What do you think of the following comments from scientists?

I tend to agree with them. Unlike most on both sides of this argument, I'm not as positive as they are but agree with the CO2 disclaimer.

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).

We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

1. What are your sources?

2. Are the scientists being quoted in context?

3. Where are the peer reviewed papers to support the statements or are these just opinions?

Edit: Sources are blogs. Opinions are interesting, but the logic and evidence behind the opinions is lacking. Dr. Kiminori Itoh appears to be motivated by a distaste for nuclear energy.

Edit: None of the references given are from Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Dr. Akasofu, James Spann, Patrick Carroll, Dr. Alexander, or Dr. Ian Plimer. Your references do not support your original topic. The question remains why do the aforementioned scientists hold their opinions? You can bring up other papers and discuss the science in future questions, but one at a time please.

I agree with these people, they are realistic and reasonable. They are not out trying to make a profit and get grants for research which would be funded by the tax payers through a carbon tax. If more and more would stand up, they will be able to discredit Al Gore and his group. Even the CEO of the Weather Channel tried to sue Al Gore.

All of the notes in your quesiton are very true. Global warming is an expensive con-game meant to spread wealth around the world and limit freedoms and lifestyles of everyone. It's pure politics, and has nothing to do with science. It's refreshing to see more scientists speaking out against the scam.

This is why the proponents of AGW have stopped doing research trying to produce concrete proof of their theoretical hypothesis. Every scientist that has actually done the scientific research has joined the skeptics and as the skeptics are now becoming the majority it is getting much harder to support the consensus myth.

One has to start questioning why are people putting out such propaganda statements like "the only thing more certain than global warming is the law of gravity", "there can be no more doubt", or "the debate is over". These same people say there is no scientific bases to oppose AGW, so where do you think that these highly respected people got their info from? A right wing blog or from scientific journals?

And they're only a part of a long list.

Oh, but they didn't run it by Realclimate.org first. They're not peer reviewed! they simply MUST be kooks then, because they didn't run their thinking through that booby-hatch first.

The advocates will say-- "they are not climatologists"---

Whatever that means??? Call your nearest university and ask to see the curriculum for a CLIMATOLOGIST degree--

After a lot of thought, I have to say I agree with them.

Al Gore will plant a tree to off set your environmental foot print..but for a price.