False (and easily proved so)

The theory of climate change, comes from science, it has nothing to do with politics and is supported by a now huge array of data coming from a range of science fields.

Sadly, it's all to obvious who in this has the "ulterior political motives" you only have to look at denier comments to see their political links and views, the main group that supplies denial with most of it's mis-information (The Heartland Institute) is a political lobby group on a range of subjects that play to the right wing of politics.

Deniers are the ones who rant about taxes and communists and Greens etc etc.

We 'alarmists' tend to quote the science, groups like NASA, NOAA, NSIDC and other science agencies and organisations like the various science member driven groups like AGU, AAAS or the Acadamy of Science (of any country)

Deniers make a lot of noise, but then they have to, as it has become all to obvious that not one scientific organisation dispute AGW. Deniers have tried to invent support with fake petitions etc, but a decade in, they are still unable to produce even a few percent of the number of scientists that (OISM) petition claims, for the simple reason that they don't exist.

Possibly, but irrelevant.

If someone arguing for, say, a lead abatement project has ulterior political motives, does that mean it's a good idea to let children eat lead paint? No. Just because someone has political motives for something doesn't mean that it's a bad idea. So even if the majority of people trying to get action on global warming have a political agenda beyond, ya know, saving humanity from the harm AGW will otherwise cause, that doesn't mean that they're *wrong*. If the percentage even *is* anything like that high, I'd suspect it's more in the neighborhood of 10% or so.

And, I *strongly* suspect that a greater fraction of the people *denying* AGW have ulterior political motives. Anyone who politically benefits from Big Oil or Big Coal has a very sound reason to pretend that AGW is a myth, since solving AGW means drastically cutting our use of coal and oil. And the current Republican party has made acceptance or rejection of AGW a litmus test for whether someone is a RINO, so anyone of an otherwise conservative bent who wants to get elected may well pretend AGW is false even if he or she knows damned well that it is true.

If it is science, then motives, popularity, and authority are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the predictions born of the hypothesis are shown to be correct when compared against actual data, in experiments done by multiple experimenters, including skeptics. There can be no failures, I.e. (to paraphrase Einstein) 'a single experiment can prove it wrong'.

Global warming does not enjoy that kind of validation. Claims that it does are not scientific.

@pegminer

"...most people that deny anthropogenic global warming do so for political motives backed by scientific ignorance"

Ad hom...no basis in fact...perfectly circular reasoning.

False. Over the past decade, climate change has become a larger issue in the world due to research and science. 90% of climatologists (not politicians) agree that climate change is happening much faster than it otherwise would be if humans were not pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every day. Many of these climatologists are university professors, not politicians. Many of these studies are university studies, the same platform where a lot of other scientific and medical research that has helped human kind today has been performed.

A leading climatologist that supports man-made climate change is Professor Thomas J Crowley BA,MS,PhD of University of Edinburgh in England. Google his name and "climate" visit his university webpage and read his caption on the webpage. Read his studies.

If you want to see political motives regarding global warming research, google Libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute. This supposedly non-partisan organization, laughably funded by ExonnMobil, is attempting to counter what actual University Scientists and peer reviewed journal published professionals are saying. Are you really going to believe what ExonnMobil funded studies are telling you about global warming? Are you going to believe what big business right-winged politicians are telling you about global warming, while their campaigns are funded by large carbon pumping $ giants. Who’s side do you think they are going to be on. Or does it make sense to listen to what real University scientists have to say, the same demographic of people responsible for most you modern scientific information, including medical study information. If 90% of University Ph.D doctors told you that you had cancer would you believe them, or would you believe some politician or politically biased source (ie ExonnMobil)?

Very true. Politics is ALL it's about.

No one is dumb enough to still believe the so called 'science' of man-made Global Warming.

Every strong advocate of man-made Global Warming is benefiting from this SCAM in some way.

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

The Great Global Warming Swindle