Global Warming Science: www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming
The Experts
[last update: 2010/11/13]
The IPCC claims consensus – but it was due to rejection of dissent.
|
The Experts |
Their Words |
|
|
|
Richard Lindzen |
|
|
> Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology > Former Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University > Consultant to the Goddard Laboratory for Atmospheres > Fellow: American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union |
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right. … In 1992, he [Sen. Al Gore] ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. … Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. … In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
See also: http://ecoworld.com/features/2008/10/30/climate-science-is-it-currently -designed-to-answer-questions/ by Richard Lindzen |
|
|
|
Roy Spencer |
|
|
> U.S. Science Team Leader, Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer – Earth Observing System (AMSR-E), NASA > U.S. Team Leader for the satellite based Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) > Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville > former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center > Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1980 |
during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well known that I am skeptical of the view that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible for global warming, I assumed that this advice was to help protect Vice President Gore’s agenda on the subject. … Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Another way of saying this is that the real climate system appears to be dominated by “negative feedbacks” -- instead of the “positive feedbacks” which are displayed by all twenty computerized climate models utilized by the IPCC. … an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end -- if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now. |
|
|
|
John Christy |
|
|
> Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville > Alabama's State Climatologist > Contributing author to IPCC |
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy/ChristyJR_CST_071114_written.pdf
Many studies have shown that the nighttime low has warmed more rapidly than the daytime high in most regions. The cause of this nighttime warming however is more consistent with the effects of human development of the surface and consequent influence on the near surface air (e.g. urbanization, farming, aerosol pollution) rather than greenhouse warming.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/john_march11_01.html Despite recent headlines -- many warning that global warming was going to occur faster than previously thought with up to 10.4 degrees warming in the next 100 years -- the bulk of the scientific findings in the IPCC report, in my view, don't support the doomsday scenarios. What ended up the focus were a few model results on the outer fringes. … The document does say that weather events people really care about -- hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, hail, winter storms, droughts, floods, etc. -- have not changed enough to see a difference. Of course, that kind of news doesn't make news.
|
|
|
|
William Gray |
|
|
> Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University > Head, Tropical Meteorology Project > Lead Hurricane forecaster
|
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4403
I am convinced myself that in 15 or 20 years, we're going to look back on this and see how grossly exaggerated it all was. The humans are not that powerful. These greenhouse gases, although they are building up, they cannot cause the type of warming these models say – two to five degrees centigrade with a doubling of the greenhouse gases. … there's almost an equation you can write the degree to which you believe global warming is causing major hurricanes to increase is inversely proportional to your knowledge about these storms. … most of meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people
Also: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353023,00.html
|
|
|
|
Christopher Landsea |
|
|
> Research Meteorologist, NOAA > Chair, American Meteorological Society Committee on Tropical Cyclones > PhD Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
|
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives /science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. …All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record. … the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. … It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. … I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. … I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
|
|
|
|
Reid Bryson (died 2008) |
|
|
> Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison > First Chairman of the Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin > Founder, Center for Climatic Research (1963) > First Director, Institute of Environmental Studies (1970)
|
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
All this argument is the temperature going up or not, 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. |
|
|
|
Joanne Simpson (died 2010) |
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/people/features/joanne-simpson.html |
|
> NASA’s Chief Scientist Emeritus for Meteorology, Earth Sun Exploration Division > First woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology (University of Chicago) > Former Chief of Sever Storms Branch of NASA’s Laboratory for Atmosphere > Former head of NOAA’s Experimental Meteorology Laboratory > Lead scientist, NASA’s Tropical Rainfall Monitoring Mission (TRRM) satellite > Developed first mathematical cloud model, developed hot-tower hypothesis |
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. For more than a decade now “global warming” and its impacts has become the primary interface between our science and society. A large group of earth scientists, voiced in an IPCC[1] statement, have reached what they claim is a consensus of nearly all atmospheric scientists that man-released greenhouse gases are causing increasing harm to our planet. … However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. … The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use. No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas. … But as a scientist I remain skeptical. I decided to keep quiet in this controversy until I had a positive contribution to make. That point is to be celebrated in the TRMM 10 year anniversary
|
|
|
|
Tim Patterson |
|
|
> Professor of Geology, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada > Principal Investigator of a Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences project |
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
The idea put forward by the IPCC is that CO2 the major greenhouse gas and any increases in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a major warming in earth's climate. This scenario is at odds with the empirical evidence recorded in the geological record. Although CO2 can have a minor influence on global temperature the effect is minimal and short lived as this cycle sits on top of the much larger water cycle, which is what truly controls global temperatures. The water cycle is in turn primarily influenced by natural celestial cycles and trends. there has been renewed research, much of it in the past year or so, into the idea that there really is a connection between variability in solar output and global temperature. |
|
|
|
Nils-Axel Morner |
|
|
> Director, Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department, Stockholm University > Former President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution |
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf
the line of demarcation between the meteorological community and us: They work with computers; we geologists work with observations, and the observations do not fit with these scenarios. So what should you change? We cannot change observations, so we have to change the scenarios! Instead of doing this, they give an endless amount of money to the side which agrees with the IPCC. The European Community, which has gone far in this thing: If you want a grant for a research project in climatology, it is written into the document that there must be a focus on global warming. All the rest of us, we can never get a coin there, because we are not fulfilling the basic obligations. That is really bad, because then you start asking for the answer you want to get. That’s what dictatorships did, autocracies. They demanded that scientists produce what they wanted.... You frighten a lot of scientists. If they say that climate is not changing, they lose their research grants. And some people cannot afford that; they become silent, or a few of us speak up, because we think that it’s for the honesty of science, that we have to do it. |
|
|
|
Don Easterbrook |
|
|
> Geologist, Western Washington University, Bellingham, USA > Fellow, Geological Society of America |
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/glocool_summary.pdf
in 2001, I put my reputation on the line and published my predictions for entering a global cooling cycle about 2007 (plus or minus 3-5 years), based on past glacial, ice core, and other data. As right now, my prediction seems to be right on target and what we would expect from the past climatic record, but the IPCC prediction is getting farther and farther off the mark. With the apparent solar cooling cycle upon us, we have a ready explanation for global warming and cooling. If the present cooling trend continues, the IPCC reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of science.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/interview3_27_08.pdf Al Gore won’t debate scientists, won’t talk to the press, and all he’ll say is ‘The debate is over, stupid,’ says a lot for the validity of the argument. There is a list of ten things in his movie, The Inconvenient Truth, that are totally false. I have verified those myself—the Gore assertions are false. To be unkind, they are lies he won’t back off from. … A growing number of us think the climate driver is solar. |
|
|
|
David Legates |
|
|
> Associate Professor of Geography and Director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware > State Climatologist, Delaware > Director of Delaware Space Grant Consortium
|
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070201/NEWS/702010363/1006/NEWS
It is simply impossible to conclude that the net effect of greenhouse gases endangers human health and welfare. … science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change. … This has become climate alarmism.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/st285.pdf Global warming alarmists have attributed increases in hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, hail storms and heat waves to global warming caused by human activities. However, the evidence does not support their claims. … our climate has and will continue to exhibit intricate patterns not reliably reproduced by global climate simulations, thus underscoring their scientific incompleteness — and lack of reliability for prediction of future climate scenarios. |
|
|
|
Jan Veizer |
|
|
> Professor of Geology, University of Ottawa (Emeritus since April 2004) > 1992 to 2004 Director of the “Earth System Evolution Program” of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIAR)
|
http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/loganclub/2003_2004/sem2003_11_06_e.php
Model calculations, based on such an oscillating pattern, suggest that atmospheric pressures of carbon dioxide (pCO2) during most of the geological past exceeded considerably the present day values, including their potential anthropogenic component, and they do not show any clear-cut relationship with ancient climates. On the other hand, the correlation of climate with the oxygen isotope data (a reflection of the past hydrologic cycle) and cosmic ray flux is convincing, suggesting that, as today, water vapour may have been the most important greenhouse gas and that cosmic ray flux may be the principal climate driver on geological time scales. |
|
|
|
Madhav Khandekar |
http://cei.org/PDFs/nationalassessment/Madhav%20Khandekar%20comments.pdf |
|
> Consulting meteorologist > former Research Scientist, Environment Canada > editorial board of the Journal Natural Hazards, Netherlands > Ph. D. in meteorology, Florida State University
|
http://www.hilltimes.com/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/may/28/letter4/&c=1
As an invited expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Documents, I provided comprehensive review for the first order draft (FOD) and the second order draft (SOD) of one chapter … In my review, I pointed out several recent peer-reviewed studies which were completely ignored by the IPCC authors. To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD and sent me the SOD with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process. Dr. Stone and other adherents of the IPCC science like to insist that the debate over climate change science is over and it is now time for action. I urge Dr. Stone to browse through recent issues of major international journals in climate and related science. Hardly a week goes by without a significant paper being published questioning the science. |
|
|
|
Syun-Ichi Akasofu |
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu |
|
> Founding Director and Professor of Physics, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska > Fellow of the American Geophysical Union |
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/earth_recovering_from_lia_r.pdf
There seems to be a roughly linear increase of the temperature of about 0.5°C/100 years (~1°F/100 years) from about 1800, or even much earlier, to the present. This value may be compared with what the IPCC scientists consider the manmade effect of 0.6 - 0.7°C/100 years. This linear warming trend is likely to be a natural change. One possible cause of the linear increase may be that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. This trend should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years in estimating the manmade effect. Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report (p. 10), which states that “most” of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. It is urgent that natural changes be correctly identified and removed accurately from the presently on-going changes in order to find the contribution of the greenhouse effect. |
|
|
|
Freeman Dyson |
|
|
> Retired Professor of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton > Fellow of the American Physical Society > Member of the US National Academy of Sciences > Fellow of the Royal Society of London. |
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf
all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. … roughly six thousand years ago, there were deciduous forests in Northern Europe where the trees are now conifers, proving that the climate in the far north was milder than it is today. There were also trees standing in mountain valleys in Switzerland that are now filled with famous glaciers. The glaciers that are now shrinking were much smaller six thousand years ago than they are today. Six thousand years ago seems to have been the warmest and wettest period of the interglacial era that began twelve thousand years ago when the last Ice Age ended. |
|
|
|
Willie Soon |
|
|
> Physicist at Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Cenetr for Astrophysics
|
Most of the weather and climate variations we observed are essentially related to the sun and the changing seasons – not by CO2 radiative forcing and feedback. The climate system is constantly readjusting naturally in a large way – more than we would ever see from CO2. The CO2 kick [impact of CO2 emissions] is extremely small compared to what is happening in a natural way. Within the framework of a proper study of the sun-climate connection, you don’t need CO2 to explain anything. … they lack the detailed understanding of clouds required to construct atmospheric models. But they keep tuning their models and claiming they can accurately simulate the effects of water vapour, but how can you do this when you can’t model clouds or rainfall properly. Changes in clouds and rainfall can overwhelm what little effect CO2-water vapour has on temperature.
The pro-AGW supporters have become more and more confrontational in their attacks on scientists who challenge their views. … The AGW movement is killing science.
|
|
|
|
Pal Brekke |
|
|
> Deputy Project Scientist – NASA’s Solar Heliospheric Observatory > Senior Advisor, Norwegian Space Centre > PhD Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics
|
We could be in for a surprise … It's possible that the sun plays an even more central role in global warming than we have suspected. Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time
|
|
|
|
Hendrik Tennekes |
|
|
> Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute > former Professor of Aeronautical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
|
Seventeen years ago, I wrote a column for Weather magazine, expressing my concerns about the lack of honesty, integrity and humility of many climate scientists. “I worry about the arrogance of scientists who claim they can help solve the climate problem, provided their research receives massive increases in funding“. ... This was early 1990. It is 2007 now, ... I am angry about the Climate Doomsday hype that politicians and scientists engage in. I am angry at Al Gore, ... I am more than a little bit worried about IPCC’s preoccupation with CO2.
http://www.remoteviewer.nu/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4856
The so-called scientific basis of the climate problem is within my professional competence as a meteorologist. It is my professional opinion that there is no evidence at all for catastrophic global warming. … since I believe that no climate collapse is occurring, I cannot join those who use this imaginary threat to advance their political goals. |
|
|
|
Geoffrey Duffy |
|
|
> Professor of Chemical Engineering - Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, > Associate Dean Research, School of Engineering, University of Auckland, New Zealand > Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand
|
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=339&Itemid=1
NASA’s Aqua satellite system has shown that the earth has been cooling since 1998. This corresponds with measurements from the Argos sub-ocean probes that the ocean is cooling. This is in stark contrast with the proposals from many ‘climate alarmists’. The solar effect is huge and overwhelming and there must be time delays in absorbance and build up in energy received by earth and ocean masses. But the warmer the Earth gets, the faster it radiates heat out into space. This is a self-correcting, self-healing process. The panic to do something about climate change has led to some unrealistic and unsustainable actions. doubling or trebling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will. |
|
|
|
Robert Carter |
|
|
> Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia > Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand
|
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/200705-03AusIMMcorrected.pdf
Is there an established Theory of Climate? Answer: no. Do we understand fully how climate works? No. Is carbon dioxide demonstrated to be a dangerous atmospheric pollutant? No. Can deterministic computer models predict future climate? Another no. Is there a consensus amongst qualified scientists that dangerous, human-caused climate change is upon us? Absolutely not. Did late 20th century temperature rise at a dangerous rate, or to a dangerous level? No, in either case. Is global temperature currently rising? Surprisingly, no. And finally, is the IPCC a scientific or a political advisory body? Answer: it is both. |
|
|
|
Timothy Ball |
|
|
> Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba (Retired) > Ph.D. in climatology, University of London, England |
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_492572.html
[global warming is the] greatest deception in the history of science. [the IPCC report] is the end product of a political agenda … consensus is not a scientific fact. The other thing is, you look at the degree to which they have controlled the whole IPCC process. For example, who are the lead authors? Who are the scientists who sit on the summary panel with the politicians to make sure that they get their view in?” [Here he is referring to the hockey-stick Michael Mann etc.] The world has warmed up until recently, and that warming trend doesn’t fit with the CO2 record at all; it fits with the sun-spot data. Of course they are ignoring the sun because they want to focus on CO2 … they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change… it allows them to point at any weather event -- whether it’s warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. Of course, it’s absolutely rubbish… The ice core record of the last 420,000 years shows that the temperature changes before the CO2. So the fundamental assumption of the theory is wrong. But the theory that human CO2 would lead to runaway global warming became a fact right away, and scientists like myself who dared to question it were immediately accused of being paid by the oil companies |
|
|
|
Daniel Botkin |
|
|
> Professor Emeritus, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara > President and Founder of The Center for the Study of the Environment |
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010763
the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis. The climate modelers who developed the computer programs that are being used to forecast climate change used to readily admit that the models were crude and not very realistic … Oddly, the forecasts of computer models have become our new reality … The problem is that in this panic we are going to spend our money unwisely, we will take actions that are counterproductive … right now the clearest threat to many species is habitat destruction |
|
|
|
Tom Segalstad |
|
|
> Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology at the University of Oslo > Head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo > Expert Reviewer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) |
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e
Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible. They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef6.htm The IPCC CO2 global warming model is not supported by the scientific data. Based on geochemical knowledge there should be no reason to fear a climatic catastrophe because of Man's release of the life-governing CO2 gas. The global climate is primarily governed by the enormous heat energy stored in the oceans and the latent heat of melting of the ice caps, not by the small amount of heat that can be absorbed in atmospheric CO2; hence legislation of "CO2 taxes" to be paid by the public cannot influence on the sea level and the global climate. |
|
|
|
William Happer |
|
|
> Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics, Princeton University
|
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/629.pdf
the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind. Since most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds, added CO2 must substantially increase water’s contribution to lead to the frightening scenarios that are bandied about. The buzz word here is that there is “positive feedback.” With each passing year, experimental observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water. In fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative. That is, water vapor and clouds may actually diminish the already small global warming expected from CO2, not amplify it. |
|
|
|
Harold Lewis |
|
|
> Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California in Santa Barbara
|
the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. … Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate … the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen … I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. |
|
|
|
Neil Frank |
|
|
> Retired chief meteorologist (KHOU) > former Director – National Hurricane Center > National Hurricane Conference’s “Neil Frank Award” named after him > Ph.D. in meteorology
|
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html
The [CRU] e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations. Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications. … Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate. |
|
|
|
Andrew Lacis |
|
|
Lacis was an IPCC AR4 reviewer [http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7798293?n=17]
|
|
|
|
|
