Elizabeth Crenshaw’s article is one of the reasons why the debate about Anthropogenic Global Warming is divisive, and should be. Basically, her entire article was written to say – if you don’t believe in man made global warming – then you are an idiot. (Though she did say it nicely). The problem that I and my fellow skeptics have, is simple – on every prediction the GW crowd has made, they have been wrong – including, lower temperatures, less hurricanes, less tornados, no rise in the level of the oceans, no rise in the temperature of the oceans, more ice on the poles, etc., and they are very fast and loose with their facts.

It is important to remember that all AGW claims are made off of COMPUTER MODELS, not actual facts. There is nothing wrong with computer models to predict the future (though it doesn’t seem to work for the weather three days from now), if you can account for all the variables. Climate Alarmist models don’t know how to factor in clouds and several variables with the oceans. And computer models can be manipulated to show whatever the researcher wants. Our government has invested 79 BILLION dollars of your money (and mine) attempting to prove and convince you that man made global warming exists. If you are a scientist or institution, and you want some of that money – you will come up with the right conclusions regardless of the facts. (Exxon has spent $34 Million fighting it – and they used their own money not yours).

Ms. Crenshaw’s claim that 83% of scientists believe in AGW – is not true, over 31,000 scientists around the world have signed onto the Petition Project claiming that there is no convincing evidence that man made Global Warming exists. (No one was paid to set up the petition and no one was paid to sign the petition). http://www.oism.org/pproject/ Scientific “Peer Review” studies are showing that man made global warming is nothing more than a myth. Over the millions of years of the Earth’s existence, it has been hotter and cooler; there has been more ice and less. Can anyone say what the right temperature is suppose to be, how much ice is supposed to be on the North Pole – (there have been times when there was no ice at the pole). The entire basis of the AGW crowd is based upon Mann’s Hockey Stick Theory, which has been proven to be wrong. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey. The amount of CO2 spewed into the air by man is almost immeasurable when compared to the amount nature produces – and no scientific link has been shown that CO2 can cause any warming – water vapor, in the other hand, may have a huge effect.

I will paraphrase Albert Einstein’s quote – What is important in science is not the hundreds of experiments that prove your theory correct, but the one experiment that proves it wrong.

Ms. Crenshaw, you write that we should demand better – you are correct, unfortunately you are not talking about yourself, just the unwashed like me that don’t believe in the AGW god.. You claim that AGW is about the future of this country and the planet – I agree, just not with your vision of the future, and that is why it should be divisive. If you are interested in learning the truth, I will submit to you scientific “peer reviewed” studies that disagree with your opinions about AGW. I hope you take me up on this, because as the last line in your opinion read, it is about embracing the best in ourselves to bring out the best in our country. It would probably be a good idea to push for the best with the truth. Please start with this link http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3771

“Ever since Sir Francis Bacon, in the early seventeenth century, scientists and philosophers of science have cautioned against the tendency to reject evidence that conflicts with our preconceptions, and to make assumptions about what assuredly would be true if only the appropriate measurements or experiments could be performed. The ultimate danger of this kind of selective interpretation…is that a compelling body of evidence can be accumulated to support any hypothesis. The method of science, though, evolved to compel scientists to treat all evidence identically, including the evidence that conflicts with the preconceptions, precisely for this reason. 'The human understanding', as Bacon observed, 'still has this peculiar and perpetual fault of being more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives, whereas rightly and properly it ought to give equal weight to both.'”