I could be cynical and view his clean tech investments as a capitalist assessing the market, independent of his beliefs in global warming. If enough people want clean tech for whatever reason (including false beliefs in climate change), investing in clean tech can be a smart move. That said, I did find a quote that indicates he cares about the environment.

Thiel told the TechCrunch Disrupt crowd that "one potential route for cleantech energies is to work with something that’s slightly more environmentally friendly than current sources — natural gas. It's a cheaper form of energy that's much more ubiquitous, and has less of an environmental impact than most energy sources today, but has not been harnessed."

http://www.thegreenskeptic.com/2011/09/peter-thiel-cleantech...

Concerns about the environment don't necessarily mean belief in global warming.

His NYT editorial "The New Atomic Age We Need" talks about other's concerns about climate change, but never his own position on climate change, just on nuclear energy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/opinion/the-new-atomic-age...

An interview he did with Glenn Beck for the Blaze quotes him as calling climate science pseudoscience.

Thiel: I do think that having a space where you can think for yourself and
where it doesn't always get second-guessed is very important. We have a we have
all these monolithic debates about science or pseudoscience. Like there's the
climate change debate.

Beck: Is that science or pseudoscience?

Thiel: I think it's more pseudoscience. Whenever you can't have a debate
I often think that's evidence that there's a problem. When people use the word
science, it's often a tell like in poker that you're bluffing. We have
social science, we have political science. We don't call it physical science or
chemical science, we just call them physics and chemistry because we just know
they're right and you can debate the periodic table of elements. No one will be
upset if you ask questions about that. We call it climate scicence. It's a
tell like in poker. It's telling you that people are exaggerating, and that
they're bluffing a little bit.

But I think this monolithic culture is breaking down. People are asking
questions. You know the weather has not been getting warmer for the past 15 years.
The hockey stick that Al Gore predicted in the early 2000s on the climate has
not happened for the last decade. I think as this monolithic culture breaks down
you can have more real debates and I think that would be a good thing on net.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoxxGhLFbw4

I just did the transcript myself, so there are very likely mistakes. I also tried to clean up the language a bit. I won't quibble if people point them out. If someone feels I've misrepresented what he said, please do correct me.

There's a lot of language there that sounds like that of climate change skeptics.

I'm not trying to be obstinate here. I've been surprised by many of the opinions shared by HN commenters that I would think are incongruent (and I'm sure some think the same of mine).

I guess I'm a "Peter Thiel Believes in Climate Change" skeptic. Happy to be shown I'm wrong.

Edit: I realize I'm equating "global warming" and "climate change". I don't think that changes what I've written, but if it does, please let me know.