Harvey Sheldon sent me the following in an impromptu email when I mentioned Bill Tucker's book, Terrestrial Energy. I submit it with his permission and an explanation that he wrote it "on the fly."
Many people do not have time or feel able to question "the experts." However, if you want to check out the views of serious, highly rational skeptics with science credentials, there are numerous sources. I would suggest you go to two websites: www.icecap.us, and www.heartland.org. At Icecap there is a running compendium of data and information, much of it supplied by professors and researchers. At Heartland, click on environment and find and read the Report of the NonGovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which Heartland Institute published. That report, issued this past March, is a nice summary that cites concrete data and evidence refuting both the theory and substance of the "Man Made Climate Change Imminently Threatens Earth" crowd. I did not come to my views for any reason other than honest use of my Amherst education and decades of environmental law practice experience while getting prepared for a presentation to the University of Florida Law School a year ago. I expected to find clear confirmation of the carbon-control-is-necessary crowd's analysis. Instead I found big uncertainties in the computer modeling approach that render the models clearly incapable of reliable predictive capacity, use and repetition of incomplete or false historic temperature and other data, and other overstated and unfounded cause -effect claims. On the other hand, I found thoughtful critiques from questioning scientists, including. e.g., very compelling evidence of coincidence of solar activity changes with the history of climate changes on Earth. Climate is variable, and always was. It was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is now. Man has indeed measurably increased the global level of CO2 in the atmosphere by human activity and increasing population in the past century. The total increase in atmospheric CO2 over a hundred years is, let's say, 35%, possibly more. That sounds like a lot, until you recognize that it means change on the order of one one hundredth of a percent of the overall gas composition of the atmosphere. That's right, one hundredth of one percent! Scientists from schools like MIT and U of Virginia are saying this carbon-centered fanaticism is scientifically preposterous and that in this rush to carbon control we are witnessing a modern version of 'the Emperor has no clothes" fairy tale. Believe me, it would be far easier for me to just go along with the crowd, not risk the social eye-rollers and ostracism, and happily just make money off the law on the carbon control issue; but given what I have come to learn, not to speak out and question the validity of assertions that we are dooming the planet with CO2 would be irresponsible.