The "warmists" and the oil companies scratch each others back and have been for years. All to keep oil artificially high! Yes, it's true. Oil is both plentiful and regenerative, and it will be plentiful as long as the planet exists. Both groups have an interest in making sure that this is not believed. It's common knowledge that oil fields that were once thought to be dry are now being found to have oil in them, again. Oil IS NOT a fossil fuel. Lenin said that "a lie told often enough becomes the truth". Soon after the end of the second world war, Stalin, realized that the USSR needed it's own substantial oil reserves if it was ever again called on to defend itself against another attack. At the time it's largest oil fields in Baku were considered to be depleting and nearing exhaustion. Stalin set up a task force of top scientists and engineers in a project similar to the Manhattan project. Charging them with the task of finding out what oil was, where it came from, and how to find, recover, and efficiently refine it. What they found is that oil is not a "fossil fuel" but is a natural product of planet earth. Formed by high temperature, high pressure continuous reaction between calcium carbonate and iron oxide. Two of the most abundant compounds making up the earth's crust. This continuous reaction occurs at a depth of 100 km at a pressure of 50,000 atmospheres and a temperature of approx. 1500c and will continue on until the death of the planet! The high pressure, as well as centrifugal acceleration from the earth's rotation, causing oil to continuously seep up along fissures in the earth's crust into subterranean caverns, which are called oil fields. The Russians have found plentiful oil at depths greater than 13km. No fossils have ever been found at depths even close to this depth. If, indeed, oil is a "fossil fuel" how can this possibly be?

There earlier comments have nothing to do with climate science. Liberals generally love the concept of anthropogenic warming, and conservatives are just the opposite. But neither position has anything to do with the science.. Morano, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't need a PhD in climate science to understand the broad concepts and be able to quote what other credible PhDs have stated (or done.)

Then there's the "appeal to authority" argument, when it should be clear to all that it's "authority" which is being questione so that is a non-starter. There is no shortage of credible scientists who are skeptics, whether the total number is more or less than their opponents hardly matters. Science isn't determined by a vote count.

Morano says there's been no warming for the past 16 years. NOAA and scientists at other organizations agree. There have been vigorous arguments about whether one recent year is warmer than another, but it turns out that the difference in temperature betwixt the two years invariably involves a few hundredths of a degree. By the time one collects temperature data across an entire planet for one year the only thing you can be sure of is that .. it ain't accurate to hundredths of a degree. Two thermometers, one just a foot or two above another can give a much bigger difference than a few hundredths of a degree! (and how many do you think can even measure to an accuracy of hundredths of a degree?)

There were hundreds of peer reviewed studies showing that the Medieval Warming Period was as warm,likely warmer than it is now. Along came Michael Mann, supported with lots of bucks from the UN, and already in control of many of the periodicals covering climate science, and claims that the MWP was merely a regional phenomenon. How many people know that hundreds MORE peer-reviewed studies have shown up since Mann's hockey stick study which continue to show that the MWP was global, not regional, and as warm,likely warmer than now? If one wants to argue about a scientific consensus, it would in this example, not be favoring Mann's claim. (Also, these peer-reviewed studies were conducted in 40+ different countries, scientific investigations carried out basically across the globe. Mann's data, on the other hand, was much more limited. Then there's the fact that his "study" was rebutted, both because of the data he used, and the process he used to arrive at his conclusions.

Now we have the silliness of claiming every hurricane, tornado, or drought is proof that co2 (because it has increased, and man's activities are causing at least some of that increase) has caused the "climate change". Even NASA's Hansen, a zealot, runs away from that claim.

Do any of the people who visit this site understand that ALL the computer models predicting catastrophic global warming assume that water vapor is the real culprit? Their models assume that the temperature increase brought on by co2 increase brings on a positive feedback from water vapor which, in response, increases the temperature 2 to 3 times more than the temp increase brought on by co2. NOBODY understands feedback, neither all the possible feedbacks or whether the net result in this case is positive or negative. In fact, there are scientists who argue that cloud cover (that would be water vapor) actually provides a negative feedback. Ironically,the computer models inadvertently verify this because their projections are always too high. Neither have the climate yet dealt with what more recent satellite data shows - that when the earth is warmer, more heat escapes to space!

The US has spent on the order of 100 billion dollars, all in support of studies claiming anthropogenic global warming, and there is still no evidence supporting that claim. Hardly a nickel of our government expenditures (same goes for some other governments) is allocated to investigating whether man's activities and/or increasing co2 have anything to do with our current warming.

Incidentally, the general notion that our current warming began about the time our industrial revolution came along is also dubious. Our current warming did not begin at the end of the Little Ice Age (generally identified as in the 1800s). That end date is arbitrary and not relevant in any event. Our current warming began when the LIA started warming; that would begin at its lowest temperature which is (according to Dr. Evans, Aussie climatologist) around 1630, some 200 years before our industrial revolution. That's 200 years of natural warming before co2 began increasing. But, there's more... co2 would have had to increase for decades before it could possibly have had any impact on climate, perhaps even a century or two. That's 300 years of natural warming before co2 began increasing. Could just be a coincidence.

Whether we are having some impact on our climate is certainly a possibility. Practically anything is possible, but there is not one iota of evidence. EVERYTHING points in another direction, and can best be summed up with a simple question. Why would anyone be so naive as to believe that a UN based organization, with the title (and specific mission) called "The International Panel on Climate Change"(IPCC) would do a study of climate research (supposedly performed by others) and come away with the conclusion that "it's just mother nature at work".?

There are 31 earlier comments, not one of which has anything to do with climate science. Liberals generally love the concept of anthropogenic warming, and conservatives are just the opposite. But that has nothing to do with the facts. Morano, or anyone, for that matter doesn't have to have a PhD in climate science to understand broad concepts and quote what other PhDs are saying.

Then there's the "appeal to authority" argument, when it should be clear to all that it's "authority" which is being questioned. There are shortage of credible scientists who are skeptics, whether more or less than their opponents hardly matters. Science isn't determined by a vote count.

Morano says there's been no warming for the past 16 years. NOAA and scientists at other organizations agree. There are arguments about whether one recent year is warmer than another, but it turns out that the difference in temperature betwixt the two is a few hundredths of a degree. By the time one collects temperature data across an entire planet for one year the only thing you can be sure of is that .. it ain't accurate to hundredths of a degree. (Two thermometers, one just a foot or two above the other can give you a much bigger difference than a few hundredths of a degree!

There were hundreds of peer reviewed studies showing that the Medieval Warming Period was as warm,likely warmer than it is now. Along came Mann, supported with lots of bucks from the UN, and already in control of many of the periodicals covering climate science, and claims the MWP was merely a regional phenomenon. How many people know that hundreds MORE peer-reviewed studies have shown up since Mann's hockey stick which continue to show that the MWP was global, not regional, and as warm,likely warmer than now? (If one were to argue about a consensus, it would in this example, not be favoring Mann's claim. (Also, these peer-reviewed studies were conducted in 40+ different countries, basically a scientific investigation in most parts of the globe. Mann, on the other hand was much more limited. Then there's the fact that his "study" was rebutted, both because of the data he used, and the process he used to arrive at his conclusions.

Now we have the silliness of claiming every hurricane, tornado, or drought is proof that co2 (because it has increased, and man's activities are causing at least some of that increase) has caused the "climate change". Even NASA's Hansen, a zealot, says that's crazy.

Do any of the people on this site understand that ALL the computer models predicting catastrophic global warming assume that water vapor is the real culprit? Their models assume that the temperature increase brought on by co2 increase brings on a positive feedback from water vapor which, in response, increases the temperature 2 to 3 times more than the temp increase brought on by the co2 increase. NOBODY understands feedback, neither all the possible feedbacks or whether the net result is positive or negative. In fact, there are scientists who argue that cloud cover (that would be water vapor) actually provide a negative feedback, and the computer models inadvertently verify this because their projections are always too high. The climate models have not yet dealt with the more recent satellite data which shows that when the earth is warmer, more heat escapes to space!

The US has spent on the order of 100 billion dollars, all in support of studies claiming anthropogenic global warming, and there is still no evidence supporting that hypothesis. Hardly a nickel of our government (same goes for some other governments) is allocated to investigating whether man's activities and/or increasing co2 have anything to do with our current warming.

Incidentally, the general notion that our current warming began about the time our industrial revolution came along is also bogus. Our current warming did not begin at the end of the Little Ice Age (generally identified as in the 1800s). That end date is arbitrary and not relevant. Our current warming began when the LIA started warming; that would begin at its lowest temperature which is (according to Dr. Evans, Aussie climatologist) around 1630, some 200 years before our industrial revolution. That's 200 years of natural warming before co2 began increasing. But, there's more... co2 would have had to increase for decades before it could possibly have had any impact on climate, perhaps even centuries. That's 300 years of natural warming before co2 began increasing.

Whether we are having some impact on our climate is always a possibility. Practically anything is possible, but there is not one iota of evidence. EVERYTHING points in another direction, and can best be summed up with a simple question. Why would anyone be so naive as to believe that a UN based organization "The International Panel on Climate Change"(IPCC) would do a study of climate research (supposedly performed under contract by others) and come away with the conclusion that "it's just mother nature at work".?