VincentWolf
You'll find many of these just dumb grease monkey's in love with their high performance, smelly filthy polluting trucks and hot rods. They don't want to be taxed higher, the don't want EV's to get tax breaks, etc.
RobertRipstein
One big question. One simple answer: because scientists that question it are fired and blacklisted. It's a big leftist hoax. Got it? Why is this so hard to get?
EcoLogical
I live in Alberta (an OPEC province) and have many family & friends that work in the oil & gas & coal industry. Almost everyone in Alberta, and indeed much of Canada, has received economic benefit from the oil industry and I worked in the oil industry for about half of my life and then, when I realized it was fossil fuel emissions that caused Asthma in my daughter, grandson and myself that I switched to clean, renewable energy 23 years ago. Climate Change may or may not be real but the 7,000,000 ( seven million) people that die prematurely each and every year from fossil fuel pollution is real (WHO) and is a "Clear and Present Danger" to me and my family.
Jeff J Carlson
maybe because you never present any evidence supporting your contention ... the science/evidence says we haven't warmed in 18 years ...
Argon
Global warming is a total crock - fabricated BS evidence from grant hungry scientists making a trace gas C02 an evil bandit. Using their own maths - C02 is about 0,035% of the worlds atmosphere. According to the so called experts about 2% of C02 is anthropogenic - so that means the effect that humans have on the atmosphere is 2% of 0.035% or 0.00007% - I would suggest if all the IPCC members got off their fraudulent gravy train and gave that money to reforestation there would be no problem eh??
Gringo
the "reality" of human-induced climate change? Rubbish. I studied geology in college. The climate of this planet is constantly changing. It's been constantly changing for billions of years. It's been considerably warmer. With no humans in sight. The "reality" is that whining about human-induced climate change is a career for a lot of people. Studying "the problem" as they see it is their livlihood. Generating fear in the un-educated is important to their ability to continue to siphon funding to "study the problem".
Matt Fletcher
I'll be your Huckleberry. I doubt because I do not listen to one side of the argument simply because scientists (people) feel they have figured it out. I look at the facts and the facts I believe are relevant point to a 100,000 year cycle (Milankovitch cycles) which has repeated for millions of years (at least this is what ice core readings show) and that the plant regularly goes up and down 6 degrees. But keep telling me climate change is human induced because the last 150 years of data says so (that makes sense).
MaxWebXperienZ
Global Warming!!! Wake up and pee, the world is on fire!!! OMG!! Humans generate 2% of all the smog! Turn us all over to the Democrats/UN! Don't forget to lie and fabricate evidence any chance you get!! Change the name to Climate Change just in case the earth cools off too, nobody will notice...
Science and Econ
The idea of "human induced climate change" is a hoax. This has been an open secret for 20+- years. Water Vapor, the Sun, etc. drive climate; Carbon Dioxide levels FOLLOW after a lag of some centuries. You really have to aggressively avoid science to not know this. The real question is: How did ANYONE fall for the Carbon Dioxide HOAX?
Jacktrue
This is the first comment I have ever posted in response to an article anywhere. I am skeptical of human induced climate change being a huge problem for two reasons: One, I have built statistical models for a living and understand the effect of limited data and variances in that data can have on predictions. For example, I have yet to see a weather model that can accurately predict local weather on a daily basis with a high degree of accuracy; so, to expect me to believe that using even less data with more variation in that data there are models that can accurately predict weather out decades makes it difficult for me to accept. Second, any scientific claims that have to be defended with oppression, shaming, political power, and personal attacks rather than scientific facts is "science" that should be viewed skeptically.