Many more links to supporting data in the body of the source doc at the link.
http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming6.1.1.html
I'm a denier for several reasons. There is no substantive evidence that the planet has warmed significantly or that any significant warming will occur in the future. If any warming does occur, it likely will be concentrated at higher latitudes and therefore be beneficial. Climate research has largely degenerated into pathological science, and the coverage of global warming in the media is tendentious to the point of being fraudulent. Anyone who is an honest and competent scientist must be a denier.

Have you ever considered how difficult it is to take the temperature of the planet Earth? What temperature will you measure? The air? The surface of the Earth absorbs more than twice as much incident heat from the Sun than the air. But if you measure the temperature of the surface, what surface are you going to measure? The solid Earth or the oceans? There is twice as much water as land on Earth. If you decide to measure water temperature, at what depth will you take the measurements? How will the time scale on which the deep ocean mixes with the shallow affect your measurements? And how, pray tell, will you determine what the average water temperature was for the South Pacific Ocean a hundred years ago? How will you combine air, land, and sea temperature measurements? Even if you use only meteorological measurements of air temperature, how will you compensate for changes in latitude, elevation, and land use?

Determining a mean planetary temperature is not straightforward, but an extremely complicated problem. Even the best data are suspect. Anthony Watts and his colleagues have surveyed 82.5 percent of stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. They have found – shockingly – that over 70 percent of these stations are likely to be contaminated by errors greater than 2 deg C [3.6 deg F]. Of the remaining stations, 21.5 percent have inherent errors greater than 1 deg C. The alleged degree of global warming over the past 150 years is less than 1 deg C. Yet even in a technologically advanced country like the US, the inherent error in over 90 percent of the surveyed meteorological stations is greater than the putative signal. And these errors are not random, but systematically reflect a warming bias related to urbanization. Watts has documented countless instances of air temperature sensors located next to air conditioning vents or in the middle of asphalt parking lots. A typical scenario is that a temperature sensor that was in the middle of a pasture a hundred years ago is now surrounded by a concrete jungle. Urbanization has been a unidirectional process. It is entirely plausible – even likely – that all of the temperature rise that has been inferred from the data is an artifact that reflects the growth of urban heat islands.

The "denier" is portrayed as a person who refuses to accept the plain evidence of his senses. But in fact it is the alarmist who doesn't know what they are talking about. The temperature of the Earth and how it has varied over the past 150 years is poorly constrained. The person who thinks otherwise does so largely because they have no comprehension of the science. Most of these people have never done science or thought about the inherent difficulties and uncertainties involved.

And what is "global warming" anyway? As long ago as the fifth century BC, Socrates pointed out that intelligible definitions are a necessary precursor to meaningful discussions. The definition of the term "global warming" shifts with the context of the discussion. If you deny global warming, then you have denied the existence of the greenhouse effect, a reproducible phenomenon that can be studied analytically in the laboratory. But if you oppose political action, then global warming metamorphoses into a nightmarish and speculative planetary catastrophe. Coastal cities sink beneath a rising sea, species suffer from wholesale extinctions, and green pastures are turned into deserts of choking hot sand.

In fact, so-called "deniers" are not "deniers" but skeptics. Skeptics do not deny the existence of the greenhouse effect. Holding all other factors constant, the mean planetary air temperature ought to rise as the atmosphere accumulates more anthropogenic CO2. Christopher Monckton recently reviewed the pertinent science and concluded that a doubling of CO2 should result in a temperature increase of about 1 deg C. If this temperature increase mirrors those in the geologic past, most of it will occur at high latitudes. These areas will become more habitable for man, plants, and other animals. Biodiversity will increase. Growing seasons will lengthen. Why is this a bad thing?

Any temperature increase over 1 deg C for a doubling of CO2 must come from a positive feedback from water vapor. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere, and warm air holds more water than cold air. The theory is that an increased concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere will lead to a positive feedback that amplifies the warming from CO2 by as much as a factor of three to five. But this is nothing more that speculation. Water vapor also leads to cloud formation. Clouds have a cooling effect. At the current time, no one knows if the feedback from water vapor will be positive or negative.

Global warming predictions cannot be tested with mathematical models. It is impossible to validate computer models of complex natural systems. The only way to corroborate such models is to compare model predictions with what will happen in a hundred years. And one such result by itself won't be significant because of the possible compounding effects of other variables in the climate system. The experiment will have to repeated over several one-hundred year cycles. In other words, the theory of catastrophic global warming cannot be tested or empirically corroborated in a human time frame.

It is hardly conclusive to argue that models are correct because they have reproduced past temperatures. I'm sure they have. General circulation models have so many degrees of freedom that it is possible to endlessly tweak them until the desired result is obtained. Hindsight is always 20-20. This tells us exactly nothing about a model's ability to accurately predict what will happen in the future.

The entire field of climate science and its coverage in the media is tendentious to the point of being outright fraudulent. Why is it that every media report on CO2 – an invisible gas – is invariably accompanied by a photograph of a smokestack emitting particulate matter? Even the cover of Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, shows a smokestack. Could it be that its difficult to get people worked up about an invisible, odorless gas that is an integral component of the photosynthetic cycle? A gas that is essential to most animal and plant life on Earth? A gas that is emitted by their own bodies through respiration? So you have to deliberately mislead people by showing pictures of smoke to them. Showing one thing when you're talking about another is fraud. If the case for global warming alarmism is so settled, so conclusive, so irrefutable...why is it necessary to repeatedly resort to fraud?

A few years ago it was widely reported that the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause poison ivy to grow faster. But of course carbon dioxide causes almost all plants to grow faster. And nearly all of these plants have beneficial human uses. Carbon dioxide fertilizes hundreds or thousands of human food sources. More CO2 means trees grow faster. So carbon dioxide promotes reforestation and biodiversity. Its good for the environment. But none of this was reported. Instead, the media only reported that global warming makes poison ivy grow faster. And this is but one example of hundreds or thousands of such misleading reports. If sea ice in the Arctic diminishes, it is cited as irrefutable proof of global warming. But if sea ice in the Antarctic increases, it is ignored. Even cold weather events are commonly invoked as evidence for global warming. People living in the future will look back and wonder how we could have been so delusional.

For the past few years I have remained silent concerning the Climategate emails. But what they revealed is what many of us already knew was going on: global warming research has largely degenerated into what is known as pathological science, a "process of wishful data interpretation." When I testified before the US Senate in 2006, I stated that a major climate researcher told me in 1995 that "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." The existence and global nature of the Medieval Warm Period had been substantiated by literally hundreds of research articles published over decades. But it had to be erased from history for ideological reasons. A few years later the infamous "hockey stick" appeared. The "hockey stick" was a revisionist attempt to rewrite the temperature history of the last thousand years. It has been discredited as being deeply flawed.

In one Climategate email, a supposed climate scientist admitted to "hiding the decline." In other words, hiding data that tended to disprove his ideological agenda. Another email described how alarmists would try to keep critical manuscripts from being published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. One of them wrote, we'll "keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Gee. If the climate science that validates global warming is so unequivocal, why is it necessary to work behind the scenes to suppress dissent? You "doth protest too much."

As described in my book, Science and Technology in World History: The Ancient World and Classical Civilization, systematic science began with the invocation of naturalism by Greek philosophers and Hippocratic physicians c. 600-400 BC. But the critical attitude adopted by the Greeks was as important as naturalism. Students were not only allowed to criticize their teachers, but were encouraged to do so. From its beginnings in Greek natural philosophy, science has been an idealistic and dispassionate search for truth. As Plato explained, anyone who could point out a mistake "shall carry off the palm, not as an enemy, but as a friend." This is one reason that scientists enjoy so much respect. The public assumes that a scientist's pursuit of truth is unencumbered by political agendas.

But science does not come easy to men. "Science," George Sarton reminded us, "is a joykiller." The proper conduct of science requires a high degree of intellectual discipline and rigor. Scientists are supposed to use multiple working hypotheses and sort through these by the processes of corroboration and falsification. The most valuable evidence is that which tends to falsify or disprove a theory. A scientist, by the very definition of his activity, must be skeptical. A scientist engaged in a dispassionate search for truth elevates the critical – he does not suppress it. Knowledge begins with skepticism and ends with conceit.

Finally, I'm happy to be known as a "denier" because the label of "denier" says nothing about me, but everything about the person making the charge. Scientific theories are never denied or believed, they are only corroborated or falsified. Scientific knowledge, by its very nature, is provisional and subject to revision. The provisional nature of scientific knowledge is a necessary consequence of the epistemological basis of science. Science is based on observation. We never have all the data. As our body of data grows, our theories and ideas must necessarily evolve. Anyone who thinks scientific knowledge is final and complete must necessarily endorse as a corollary the absurd proposition that the process of history has stopped.

A scientific theory cannot be "denied." Only a belief can be denied. The person who uses the word "denier" thus reveals that they hold global warming as a belief, not a scientific theory. Beliefs are the basis of revealed religion. Revelations cannot be corroborated or studied in the laboratory, so religions are based on dogmatic beliefs conservatively held. Religions tend to be closed systems of belief that reject criticism. But the sciences are open systems of knowledge that welcome criticism. I'm a scientist, and therefore I must happily confess to being a denier.

LOL

Garbage.

The earth's natural cycle is changing climate. So that makes the deniers of climate change stupid.

We are going to have climate change as long as this planet exists.

We are going to have to deal with climate change as long as humans exist on this climate changing planet.

To put our heads in the sand and say "it ain't happening" will only kill those who deny it and those who follow them off sooner than those who accept the natural course of this planet.

Global warming, we keep hearing about it, but many people don'tbelieve in it, but many people do. You wouldn't know that global warming was taking place if you lived anywhere in the New York area in the years 2010 to 2011. The reason I say that, is that while I'm writing this article on January 31, 2011, I'm looking at snow that has been piled up to a height of 10 feet in the local Pathmark parking lot. The weather report is stating that we are due for another snowfall tonight and in some areas it will be as much is 19 inches, but in this areait is scheduled to be about 4 inches, but snowfall could turn out to be much heavier. I have two cars, one of which has been snowed in for the last several days. It's in such deep snow that I can't even shovel it out. Lucky forme we have a second car that is free. What about all that global warming, why is everything so cold andwhy is there so much snow in some parts of the country? The answer to that is simple, global warming doesn't affect everybody the same way. In some areas it will even get colder, but in a lot of tropical areas it will get much worse, it will be so hot that water will dry up. The freshwater problem on this planet is getting worse every year and especially forthose that live in Africa, even large lakes have dried up. What are these peoplegoing to do? About the only thing that they can do is drink bottled water, but wait a second, these people have no moneyin most cases, how arethey going to afford bottled water? Not only that, bottled water may be okay to drink but you can't fill a bathtub with it because it would cost you a fortune. It may come to the point where huge desalination projects will be required just to keep people alive on that continent. It is beginning to look like some areas of Africa may become uninhabitable and devoid of life, if this current trend keeps going the way it's going. It's a shame people that need the help the most usually get the least amount of help. The reason forthat is most of them are poor and powerless and since they are not great consumers, companies don't reallycare about them and governments don't think much about helping them.
One has only to look atHaiti to see what I'm talking about. The people of Haiti are very poor and becauseof this they don't get much aid. The earthquake that killed many of them was over a year ago and a good portion of the people that were affected are still living in tents and some have not received any help whatsoever. If Haiti was a rich country, it probably would've received more help than they have gotten a currently. Water levels, that is freshwater, are going down all over the world even in this country. Anyway this country is blessed, I should actually say in many ways, but the way I am thinking of is in the amount of fresh water that we have. The Great Lakes contain more freshwater than anywhere else on earth. They are practically like freshwater oceans. They are not only a great source of drinking water, but a great way to navigation to differentparts of this country and Canada. You wouldn't think that bodies of water this huge could actually godown, but the Great Lakes are shrinking.

Why is it that the United States is resisting the fact that global warming is taking place? What is to be gained by us not admitting to this fact? It probably has something to do with restrictions. If we admit that global warming is taking place then we have to agree to certain guidelines. These guidelines would probably slow down businesses in some way, or cost it more money, so of course business is going to rebel against this and one of the best ways to do this is by saying that global warming doesn't exist. Think about it, one of the great mysteries is whyeverybody is buying bottled water? Bottledwater can be more expensive than even gasoline and the reason I say this is that while I don't mean expensive for usto buy I mean expensive for us to use in that all the plastic bottles that we generate foul the environment. Another thing about bottled water that doesn't make any sense is thatmore than half of it comes from municipalwater systems, the same systems that flow through your faucet. In other words you are paying for water that you can getfor free. Unless your water has a funny taste to it, it really makes no sense switching to bottled water. Some have saidthat bottled water is detrimental, because it is too clean. Being too clean means that we don't get our prerequisite of different minerals andthings like that out of the water and it could possibly affect our systems in some way. For companies bottledwater has become an incredible source of income. It is almost allprofit. When I was younger if you would've told somebody that peoplecould sell water to other people that had access to water through their pipes, everybody would havelaughed at you, also if you would have told people that someday you would be paying for television they would have laughed again. It seems to me that the genius of business is being able to sell people things that they don't really need and this is a great example of it. We really don't need bottled water.
Global warming doesn't always make sense when you think about it, for example we all know that the ice in the North Pole, or Arctic, is melting at a record pace, so this seems to indicate that global warming is certainly a factor. Then there is the ice inthe South Pole, the Antarctic, and that is increasing, what kind of sense does this make? It's almost as if the ice is shifting fromthe top to the bottom of the planet. You haveto wonder what affect all that weight will have on things like theEarth's rotation, its tiltand its orbit? When scientists talk about different changes in things like the Earth's orbit, we never hear them referred to. We never hear about the changes in structure of the ice and water, or about it moving, or anything like that and maybe that's because it would have no effect, or because theyknow something that we don't. We have a tradition of hiding things from the public and the government believes that it knows what's best for us and sometimes it feels that it's best that we don't know something. An example of this happened a year or two ago when a big chunk of space rock missed the Earth and went between the orbit of the Earth and the moon. This was very dangerous and most of us were never told about it, until after it had passed. Why didn't we know? We probably weren't told because the government thought that if we knew about this we would panic. In the eyes of the government the people of this country are children, children that are not able to handle stressful situations. It certainly does make you wonder what else we haven't been told, doesn't it? The people in the northeastern part of the United States and the people in the west central part have both been hit very hard by snowstorms this year and some area records were broken. It is very hard to convince people from these areas that global warming does exist. You can see whyit would be. The problem is when you look at global warming you have to look at what is known as the big picture. The big picture is what is happening to the entire world, not just what is happening to a certain region. When scientists talkedabout warming originally, mentioned the fact that some areas would get much colder and get more snow even though on average the temperature of the earth would be going up. This is exactly what has been happening. The problem is along with this happening, hundreds of millions of people in this country are now laughing at anybody that mentions the fact that there is global warming. They laugh because they don't understand and it is easy to see why, it is not easy to understand if you don't keep track of world events and I'm talking about world climate events.

It could turn out that our future could be one of wars, but not traditional war as we know it. It would be war over water, whichwould entail not only fighting, but the taking of other countries and territories. Unless someway is found to use ocean water in quantities large enough to help all those thirsty people out there and for industry, war maybe inevitable. Industry uses tremendous amounts of water. Justcooling 1 ton of steel takes 64,000 gallons of water. Maybe it's time that industry tries to find other ways to manufacture their products without using water as a coolant. Doing this may increase the cost of the product and that may be something we all haveto live with. After all, what is more important, having enough water to live, or something costing more? The problem is if that something costs so much that nobody can afford it, the companies would go out of business, because of this they may never acquiesce to looking for other solutions, because they might be too scared. We all know by now that a lot of companies are unscrupulous and theymight prefer to let people die of thirst rather than try new methods. I would like to add that we are not at the point where we can think of putting factories in space and possibly on the moon where it is so cold thatwater wouldn't be needed to cool things off.

Check out the corporate causes of these issues.

"Water bottlers" have opened plants in many areas and drained entire lakes and streams, then leave the area to drought conditions with only mudholes and vacant buildings where lush greenery and decent communities (who were struggling so allowed them in....for jobs) used to be.

In Africa, they built a dam that changed the whole ecosystem of a VAST area, causing drought and famine, then forced the people to BUY water that is heavily regulated by .....guess who..... Big business.

The facts are all over the internet! There is even a documentary film about it (called "Flow") for viewing.

http://www.flowthefilm.com/

Has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with corporatism!