Are there any examples of high-profile climate skeptics changing their mind?

"Ronald Bailey, author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002), stated in 2005, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up".

"Gregg Easterbrook characterized himself as having "a long record of opposing alarmism". In 2006, he stated, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert"

Following quote is not about skeptics changing their position on the issue though it does give a good idea of just how confident they are about their theories:

"Risk averse skeptics

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."

hi Mike i think of the two events do not desire to work out the election become a referendum on carbon Tax . An election could be won and lost on one among those matters not in basic terms one concern right here in Australia Howard won his elections on boat human beings ( refugees) and GST Tax He won the two for the time of the help of the media they promoted the guy overboard concern The media performed time and time back photos of a small new child leaping from a leaky boat whilst actually the new child replace into thrown to a determine already interior the water It wasn't fantastically to observe peoples lives in super possibility yet to dramatise it to win a election by technique of enjoying on peoples thoughts to win votes to me isn't a stable look . and then interior the subsequent election by fact the boat human beings lie went so nicely he desperate to have a referendum on a GST tax in the past the election and the persons voted in a landslide win for NO GST TAX and for people who've short thoughts HE reported that the persons have spoken an Australia will have no GST whilst ever he replace into chief and what did he do as quickly as he replace into reelected introduce a GST TAX He merely stored on lien to the Australian human beings. So i think of the reason they don't look to be speaking approximately AGW is by using the fact they see the technological information isn't settled on CO2 being the traditional reason for climate replace They understand climate replace IS going on around the globe and that they understand the time table there is an previous announcing enable sound asleep canines LYE do not circulate poking it with a stick just to work out what happens it mite chew you on the *** merely like the CO2 debate in case you stick your neck out on CO2 themes then you need to be left with egg on your face and neither occasion needs that. My opinion Mike Cheers

Best example I know of is John M. Wallace, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington. See here:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/...

for a discussion of how his scientific opinion evolved.

You can still see he has the inclination to skepticism, as shown here in this very recent op-ed piece by him:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2011...

Putin is a former KGB. I am not surprised alarmsits would tout his opinion. Lomborg never "denied" human caused climate change. His first book simply pushed for practical and common sense solutions. He never was an "alarmists" such as you find on YA. Even though I think he is ignorant of much of the science and not skeptical enough, he is practical and reasonable.

Perhaps it is much like conservatism. You don't typically renounce it once you have learned enough. There are plenty of reformed liberals however.

<<<“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”>>> Winston Churchhill

Note: Dana, if you read a skeptical environmentalists, your head might spin and you would probably spit up your pea soup but he hasn't significantly modified his position. The only thing that was mildly irritating when I read his book was his assumption that much of what alarmists claim is true.

Considering Putin to be actually be anything but a permanent member of communist party of the politburo is ignorant. I seriously doubt that any skeptic would do anything but become more skeptical as more evidence proved how truly indefensible the doomsday cult of global waring really is.

Well, I don't know if I am all that high profile, but I have certainly changed my mind about global warmers, I used to just disagree with them, but I recently have taken an extreme dislike toward them, does that count?

Bangladesh.because the bad effect of global warming change their mind.

Your in dreamland Eric nice try, no coconut, end of.

hmmm... "if deniers would just shut up....."

Sounds like the alarmists are starting to sound like......

Don't believe for a second that Vladimir Putin is playing anything but politics.

You want to be careful about what you are saying. Bjørn Lomborg does not appear to have changed his mind. He never questioned whether man is causing the environment to warm. His previous books created debate in the areas that should be debated: what we can and should do about it. If deniers would just shut up, the public debate along the questions that Lomborg raises could be better conducted. I'll speculate that what is being spun as his changing his mind is more his becoming aware of technical solutions that might not be as costly as those he knew about in 2007. As a statistician, he knows that changes in projects costs of doing something versus doing nothing will change the optimal direction. This book sounds like more progression from him than a changing of his belief in AGW which was always absolute.