There are 'skeptics' who question that global warming is taking place, or that it can be as serious as the IPCC reports indicate. Some also criticize the way the IPCC compiles their reports. It is obviously challenging to agree on what to report and how to report it with more than 2000 scientists from all over the world more or less willingly trying to cooperate. Some of the scientists might indeed be advocates for the political interests of the government that sent them.

The main idea is that all these scientists meeting and discussing will be able to find out hidden agendas, and let the science prevail. In the book 1 on science in the three tome IPCC reports, the scientists can only compile findings from research articles published in well known, internationally accepted scientific peer reviewed journals. This restricts the discussions fairly much in Working Group 1. The two other working groups are slightly less restricted.

However, in spite of meticulous control systems and vigorous debates on uncertainties and doubts, the reports should be read with a critical eye. Some skeptics argue that since the IPCC process demands consensus, the reports inevitably become conservative and avoid reporting the gloomy realities.

There are also some obvious, very powerful groups of 'deniers' who have vested economic interest in keeping fossil fuels as the main carriers of energy for as long as possible, especially under peak oil conditions. First of all the big multinational coal and oil companies.

Globally, the economical turnover of fossil fuel products adds up to tens or maybe hundreds of billions (thousand million) of dollars every day. The USA alone imports crude oil for USD two billion daily. Since the USA "produces" roughly half of its oil itself, it is safe to claim that the USA alone has a daily turnover of crude oil amounting to roughly USD 4 billion per day. The crude oil is refined to various petroleum products that are sold to much higher prices, on average probably two to five times as much.

In addition comes the coal, which amounts to about the same as the oil. It is fairly safe to claim that daily US turnover therefore runs up to more than USD 20 billion on fossil fuel products. Corresponding figues are found in Europe, China, India and elsewhere.

Climate change skepticism (Encyclopedia of Earth)

In addition the military-industrial complexes of the world have invested heavily in fossil fuel technology and are willing to go to great lengths to guard sources and pipelines. The arguments from these interest groups are often confounded with the more legitimate arguments from the sceptics. The main arguments are as follows:

  1. The burning of fossil fuels has no ecological impact.
    There is no proven correlation between an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming - or at least there is no absolute proof.

  1. CO2 cannot accumulate in the atmosphere, as any additional CO2 will instantly be absorbed by the oceans
    The additional CO2 added to the seas will make the oceans more alkaline
    The CO2 acts as a fertilizer, making our planet more lush and green.
    The extra plant growth will absorb the CO2
  1. The claim that there is an enhanced anthropogenic (manmade) global warming is wrong and probably a swindle
  1. There has been no global warming since 1998.
    It is actually getting colder, with more snow at the poles, and sinking sea levels. We are probably heading for a new ice age within the next decades.
  1. If there is global warming, it is due to natural variations or something else, not greenhouse gases
  1. Climate has always changed. The current climate change is just a natural variation and nothing to worry about
  1. The international big oil and coal industry has high ethical standards and have neither political nor speculative economical interests nor hidden agendas
  1. An unfettered, globalised market will let the invisible hand of the free market forces solve any problem in the long run
  1. There are no limits to growth. Perpetual increases in consumption are ecologically possible and valuable
  1. New technology and nature will sort things out by itself.
    In a decade or two all the big oil sources will be gone anyway, and new and cleaner technology inevitably emerge.
    Enormous investments in cleaning technology and alternative energy sources now are therefore a waste of money.
    Let people sort out the problems when they actually arrive.
  1. The UN, most mainstream scientists and the majority of democratically elected politicians exploit the global warming fabrications to conspire against ordinary people, eventually to harm and oppress us all in a new global, oligarch and / or communist government
  1. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is healthy, and will make our planet more lush and green.
    Man cannot destroy the Earth. Only God can do that.

    Climate Skeptic Seeks Energy Committee Chairmanship
  1. Oil is a renewable resource. It is continuously produced in the core of the Earth and is pressured towards the Earth's surface. Emptied oil wells will therefore after some years be refilled.