Anonymous and anon what is your authority on this?


Anonymous Climate change in some areas of the world doest mean GW.. its a [censored] planet of course things are going to change.. nothing stays the same


Krizun I only have one thing to comment. It would be really appreciated if you so strongly claim Global Warming to be a hoax, that there acctually were information about your views on the site. As in other form than just news. Thank you.
Krista, Finland


Anonymous In the '70s they were so worried about "Global Cooling" that there was a plot to dump ash on the ice caps.


Anonymous It feels good to know that atleast some websites are considering the possibility of popular opinions being OH-SO-WRONG!.


D. K. Wells I won't claim any high credentials for myself other than being naturally curious and mental disposed towards the scientific method. The scientific method is what says to test, retest, and after all that, test again whenever contrary evidence appears. I'm not a writer on this site, but I do post regularly. I also try to post links to articles I find from news sites that show evidence against AGW. This fits with my view that this needs to still be studied before we say that the AGW hypothesis is more than just that, an possible explanation.


what are your credentials?? What are the credentials of the writers on the site? You claim to know more that all the climate scientists in the world. You claim to be able to disseminate through all of the news articles & peer reviewed studies to find only the TRUE ones. You claim to have the knowledge required to refute all the scientific studies that support man-made global warming. What are your backgrounds, education, and experience? Do you have degrees in environmental science, physics, chemistry or meteorology? Have you traveled the world to see what others' opinions are on the matter? I'm curious.


D. K. Wells Original Nature Article



D. K. Wells Alert: Natural variations in climate will stop global warming for at least 7 years.



D. K. Wells Dave, and isn't it funny that many of the most vehement global warming advocates are also just as avidly anti-nuclear power? Three Mile Island didn't even release any radiation, the safe guards cut in before anything happened, and all that was released was a bunch of hot air (both by the reactor and the politicians). The modern standards the EPA insist upon for nuclear plants mean that you receive more radiation from your microwave using it during one day than you would receive living next to a nuclear plant for a year.


Wake up and smell the gasses Not being a educated beyond my mental state, I came to the realization that this whole problem started with three mile island. When the reactor farted if relaeased about the same radioactice cloud as an old x-ray. Then MR Carter oops prezidennt decided to lock up anything that got within a football field of anythind Nuke forever.
Elswhere in the lesser world they recycle almost all spent rods and are still alive, Yes?
The stupidity of russa by not having a reactor containment has affected the US policy about Nuke power plants.
Coal fires plants in the US cause just alittle under 1/2 of our CO2 gas emmissions every year.
Just a thought for the climate police, Nuke It!
Dave + Mpls


Anonymous #2 Dear Anonymous,

That's a terrible metaphor. When something is staring you in the face, it doesn't mean you're staring them in the face, which would be the proper metaphor.

Anyways,
Just realize this, there's just as many facts against Global Warming as there are for it.


Anonymous you are all a bunch o [censored], right winged, blind men who cannot even see the facts when they are staring you in the face.


D. K. Wells I just want the science to be a little more trustworthy before I let the government spend a gazillion dollars on it. It would be bad if the money got spent, and then something like the biofuels debacle occurs connected to another aspect of this scare and the scientists go "Ooops!" with the money all spent. Who do we go to then to get our money back? Better to be penny wise rather than pound foolish. A small investment now to confirm the science isn't going to destroy the planet, and might save us the huge investment later. The timetable on climate science is measured not in days or even years, but more in terms of decades and usually centuries and millenia.


D. K. Wells Anony, I don't think we should waste resources, or not develop alternative methods for doing things. BUt politicians are proposing legislation and taxes that will take money out of yours and my wallets for something that is not passing close scientific scrutiny. Should the planet invest trillions of dollars in an idea that hasn't even passed a basic lab test? The only environment known to Man where carbon dioxide has as much weight given to its greenhouse effect as detailed by the AGW crowd is on the planet VENUS.




Wasting what? Do you plan on telling each and every person just how much of earth's resources they can use? Do you plan on starting with Al Gore and the Hollywood elite who have a CO2 footprint many times that of the average person? When we run out of oil and coal man will come up with an alternative. Guaranteed. We aren't stupid animals grazing off the land. So Yes, we should keep “wasting” resources. But we should not pollute (CO2 is not a pollutant) as one man does not have the right to harm another.


Anonymous no you should concentrate on REAL pollution!


Anonymous so to the authors of globalwarming hoax, whats ur point?
we should keep wasting resources?
stop preserving our environment because global warming "doesnt exist"?
stop developing resource saving technologies?? this site is fishy.


Jonny5 ha! yea i know! i was just pointing out that the exactly same thing can be said for an inconveinent truth, yet people still take it as gospel.


Johnny5 He is talking about the Swindle. The entire article is about how the Swindle documentary doesn't use valid or up to date science and how they mis-quote scientists etc.

The American people!