My main credentials are that I am 67yrs old, and I haven't yet seen any changes in our climate.

Yes I have studied both sides of the argument, and believe that the climate is so complex with so many interactions between the sun, land, ocean and atmosphere, that a few molecules of vibrating CO2 will not make much difference, if there was no water vapor in our atmosphere then yes perhaps it could, but with Earths huge water cycle no it can't.

Easy, you look at the assumptions that they make to get to the end result. If they have bad assumptions then the rest of their study is also bad. When we have evidence that at least the Medieval Warming period was not locally contained, then all of their models are incorrect.

Another reason that I use is that we are coming out of a known cold period that we have decent written history of yet most climate scientists believe that we should "stay this cold".

Then there is the scientists that consider a statistical tie with the highest yearly average temperature achieved in 1998 as proving that we are still getting warmer even though we have increased our CO2 and other green house gas output over the last 15 years and still have not been able to beat this record even with strong El Nino events.

Finally, you have to follow the money to who is the prime backers of climate research and you will find it to be Nations that are trying to pick winners and losers in the energy generation field.

Amen to "Sagebrush!!"

This is hilarious how commentators are still ranting about anthropogenic global warming/global climate change, in the midst of the current brutally severe, several decade record-breaking cold spell which has been dubbed "Polar Vortex" ...stretching from the Midwest to the Northeast of the country...which some authorities are calling potentially life-threatening, and which has seriously disrupted train and plan travel plans, and has become much more like nutty religious dogma than dispassionate scientific reporting. I swear that--for most folks today--the "Emperor surely is wearing the very finest (nonexistent) suit of clothes one could ever imagine!!!

What we have been witnessing is one of the biggest hoaxes in the history of the world. The science simply does NOT support this very faddish, and politically motivated campaign. Wake up, America!!

Oh, I am not a taxpayer (a second class category), but an American citizen, and proud of it!! I am--also--not a jingoist, and am thoroughly ashamed of the policies and behavior of the last two administrations, among the most corrupt in American history. End the wars, dammit!!..and bring that money back home where we need it!!!

I am much more concerned about AGW alarmists than AGW "deniers," the latter term being a very denigrating one, which I find very objectionable.

I am 67yrs old are my main credentials , and I still have not seen any change in our climate .

Yes , I studied both sides of the argument , and the climate of CO2 molecules vibrate , many of the interactions between the ocean and the atmosphere , the sun is so complex , land , will not make much difference , there was no water vapor in our atmosphere If yes , maybe it could be that with the giant water wheel can'tIt I do not trust you they will credit me identify scientists know what you are talking about , is not over . Warmists just a fraud and a majority of man-made climate scientists agree that global warming .

Top climate scientists say there is no man-made global warming .

The Great Global Warming Swindle

I am an engineer. As part of my job I track degree days on a year to year basis. I also manage utilizites etc for multiple facilities, review and modify systems designs etc.

They pysical laws they, AGW alrmists, claim to rely upon are VERY well known and understaood. The math here is relatively easy. Their numbers do NOT add up.

I routinely use multiple databases and data sets. I routinely perform data analysis. I understand fully the differences between "adjusted" data and actual data. I Understand and have been proepery educated on the meaning and import of significant digits, scinetifc errors error rates and basic principles related to uncertainty.

I work in the the real world and I fully and completely understand the weaknesses of thoery and classroom type operations versus practical application. Even our best known and most valued physical formulae which a used to define how we design, build and control equipment, systems etc have problems and built in errors. They are not 100% correct.

I work with multiple type of computer based models and fully understand how complex they can get. I also know that anytime you get a model that show runaway ANYTHING then the model is generally WRONG. That is the first rule of thumb test any educated person knows to apply when looking at the results from a model. Any value generated that "runs away" is one you immediately investigate. NOT because you are concerned it is physical reality BUT because you SHOULD have a concern the model is flawed. After investigations PROVE the model is not flawed, time consuming and exaustive work at times, then and only then do you set up and perform experiments to verify the physical reality.

I could go on...

Climate change deniers are greenhouse deniers. Support for the mechanism where CO2 is causing the greenhouse effect is weak. There is much more evidence that sun spots have much greater effect on climate than any other factor. The ultimate climate cycle is about 60,000 years where the precession of the earths axis aligns with the orbital axis causing an ice age.

I'm a 44 year old engineer with some grad studies.

I've seen environmental movements evolve over the years and I understand the level of emotion and politics that are involved.

I've also seen the findings of a assessment of global warming predictions done by an independent consulting company for an insurance company. Global warming alarmists may have good consensus with their peers, but they have a much tougher time convincing intelligent people from other fields that the world is warming from human activity as fast as they say it is.

With practically any scientific theory, it's possible for a layperson to examine compelling evidence for a theory. For example if you don't believe the world is round, it's possible to track the stars in the night sky and see how they are consistent with a round Earth rotating on it's axis or you could set up a telescope and watch a ship disappearing over the horizon and observe the top of the ship disappears last or any number of other experiments. I know practically all science doesn't have to be taken on faith by laypeople.

I don't know with certainty how much human activity is affecting the climate, but I do know that alarmist assertions on global warming have to be taken on faith.

I am a taxpayer that is being fleeced due to this scam. Do I need more credentials?

The vast majority of scientists know this is bunk. If you are being lead down the primrose lane by that 97% of scientists agree with AGW you should really investigate the poll. That 97% consists of 75 out of 77 highly selected scientists. Not 97% of all scientists as those presenters of the poll try to make you believe. That is not a vast majority, as you claim.

There is a site 'petitionproject.org' that has over 31,000 signatures by scientists who disclaim AGW. They even have their names. (Which is something that those 75 haven't released to date. As I have asked for those names many times on this very site. I should know.)

Here is an article on a proponent now a skeptic.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/w...

There are others who have been silenced.

Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Physics, Ivar Giaever: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”

Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis: “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.

Quote by Martin Keeley, geology scientist: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”

There are many more, but these are fired or quashed by the media and you never hear of them. What you do hear from is admitted liars, like James Hansen, a retired Climate Scientist, now a full time communist activist, Phil Jones, one who admitted and apologized for cooking the books, and Al Gore who has no credentials.

I have a strong background in mathematics, statistics and modeling. The claims that the models make fly in the face of sound statistical theory and are obviously worthless on their face.

I have spent over 30 years in industry constructing models out of raw data. I am well versed in data sampling and modeling which is what climate science is all about.

The only thing you can predict with a climate model is its probable divergence from reality once it is launched forward. It turns out the models have behaved as expected.

You will NEVER find a climate scientist on the warmists side who will defend his work from a rigorous statistical point of view.

Because it's so obviously a political lie with no underlying science to back it up,credentials are not needed when a lie is so obvious that a reasonably intelligent 12 year old should be be able to debunk it within minutes.

If you are not trying to spark a debate, why are you calling people that name "deniers", if they are not agree with scientific theory.

Last time I checked, any scientific theory need to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. If they still do have doubts, you can't call them "deniers".

I would hate to call supporters of climate change "believers". That would make them look like religious fanatics crowd, where in fact they nearly just supporters of scientific theory.

Regardless of credentials, I have 10 years of university and 2 diplomas, currently I am working in computer science field. Regardless of that to prove or disprove this theory (I still can't say if it is right or wrong, especially if you are talking about theory that say "humane made climate change"), scientists need at least tents of thousands of years research and data that they can trust, which they don't have at this moment.

Nobody want to wait that long and jumping to conclusions, that tend to lead them to erroneous results, on both sides, regardless of peer reviews (there is a lot of corruption in current scientific society, unfortunately, look where money goes) and winking on weather extreme patters from both sides.

As computer scientist, I can setup any type of computer model that will prove or disprove any theory, so I tend not to trust computer models.

I'm not trying to spark off a debate, I'm curious about why you don't think that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong. Yes, I know that science isn't a democracy.

What have you read or heard that convinced you? Why do you hold the opinions that you hold? Have you studied both sides of the argument?

Follow the money!

If climate change was not an impending crisis there would be no need to study it so intensively. The Climate Research Unit in the U.K. would be disbanded and Phil Jones would go back to teaching meterology to undergrads. There would be no need for the IPCC or yearly conferences.

All that government money would go to study some other crisis in the making.

This is my opinion: temperature in the entire Globe has changed, mainly due to exhausting of magma inside the deep sea regions, changing the sea temperatures, not because cars on the roads and stupid political things created to generate money and control the population.

On top of that - for those who believe in the Scriptures - the Earth is being ruined by Man, politically, ecologically and socially, among other things, and Man will have to be accountable for it, believing or not. The accountability season comes soon, and it will be played by Man itself, politically and militarily. Nuclear war will develop (if it's not evident to you, just think China and the US sharing all this, while Russia looks on: no way, Jose) and this "will melt the elements (Oxygen and Hydrogen)" producing extreme heat. I don't need to be a clairvoyant to see what's coming from the political scene.

I think you better get ready to battle many things: water rising ("all island will fly..."), famines ("a liter of barley, and a efod of wheat for a denary, but do not touch the olive oil and the wine..."; only the wealthy people will have enough to eat), and finally, "...you will reckon with lawlessness, and the one that has one sword, sell his outer garments and buy ANOTHER one." Yeshua said that. You can see for yourself the social conditions we are in right now).

These things will come, weather you believe or not; it's environmental, you know?

"Credentials" manifest themselves through simple mathematics. Science use to mean "the study of" something. Now (according to Government and media publications) it seems to mean that they have "authority" over anything pertaining to it because Governments and media publications say so.

My "credentials" are based on very simple criteria:

1. Actual temperatures today compared to past temperatures and scientific interpretations

2. Actual mathematical equations by nuclear physicists and engineers that show CO2 to have a minor effect in controlling Earth's planetary temperatures

3. Knowing that H2O (various forms in our atmosphere and biosphere) plays a major role in cooling, warming, and keeping the Planet temperate and balanced while CO2 is only a minor atmospheric greenhouse gas (0.04% of our atmosphere) that only "helps" our temperatures remain temperate.

My main credentials are that I am 67yrs old, and I haven't yet seen any changes in our climate.

Yes I have studied both sides of the argument, and believe that the climate is so complex with so many interactions between the sun, land, ocean and atmosphere, that a few molecules of vibrating CO2 will not make much difference, if there was no water vapor in our atmosphere then yes perhaps it could, but with Earths huge water cycle no it can't

master's degree in science

There is no man made global warming. My intelligence is my credential.

It's not MY credentials that I rely on, it's the credentials of scientists that know what they are talking about. And there is no vast majority of climate scientists that believe in man-made Global Warming, that's just another Warmists fabrication.

Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle