| It was rubbish. I didn't believe a word of it and really didn't give it much time. | 7 | 2% |
| I read it carefully and strongly disagree. | 60 | 19% |
| It made me think, but I don't have time to spend on it, so overall it didn't really change my view much. | 10 | 3% |
| It did make me think and challenge my assumptions. I'm going to spend some time learning to understand the issue better. | 49 | 15% |
| I find it difficult to support my previous belief in the global warming story, but I really don't have time to do much about it. | 5 | 2% |
| I found it very convincing and will try to have conversations with others about this. | 133 | 41% |
| Other | 58 | 18% |
| | |
| (blank) | 2 | 1% |
| I am allready NOT a supporter of decarbonization | 1 | 0% |
| You are of course entirely correct, speaking as one of of the original KoD's I can only applaud your enlightenment. Massive Kudos for speaking out so publicly. g1lgam3sh | 1 | 0% |
| I have known that AGW was a scam ever since 2004, but talking about it doesn't change anything. Greenery is a religion. If talking about a religion changed anything, we'd all be Jehovah's Witnesses... | 1 | 0% |
| Accurately stated my position on CAGW | 1 | 0% |
| Didn't believe in the false consensus to start with. Well written factual essay, which will not convert anyone. It's religion now, you'd have better luck converting one of those door-to-door missionaries to satanism. Also, you've just proven that you | 1 | 0% |
| I wasn't a supporter of decarbonization before reading this. | 1 | 0% |
| I already know more than 90% of what you have said and am aware of many other facts that falsifies the GW/CG bogey ! | 1 | 0% |
| non supporter of decarbonization | 1 | 0% |
| I have already taken your journey and reached your conclusions. From realclimate to Watts up with that and Climate Audit | 1 | 0% |
| I already knew everything you wrote about | 1 | 0% |
| As a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics, I have always been a skeptic. I am constantly reminded of the scientific world's rejection of Einstein's Theories of Relativity until they were verified by experiment. | 1 | 0% |
| Spin over substance, finding facts is the hard part. lots of factoids ;( | 1 | 0% |
| I largely disagree with your analysis of the science. I'm in about 80 percent agreement as to what we should do. | 1 | 0% |
| I already believed AGW was a political weapon and the science was not settled | 1 | 0% |
| N/A- was not a supporter of decarbonization | 1 | 0% |
| Never supported decarbonization | 1 | 0% |
| was not a supporter of decarbonization | 1 | 0% |
| I knew what you found out. Took many hours of reading, Heartland was important. Good work | 1 | 0% |
| Did not address the basic question: Do greenhouse gasses reflect / retransmit infrared radiation? If so, there is a greenhouse effect; if not, there isn't. | 1 | 0% |
| I had read enough of the cited sources to have reached similar conclusions to yours, SANS your more-nuclear-power stance. Everything else, you were singing to the choir for me. | 1 | 0% |
| i was not a supporter | 1 | 0% |
| Global warming is real but not dangerous | 1 | 0% |
| Never believed in warming | 1 | 0% |
| I was a skeptic already, and I found your essay nicely summarizes the case against decarbonization. I am a scientist in another field of research (biomedical) with 120 peer-reviewed publications and I found it absolutely shocking when I began to exp | 1 | 0% |
| I have been an AWG skeptis for about 10 years. At first I thought I may be alone on this subject but as more former believers have become skeptics, I feel more secure in my beliefs. | 1 | 0% |
| I have tried to convince many friends that the issue is not CO2. This is a good and welcome synopsis. | 1 | 0% |
| I have long held the same positions that you layout in this paper. It's been quite evident that the fix is in for quite a while. | 1 | 0% |
| Not a supporter | 1 | 0% |
| I was already skeptical, but you laid it out better than anyone else I have seen. Great job, Dave! | 1 | 0% |
| It made me think, but overall it didn't really change my view much. I'm going to spend some time learning to understand the issue better. | 1 | 0% |
| I wasn't a supporter of decarbonization. | 1 | 0% |
| I noted a lack of hard science and a strong bias in the way the proponents of the two sides were described - b | 1 | 0% |
| I found it a well-written summary of basically the same conclusions I had come to on my own. | 1 | 0% |
| Dont want to skew your survey - but I was already sceptical as I have a science background and have done a great deal of modelling in engineering and I read as much as I could on the subject. The moment someone states the science is settled you know | 1 | 0% |
| I was well aware of most of what you presented in this post, it was well put together and well written and I commend your efforts. Unfortunately the state of this issue is the norm and not the outlier. | 1 | 0% |
| CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). Satellites have measured the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Scientists measured the influence of CO2 on both solar energy and long-wave radiation. They | 1 | 0% |
| I read it carefully and mildly disagree | 1 | 0% |
| I was not a supporter of decarbonization before... | 1 | 0% |
| States much of what I already believed. | 1 | 0% |
| This article only enforced my own personal conclusions, other than democrats are beyond | 1 | 0% |
| This article only enforced my own personal conclusions, other than democrats can't | 1 | 0% |
| This article only enforced my own personal conclusions, other than democrats | 1 | 0% |
| This article only enforced my own personal conclusions, and strengthened my resolve. It did alter my belief that democrats are completely irrational however. | 1 | 0% |
| supports my own questions about climate change | 1 | 0% |
| I was never a supporter of decarbonization itself but I do support the overall idea of reducing waste and the amount of hazardous man-made substances that could potentially cause harm to people, creatures and the evironment. | 1 | 0% |
| results pls | 1 | 0% |
| I had already read enough to believe that the science is not settled and that the issue has become one of politics rather than science. | 1 | 0% |
| I've always been skeptical of the AGW scare and agree with just about everything in your article. The really scary thing is the total control our gov't will have over our lives after NGD becomes law. | 1 | 0% |
| Im still on the fence | 1 | 0% |