WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

Trump’s War On Climate Change

Many bold claims about energy…

Alt Text

Just How Hard Is It To Cut Greenhouse Gases?

A study from Lawrence Berkeley…

Barry Stevens

Barry Stevens

Dr. Barry Stevens has over 25 years of proven international experience building technology-driven enterprises and bringing superior products and services to market ahead of the…

More Info

Global Warming Naysayers Says the Heat is On!

The subject of Climate Change and Global Warming has a polarizing effect in the U.S. Like religion, you either believe or don’t believe. Strong sentiments resonate on both sides. It seems impossible to try to sway either camp.

One of the biggest excuses used by anthropogenic climate change and global warming skeptics has been the unscrupulous nature of the scientific community. In a poll I conducted a few years ago titled “Climate Change – Fact or Fiction,” about 40% of 478 pages of comments raised concern over Climategate, scientists, financial gains and the political arena. Comments included:

“Unfortunately, there are so-called ‘scientists’ in someone’s financial pocket that are not credible, either.”

“Global warming is a hoax in the grand tradition of big, scary problems that all require huge expensive solutions and tend to empower the establishment. To understand global warming, you don’t need to study science; you need to study history and politics.

“What remains scientifically untenable is the manner in which global temperature data is massaged to try to show upward trends where the trend is either neutral or downward.”

“You have a few who claim to understand the heart of the issue and hold the answers that can’t be shared (Climate scientists and priests).”

“The evidence (global warming) has been documented, but not in an ethical manner. Emails clearly show a desire to prevent certain scientists (with opposing views) from obtaining raw data, and then to destroy the data when it was apparent that hiding the data would not last much longer. To simply ignore logical arguments based on, “We’ve already decided we’re right, and we won’t listen to your arguments.” is the epitome of intellectual arrogance and hypocrisy.”

“The more I learn about so-called climate change, the less confidence I have in the “science”. Seems like it is one more scam to sell books, make money, protect grants and so on. The evidence seems to suggest that the Planet has actually been cooling for the past decade. The fact that these “Scientists” tried to cover up data that did not support their theory is highly damaging to their case.”

For whatever reason, the winds seem to be shifting in favor of the reality of climate change. Earlier this week headlines throughout the country rang with the tune “Earth is Warming, Scientist and Former Skeptic Says.”

Seth Borenstein of the Huffington Post reports:

“….. he (Richard Muller, a prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming) determined they (climate scientists) were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.”

“….. study of the world’s surface temperatures by was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers.”

“….. he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.”

“….. we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.”

In closing, to the extent that more believe in climate change, a remark in the article sets a somber tone to the difficulties that lie ahead; “Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn’t warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it’s too expensive to do something about.”

While we cannot turn our clocks back, except for the hour loss on daylight savings time, we can start today in earnest. All America needs is a supportive and effective energy policy!

By. Dr. Barry Stevens

Dr. Barry Stevens has over 25 years of proven international experience building technology-driven enterprises and bringing superior products and services to market ahead of the competition. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a technology business development group. In this role, he is responsible for monetizing technologies and leading globally-competitive companies to higher levels of revenue, earnings, and growth. Please visit TBD's website at http://www.tbdamericainc.com and his blog at http://barryonenergy.wordpress.com




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Russell C on December 05 2011 said:
    "The winds seem to be shifting AGAINST the narratives [pushing man-caused] climate change" - fixed your sentence there for ya.A bit of elemental online research by any astute reader will soon reveal that Richard Muller was never an actual skeptic of man-caused global warming. The wealth of information found at places like ClimateDepot, ClimateAudit, WUWT, JunkScience and so many other skeptic web sites will soon offset the spin attempts by Borenstein and leave readers wondering why it is that the mainstream media seems more interested in marginalizing the skeptics instead of proving them wrong.As for the remark about skeptics seemingly changing their minds recently (they actually are not), a fairly good internet searcher can find a similar remark about "isn't warming/how much is man-made" by skeptic William Gray in the NY Times on February 29, 2000.
  • MarkusR on December 05 2011 said:
    The "skeptics" have been shown be wrong. On multiple occasions. Yet that hasn't stopped them. And the "skeptics" have yet to provide any significant scientific contributions to the topic.They aught to be marginalized in the discussion regarding global warming and energy policy.
  • Russell C on July 18 2012 said:
    Commenter "MarkusR" is of course free to say whatever he likes. But what he says packs no credibility if he does not back up what he says.

    Meanwhile, I would suggest that at the very least, skeptics contradict what is said by the IPCC, Al Gore, and others who push the idea that human activity drives global warming. Readers here need not trust me on what I say, they can certainly judge for themselves whether or not such skeptics "have yet to provide any significant scientific contributions to the topic", when they check out "Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the NONgovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)" and the related 2011 Interim Report, seen here: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html and here http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html )

    Notice the fundamental difference between myself and commenter "MarkusR". One of us wants readers to make their own informed decision from what they see in both sides of the issue, and the other wants them to ignore half of the story based on an unsupported assertion. Does anyone see the problem there?
  • Dan Husband Ph.D. on August 08 2012 said:
    I will not provide examples of peer reviewed scientific research on this topic for readers. The ONLY thing that is relevant is PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE. The idea the climate change is some massive hoax is simple minded and idiotic. I haven't seen any royalty checks, and don't know anyone who has. A simple search of the PEER REVIEWED LIT. shows where the scientific consensus is. I'd bet 10 to 1 you started with your opinion and then went looking for ways to support it. That is NOT the way science is done. I will provide one reference that puts this into perspective:

    Expert credibility in climate change
    William R. L. Anderegga,1, James W. Prallb, Jacob Haroldc, and Stephen H. Schneidera

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News