303 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

Mmmm...delicious argue mints....

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Here is a nice detailed list of a growing number of scientists that do not believe in manmade global warming. I expect to be instantaneously dugg down for posting actual facts on this site. Have at it fellas!<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&quot; rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_op ...</a>Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceasedSurface temperatures measured by thermometers and lower atmospheric temperature trends inferred from satellites * Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: &quot;[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.&quot; (November 2004)[5] &quot;There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up...&quot; (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] &quot;The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming.&quot; (August 2006)[7] &quot;Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.&quot; (Feb. 5, 2007)[8] * Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: &quot;the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.&quot;[9] * Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: &quot;The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.&quot;[10]Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequateIndividuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling. * Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: &quot;The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance.&quot;[11] * Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : &quot;models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view&quot;.[12]Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processesIndividuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. * Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: &quot;Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.&quot;[13][14][15] * Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: &quot;[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.&quot;[16] * Reid Bryson, deceased, former emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: &quot;It?s absurd. Of course it?s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we?re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we?re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.&quot;[17] * George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: &quot;The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth?s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth?s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.&quot;[18] * Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: &quot;That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.&quot;[19] * David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: &quot;The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.&quot;[20] * Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: &quot;global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035&quot;[21] * William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: &quot;This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.&quot;[22] &quot;I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.&quot;[23] &quot;So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing?all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.&quot;[24] * William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: &quot;There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences.&quot;[25] * George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: &quot;What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural.&quot;[26] * David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: &quot;About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.&quot;[27] * Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Universit? Jean Moulin: &quot;The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned.&quot;[28] * Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming &quot;is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn?t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole&quot;[29] * Tim Patterson[30], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: &quot;There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?&quot;[31][32] * Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: &quot;We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it&quot;.[33] * Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: &quot;[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.&quot; His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[34] * Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: &quot;The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect.&quot;[35][36] ?It?s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.?[37] * Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: &quot;[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.&quot;[38] * Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: &quot;I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind?s role is relatively minor&quot;[39] * Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: &quot;...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor...&quot;[40] * Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: &quot;Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth?s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover.&quot;[41] * Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: &quot;At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appe

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

&quot;Hey relax there blanket-man, profanity is usually the first sign of ignorance.&quot;This guy with an IQ of ~150 is telling you to suck it. (De plus, je te ferai remarque que l'anglais n'est pas ma langue maternelle. Quand tu pourras me passer des commentaires sur mon niveau d'intelligence dans une autre langue que la tienne, alors peut-être que je te prendrai au sérieux. Pour l'instant, tu ferais mieux de la fermer.)I *do* believe in civil discourse, but deniers are becoming so annoying with their refusal to understand basic science that I feel they no longer deserve any kind of civility.&quot;They can't even figure out 100% what is causing the climate change on earth, they certainly don't know what's causing it 100% on mars&quot;Very few things are 100% in science - that doesn't mean we shouldn't act when the evidence is strong - and evidence for AGW *is* strong.&quot;but a remarkable similarity between Earth and Mars is that the temperature of the sun will affect them both, and it's also apparently affecting planets as far out as Pluto..&quot;First, Pluto isn't a planet anymore, it's a Kuiper Belt Object. Second, there are other causes than solar output (which *hasn't* significantly increased over the past 50 years) that might be at play. Third, not all planets are warming up - in fact, Uranus is cooling. Only 6 of the 100+ solar system objects have been shown to be warming, and there are local explanation for this warming for all of them.<a class="user" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm&quot; rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-oth ...</a>&quot;Sorry but &quot;www.realclimate.org &quot; and &quot;www.climaticidechronicles.org&quot; do not carry the weight of &quot; National Geographic&quot; and &quot; Science&quot;&quot;So, if I can find a couple of articles on National Geographic and Science that support AGW, you'll agree to STFU about it? Not that the actual website matter as much as the science contained in the article, but since you seem incapable of comprehending the latter I'm happy to oblige you in your use of the &quot;Appeal to Authority&quot; logical fallacy:National Geographic<a class="user" href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html&quot; rel="nofollow">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/12 ...</a><a class="user" href="http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes.html&quot; rel="nofollow">http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environm ...</a><a class="user" href="http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html&quot; rel="nofollow">http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environm ...</a>Sciene (Abstracts only, you need to pay to read the full articles)<a class="user" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;316/5822/188?maxtoshow=&amp;amp;HITS=10&amp;amp;hits=10&amp;amp;RESULTFORMAT=&amp;amp;fulltext=global+warming&amp;amp;searchid=1&amp;amp;FIRSTINDEX=0&amp;amp;resourcetype=HWCIT&quot; rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci; ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;284/5413/464?maxtoshow=&amp;amp;HITS=10&amp;amp;hits=10&amp;amp;RESULTFORMAT=&amp;amp;fulltext=global+warming&amp;amp;searchid=1&amp;amp;FIRSTINDEX=10&amp;amp;resourcetype=HWCIT&quot; rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;313/5786/421?maxtoshow=&amp;amp;HITS=10&amp;amp;hits=10&amp;amp;RESULTFORMAT=&amp;amp;fulltext=global+warming&amp;amp;searchid=1&amp;amp;FIRSTINDEX=20&amp;amp;resourcetype=HWCIT&quot; rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci; ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;312/5775/825?maxtoshow=&amp;amp;HITS=10&amp;amp;hits=10&amp;amp;RESULTFORMAT=&amp;amp;fulltext=global+warming&amp;amp;searchid=1&amp;amp;FIRSTINDEX=20&amp;amp;resourcetype=HWCIT&quot; rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci; ...</a>Now, I'd like you to show exactly where the science presented in RealClimate.org and climaticidechronicles.org is wrong. That should be easy for you, given your deep understanding of science, no? If you can't point out where they are wrong, and why, then I'll have no other option but you consider that you are full s**t. And a f**king moron.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Wow, 40 names - that's impressive. We'll ignore the fact people on that list actually disagree with each other (some believe GW is real but natural, others refuse to acknowledge the Earth is warming), or that others are dead, or that some have nothing to do with Climate Science at all.Here's the list of 620 scientists who *do* believe in AGW:<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis&quot; rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_ ...</a>These are far from representing all scientists who believe AGW is real. In fact, 97% of Climate Scientists doing research on the subject agree that humans are responsible for the current warming.I know you personally don't understand the science behind this, and thus must refer to the &quot;Appeal to Authority&quot; logical fallacy...but even when doing that, the evidence is dead set against you: there are a *lot* more scientists that believe AGW is real than those who dispute it.Please stop being a moder-day Flat Earther. Science needs you on its side.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

kepone, you're being dugg down because you *clearly* don't understand how to read the graph.You didn't even realize the second graph on that page had a reverse time scale (i.e. going further back in time as you go from right to left), or that the time scale is in thousands of years, or that the indicated temperature for 2004 is *clearly* higher than the last millenia's trend (the whole point behind the fact that AGW is not natural).You should really learn some basic science before you comment on these important issues.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

philosoraptor83: see my reply above. Natural cycles exist, but they cannot account for the rapid rise in temperature we are witnessing today. Please learn some f**king science if you don't want to look like a modern-day Flat Earther.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Funny that the quote is coming from an economist.Google: World Bank + Carbon TaxGet ready to literally pay like you weigh!mmmbaaaaaa aaaaa aaaaaaaaaaa

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

&quot;It's turtles all the way down.&quot; <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down&quot; rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_d ...</a>

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I'm going to digg your reply because you make a good argument. I also am British Born but am no longer a citizen as I've chosen the citizenship of somewhere nicer and warmer, but thats another conversation (I kept my Irish citizenship though) :-)I fully agree with you that Heating and Cooling cycles are most definately cyclical. We have substantially accelerated the current cycle. I don't think we can slow it down, otherwise they would have started to do it by now. The damage is already done. All we can do is to slow down the rate of acceleration going forward.I agree there we simply don't know how to reverse the damage already done. But that shouldn't stop us making the problem worse.Finally I apologise for accusing you of being an American. Didn't mean to offend you :-) My comment was aimed mroe at the general attitude of Americans with regards to climate change ... primarily due to those mixing it up with politics (Al Gore vs. George Bush supporters) and the consumerist and non-sustainable way of life in the USA.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

&quot;In related news, a British climatologist asserted that the economy is booming, and that anyone who disagrees with his assertion must be a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal.&quot;Nope. That didn't happen. Nobody would listen if it had, and your &quot;imagine if&quot; scenario is unrelated. Too bad.

• Reply