A Partial List of Global Warming Skeptics
A Partial List of Global Warming Scientist Skeptics
• Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, who believes the Earth is warming but the cause is unknown.
Scientists in this next section accept the observations of rising temperatures, but conclude it is too early to ascribe any cause to these changes, man-made or natural.
• Claude Allègre, French geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University[7])
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006 [8])
• Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of SciencesRoy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
• (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006 [11])
Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperature, but conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than human activities.
• Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station
• Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics greenhouse gas content." [17]
• Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
• George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California, and Leonid F. Khilyuk
• William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State University (Discover, vol. 26 no. 9, September 2005 [22])
• Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
• Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
• Tim Patterson [26], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in CanadaFrederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, who has stated that, "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.", Environment News, 2001 [28]
• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia - Google Video Link)
• Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa:
This section contains scientists who accept that global warming will occur, but advocate the position that it will be of little impact or a net positive for human society.
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University, who has stated, "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming.", Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World, co2science.org, Nov, 2003, p. 30 ([36]).
YES, it's all about the
YES, it's all about the money (AND ... it's REAL):
If this excerpt interests you go to the full article and expanded research findings at:
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/mignone20070213.htm
NEXT CLIMATE CHANGE BATTLE: THE ECONOMY
as reported in The Baltimore Sun, February 13, 2007
Bryan K. Mignone
"The unveiling of the latest scientific report on climate change in Paris this month dealt another blow to the few remaining groups opposed to mandatory limits on carbon emissions. The report, the fourth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, concludes with 90 percent certainty - the highest yet - that the observed increase in global surface temperature over the past five decades is caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, primarily carbon dioxide produced from the burning of fossil fuels.
In addition, the report predicts that if such emissions are left unchecked, the average global temperature will rise from 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius (2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the 21st century, leading to dangerous increases in global sea levels and hurricane intensity and possibly other severe outcomes.
The White House dispatched Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman to tepidly embrace the results. While stating that "human activity is contributing to changes in our Earth's climate," he concluded his remarks by disputing the need for mandatory emissions limits on the grounds that "the U.S. economy is not something that should be experimented with."
With the scientific evidence now beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr. Bodman made it clear to those who reject mandatory measures that they have one option left: to claim that the costs of action exceed the costs of inaction.
..."
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
Scientists respond to Gore's
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
Canadian Free Press
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
The "consensus" is crumbling.
You can add my name to the
You can add my name to the list, although I have no formal training







Discussions like this are
Discussions like this are always amazing. Al Gore is a messinger. So the first move is to discredit the messinger . He is a rich energy user. Does the attacker own a car, fly in airliners? He is a politician - ipso facto, not to be believed.
The message in "An Inconvenient Truth" is merely a popular presentation of the message first articulated as an hypothesis by a NASA scientist, James Hansen in 1988. Verified in a IPCC report which synthesized the vast body of research of major climatologists in 1995 and recently verified and strengthened by another IPCC report. The 1995 report was called "the most significant warning our species, as a whole, has yet been given". The views expressed in these reports have been endorsed by the major national organizations of scientists in eleven nations. There has never before been such concensus about any scientific conclusions. Despite this near total unananimity the few very vocal sceptics get the most press and catch the "belief" of equally vocal contrarians.
Lets get real here - we face a serious threat that has strong moral as well as economic implications. Individual efforts are only a very tiny part of the solution.