution. Not Jacking our Jaws about it on social media. So click like and don't waste your breath arguing with me. Because then I'll make a valid point or ask a simple question and you'll curse at me and show your ignorance.

  35. Naquan Harrison

    We haven't been her long enough to know what normal temperature is. Americans cant even solely trust a 10 day weather forecast. this is just a reason for the left to tax us ore with carbon tax and keep gas expensive. They blame bush for gas being expensive when they gladly want gas to be 4.00 a gallon and they said they would make things more affordable. i voted democrats and i will never vote democrat again. they ran a campaign on lies so how not to say they are lying abut global warming.

  36. Robert Lee

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    Look at the temperature change for past 2000 years. The change is not much but it is significant.
    Anyway, lets say that it the change is not a result of mankind, whether it is or not.
    Nonetheless the sea levels are rising and you will still need to deal with it. Maybe the rising sea levels have nothing to do with greenhouse gases. But if you live in Florida or Venice or

  37. Adam M

    Ryan Johnson What does a "degree" mean anymore? Obama has a law degree and keeps breaking the Law. Bush has a degree enough said there. Take all your degrees and shove it.

  38. Anonymous

    Ryan Johnson mine's in electronic radiation communications engineering, also known as the two way telecommunications field that flies this space and aeronautics age around you. The atmosphere obeys the Ideal Gas Law. Not the Green House Gas Law. There is no such thing as a Green House Gas Law, this was discovered during the flight age starting around WW2.

    There's no calculation in any science for a trace gas impact on temperature of atmospheric air.

    That's how it is, and you should have realized something was wrong when Dr. Mann was caught saying a hockey stick generator told him how to interpret a tree so it became a thermometer.

    You might not have the requisite training in instrumentation but I suggest you go look up "The Atmosphere Obeys Ideal Gas Law."

    Then ask yourself just who on earth you think has a calculation that supercedes the known law for projecting the temperature of a volume of atmospheric air.

    Nobody does. That's why the only people who believe in Magic Gas can't tell you why except that it's beyond experiment and beyond checking.

    You should have been skeptical when you saw Phil Jones say "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled since 1998. Okay it has but it's only seven years of data (every year from 98 to '05 when he said it) and it isn't statistically significant. "

    You should have read closer the actual activity going on when Trenberth exclaimed it was a travesty they couldn't say why the warming had stopped.

    You just should have been skeptical when you were told "it's not a problem we've all been caught scamming one end or the other, of the research data game."

  39. Anonymous

    No matter if you think global warming is real or not we need to stop drilling for oil everywhere and stop overpopulating the earth. Oil is the reason for most of our wars the last 30 years or so.. Why do you think we protect the countries that have oil or at least try to resolve our issues with them..Russia knows this and is trying to control Ukraine for it is rich with what the world needs now. Russia will not stop until someone gets some balls. It won't be Obama.

  40. Paul Bartel

    It's a money grab. Politicians attempting to scare us into accepting a carbon tax which will do absolutely nothing.

  41. Mike Henderson

    actually religion and radical ideology is responsible for the majority of wars in the last 30 years….that being said. You and the rest of us cannot , at this time live without oil. You are typing on it right now. Your also wearing it, driving in it, filling your tank with it, medicating yourself with it and decorating every aspect of your home with it not to mention watching all your favorite shows and listening to your favorite artists on it. It's easy to spout off that we need to eliminate oil just not realistic. Nothing in the next 75 years will be able to replace it. God knows every scientific research dept. has been trying without success. By the way, Russia is the second largest exporter of oil next to Saudi Arabia. There is no shortage of oil in Russia.

  42. Anonymous

    its amazing how the u.s. govt and other countries use global warming as an excuse to make it more expensivefor business and tax payers.like a obama folower said you cant let a good crisis go to waste

  43. Mike Henderson

    Alex Moore higher Co2 than than 800,000 years ago.Hmmmmm….wonder who did the measuring of that. In fact, who did the Co2 measurements even 150 years ago? What did they use and how accurate were the instruments?