The following page was my first attempt,
written to help me come to terms with evidence as I worked
through my doubts and became convinced of the lack of sound
evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming. It was a forerunner
of the current Skeptics' Climate Science Primer, and may thus
be closer psychologically to AGW believers - but it may also
hold a science that is naive at times. The blue menu bar above
shows the current (preferred) range of my climate science
|...however, 1998-2008 shows a very different
This chart spanning ten
years from 1998 t9 2008 shows global temperature fluctuations
(violet - Hadley Climate Research Unit; blue - troposphere)
and steadily increasing carbon dioxide levels (green-CO2).
Global warming has if anything dropped over the past
ten years despite steadily rising CO2:
Here, there is zero correlation between
temperature and CO2:
This seems to challenge the CO2-temperature
link of the last 25 years.
|"MSU" = Microwave
Sounding Unit - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html
"HadCRUT3v" = Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature,
version 3, variance adjusted -
Carbon Dioxide levels based on Mauna Loa: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
|...so how does this
fit the IPCC evidence...? The end of the "hockey
As I investigated here,
etc I discovered evidence that Michael Mann's famous
"hockey stick", key evidence used by IPCC,
has been discredited. Then I found more evidence that
still seemed to be using it. How tiresome. The chart
shows a stable climate for a thousand years followed
by a dramatic increase in the 20th century. It appears
that the maths used could make a hockey stick out of
anything. The raw data and algorithms were hidden from
public and scientific scrutiny for almost a decade,
an act that should have disqualified his work from serious
consideration among scientists. Now the hiding of key
data is suspected here
The second picture is the second piece
of key evidence used by IPCC. Now if we ignore the red/blue
colouring and the arbitrary zero line, we may notice
anomalous evidence that doesn't seem to fit the IPCC
...serious global warming started from
a low point in 1905 or so, and until 1940 warmed more
quickly than in the post-1975 period. What caused that
huge earlier quantity of warming? - it was certainly
not CO2... And what caused the 1940-1970 cooling? Could
there be major unrecognized natural causes here?
To explore this idea, read on below.
Or to continue checking evidence, go here
and here to investigate
evidence challenging AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)...
Quantities of challenging evidence is there to be "mined"
in the blogs and in the readers' responses on the pages
Audit and Watts
Up with That and ICECAP...
Go to RealClimate
to hear the "consensus" position... and go
here to read the consensus' discussions
over the classic skeptics' arguments...
a changing Sun might be causing the changes... but...
Total Solar Irradiance does not match temperature rise
in the first graph... yet it does in the second...
First graph by John
Cook "I created the graph myself from TSI data
emailed to me from Sami Solanki (co-author of Usoskin
Second graph from Solar
Changes and the Climate - Sceptical
Science says of it "They use a graph for TSI
from a 1997 book by Hoyt Schatten... it contradicts
sunspot numbers & satellite measurements..."
but Solar Changes has other compelling evidence
not mentioned by Sceptical Science...
...This makes one wonder, are
there potentially significant solar effects to research
further...? even if, at this point, there are only clues
that don't quite fit... yet...
Changes and the Climate shows clear, graphic
evidence that INcrease of solar magnetic flux DEcreases
the ability of cosmic rays to penetrate the earth's
atmosphere; this DEcreases low cloud formation which
INcreases warming... over the last 100 years, solar
magnetic flux increased 230% ... but it has plateau'd
at present... Also, solar cycle no. 24 is retarded and
hasn't yet appeared... this last happened 400 years
ago, before the Little Ice Age of the 1600's...
Peter Taylor writes in the Introduction
Climate Science Review: There is significant
uncertainty and debate within scientific circles on
how much of the changes can be ascribed to natural
factors, with some important recent research implicating
long-term solar cycles of electro-magnetic activity,
and satellite data showing that over the period of
warming there has been an increase in short-wave visible
light from the sun reaching the earth’s surface.
Monitoring data show that this radiation is more than
enough to explain current temperatures. These factors
are not predicted by the climate models for carbon
The standard ‘consensus’
hypothesis is that rising levels of carbon dioxide
are trapping outgoing long-wave radiation and thus
adding more energy to the earth’s climate system...
however, new data shows that solar energy cycles of
both visible and UV light, as well as the coupling
of the solar and geomagnetic field are also correlated
with past climate cycles, and that a very unusual
state of solar flux has built up over precisely the
same time period as the carbon build-up... Solar
magnetic fields have risen by 230% [over the last
century] and the latest science, published long after
the UN’s intergovernmental panel nailed its
colours to the CO2 hypothesis, shows that rise has
a potential to influence cloud cover – a far
more potent causal factor than greenhouse gases...
There are other significant areas
of uncertainty – on cloud cover data, radiation
flux levels to the surface, ocean heating, Arctic
amplification, and the past and future activity levels
of the sun – areas where there is quite definitely
a lack of consensus in the scientific community. On
several of these key issues, this lack of consensus
appears in the technical sections of the IPCC’s
Fourth Report in 2007 – and on some issues,
such as ocean warming where there is serious recent
debate, the issue is not covered because the IPCC
did not update its review on this particular field.
In contrast, when a single paper appeared in 2007
that challenged the analysis [doubted the effect
on climate] of solar magnetic flux, this paper
was included and given great weight.
Peter Taylor has worked with governmental
advisory bodies as well as with organizations such
as Greenpeace. He is a scientist with a track record
for picking up early warning signs of global issues
needing serious attention. He is aware that the
attention given to consensus Climate Science can easily
eclipse the far more serious issues of Peak Oil,
of building social and personal resilience generally
to a future that will be tough otherwise, and of seeing
the dangers inherent in our whole present political
and economic paradigm of growth. This well-argued
work deserves widespread study. Peter Taylor's website
is at http://www.ethos-uk.com
where you can download his Climate Science Review.
Peter Taylor might sound like one of
the "tiny number" of scientists that Al
Gore calls the "kooks or crooks" who don't
agree with the "consensus". Well, here
is a book and here
are stories and lists of a great many extremely able
scientists at the tops of their profession, who also
doubt the "consensus" view of global warming,
or even that there is any consensus.
Global Warming (AGW)-
can it be a case of The Emperor's New Clothes?
The underlying challenges to AGW seem to be too obvious and
too simple to believe. If true, they make it embarrassing
to all who are AGW experts, researchers, promoters, and activists.
"To think we might have let ourselves get carried away"
is not a comfortable idea to examine. And if we decide that
AGW, Al Gore and IPCC are seriously wrong and bad science,
it's easy to scapegoat and blame anyone but ourselves, although
the challenging evidence is actually rather ovbious... But
at least we are starting to think about our effects on the
planet, and despite a bad start, this is important. In future
we will need to develop this thinking a great deal, with increasing
experience, into a more holistic hard-knowledge-backed intuitive
The challenges appear to be backed up by the evidence. Scrutiny
needs intelligence, persistence, openness, and willingness
not just to take anyone's word for things (commonsense and
courtesy help too!). There is a veritable minefield of conflicting
"evidence" - I've found both truth and inaccuracy,
fairness and bias, politeness and rudeness, on all sides.
As I've gradually reconsidered everything, it has come to
seem more and more likely that competent scientific challenges
have been blocked from peer reviews they deserve. The Internet
can help - and can hinder.
The main challenges are these:
- The basic key IPCC graph, which shows the temperature
rise over the last century, has serious and rather obvious
questions hanging over it. These questions are not satisfactorily
answered or even addressed by the IPCC. One would think
that such obvious queries should be the first to be answered,
to help the public take AGW seriously. But I'm still looking
for such basic AGW information - not the basic "facts"
of AGW but the first level of scientific proof, with answers
to the skeptics' challenges at this first level... See here.
- For ten years, temperatures have failed to rise at all,
let alone at predicted high rates. This new factor makes
the questions to the main IPCC graph stand out all the more.
These questions may have a scientific answer, but where
is it in a form that intelligent lay people with little
time to spare can grasp? See here
- Computer modelling is highly imprecise. It is only credible
for forecasting the future, if ALL past data are accommodated
with a clear fit - which is not the case in the IPCC scenario
- as IPCC admit. And the models do not
even include water vapour which is by far the biggest greenhouse
effect, far, far bigger than CO2. Though modellers say that
water vapour is influenced by CO2 to amplify its effect,
this is not proven. There is data evidence for a far more
potent driver of cloud cover - cosmic
rays. And though this is doubted by orthodoxy, perhaps
the focus on doubting or ignoring cosmic rays is because
it really is a big, clear challenge to the whole AGW hypothesis
- and hence a threat.
- IPCC appears to have been set up with a predetermined
agenda to show that (a) the climate is warming more and
more, and (b) this is principally caused by rising CO2 levels
caused by us. Such predetermination is not science but politics,
and inhibits research into other possible causes See, for
instance, here, Climate
- Many anomalous facts exist which strongly suggest that
recent global warming cannot be due even principally to
CO2. Anomalies exist in paleo-climate records, in recent
records, and in several current research works - of particular
interest is the suggestion of a link between solar magnetic
flux (230% increase last century), cosmic rays, and cloud
cover (has been neglected in modelling and in data collection).
- Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth was calculated
to impress people - but, however well-meant, it appears
to contain formidable errors, which we have not seen him
explain. See here
(summary + 63 details), and here
- There is both good and bad science on all sides, as well
as fluctuations in courtesy and scientific openness. When
one considers oneself an expert in certain fields, it is
all too easy to dismiss work that may have vital evidence,
on the ground of secondary faults in one's field of expertise,
spotted by one's trained eye. Thus the cosmic-ray issue
is literally under a cloud at present - although the palaeo
record shows strong evidence of climate effects of cosmic
- Scientists challenging the consensus find their jobs and
funding are threatened. There is anecdotal evidence for
this (eg here,
14 Feb 08). This could just be scientists who are bad scientists
but have wild ideas, however, if true, it would be likely
that most of these scientists would not want to be publicly
known for their stance, and all this makes verification
difficult. Meanwhile, Al Gore's film and the AGW lobby insist
that there is "consensus" among scientists, that
"the debate is over", and that we are dealing
with "facts" not hypotheses. But look here,
to see that the notion of "consensus" is challenged
by a large number of first-rate scientists, many of whom
are at the top of their profession.
Here are stiff challenges to AGW. It's possible that they
can be answered from the AGW position. But just stop
a moment and think... it can be difficult to reconsider one's
basic position, because even with the most noble intentions,
all-too-easily one looks over one's shoulder at one's colleagues
thinking, Who is going to point out just how badly I've made
a fool of myself in believing this "long-ago-disproven
rubbish" (or even sack me... withhold research funding...
etc) ?... Yet this is how Science has progressed... daring
to show that things "long ago disproven" are not
so disproven after all...
scientists who challenge IPCC: The US Senate Committee
on the Environment lists 700 scientists who disagree with
the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis. This is not
just a list but a very long account with a paragraph on each
scientist or event, with hyperlinks. This "Inhofe's 400"
has attracted more rude criticism from AGW supporters than
most other issues, and initially this criticism convinced
me. But after examining the list properly, I think the criticism
could have happened precisely because this represents
a fair challenge to AGW - and a big threat. Read its detractors
by all means, but go to source and read it direct for yourself
- and note what it says about Dressler.
The Deniers: The World
Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming
Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who
are too fearful to do so: This good book is one of many now
appearing to challenge Al Gore, the IPCC findings, and the
notion that good scientists have reached consensus... "More
than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers.
When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists
overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet...
My series set out to profile those who deny that the science
is settled... To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose
high-ranking scientists... I considered stopping after writing
six profiles, but continued the series due to feedback from
readers. Now, after profiling more than 38 deniers, I do not
know when I will stop - the list of distinguished scientists
who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails
I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for
my series. Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that
a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly
there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists..."
See the names here
in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth by Wm
Robert Johnstone includes: Misleading links between weather
events and climate change; Misrepresentation of data; Exaggerations
about sea level rise; Misleading claims about effects of climate
change; Reliance on worst-case scenarios; False claims about
scientific views on global warming; Misleading claims about
the responsibility of the United States; Conceptual errors.
Now one may not agree with all but there are a huge number
of misrepresentations of data and false claims about scientific
views: 75 points altogether are challenged in this well-presented
academic essay, which does not appear to serve any predetermined
agenda other than concern for truth.
Inconvenient Truths by Monckton of Brenchley for Science
& Public Policy Institute: SPPI is routinely dismissed
rudely by AGW supporters. We don't have to agree with everything
on the website to see that this page has a lot of strong evidence
that Al Gore was cherrypicking extensively, and was frequently
inaccurate in serious ways. SPPI may be supported by oil barons
- but that does not rule out the testimony of this page.
Case for Skepticism on Global Warming by Michael Crichton
seems to be pretty fair, and reasonably good science, and
actually takes the reader inside the labyrinths of the indigestible
IPCC wording and what it actually says and doesn't say. The
fact that Crichton wrote Jurassic Park is a bonus: he has
an eye for presenting material attractively.
Peer-reviewed Articles criticizing AGW This is an
interesting, possibly crucial, but very mixed source which
I include to show the sifting that's needed, and to show how
fatally easy it is to pick holes in one's opponent's argument,
whichever side one supports, without ever really engaging
properly, without really considering the basics which go back
to "what is Truth? what is Science? what really matters
here? how can we use courtesy to help each other grow?"
to Basics: Reconsider the Data used by IPCC
adapted from Max Manacker at http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
Hadley Centre has a published record of "monthly
globally averaged land and sea surface temperature"
that goes back to 1850. Global temperatures have
risen over the period, but a closer look at the
record shows that this has been anything but steady.
Actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration
only started in 1958. IPCC estimates based on
ice core readings go back to pre-industrial times.
These show an estimated gradual increase from
around 285 ppm in 1850 to 315 ppm in 1958, when
actual measurements started. See the IPCC
2007 SPM report. CO2 concentrations have risen
steadily over the entire period. The rate of increase
has accelerated slightly, particularly following
||% total warming
||cooling very slightly
||static or cooling
|Trend is linear
decadal trend in degreesC/decade ~
Change is linear change over period in degreesC
There are three warming periods that contributed
to the overall warming plus two periods of cooling
and the most recent "plateau" showing
essentially no change. And it appears that last
25 years of the 20th century provide the only
observed link between CO2 and temperature. The
immediately preceding period had CO2 increase
with cooling. The immediately ensuing period since
the end of the 20th century shows slight cooling
with high increase in CO2. The late 19th century
warming period showed the highest rate of temperature
increase of all periods recorded, with essentially
no CO2 increase whatsoever. The early 20th century
warming period also showed warming, with relatively
small increase in CO2.
These observed data show that there does not
appear to be a very "robust" link between
atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature.
IPCC has used the late 20th
century warming cycle to demonstrate the anthropogenic
cause, stating in its AR4 WG1 report Chapter 9
(p.681): "The simulations also show that
it is not possible to reproduce large 20th-century
warming without anthropogenic forcing regardless
of which solar or volcanic forcing reconstruction
is used,... stressing the impact of human activity
on the recent warming." In other words, since
no other cause can be identified to explain the
observed warming other than anthropogenic forcing
(from greenhouse gases), this must be the cause
Most damaging for this assumption is the fact
that no analysis has been made of the two prior
warming periods in order to support this suggestion,
despite the fact that these periods together count
for 70% of the warming observed over the entire
record. Strangely IPCC does not even mention
the late 19th century period that showed the
highest decadal rate of temperature rise of all
periods since their measurements started. Moreover,
between 1680 and 1710 temperatures rose more,
and more rapidly, than the whole twentieth century
saw. Between 1690 and 1700 the mean temperature
rose from 8ºC to 9ºC. As regards the
warming period of the early 20th century, IPCC
states (p.691): "Detection and attribution
as well as modelling studies indicate more uncertainty
regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming
than the recent warming."
There are apparently "unexplained"
causes resulting in "uncertainty", but
[*] no studies have been made to clear up this
uncertainty and attempt to understand how
large an impact these "unexplained"
causes might have had. Could these same "unexplained"
causes have been the principle forcing factor
for the late 20th century warming, rather than
the assumed "anthropogenic forcing"
from greenhouse gases? How can we be sure this
is not the case? Only by making these analyses
and clearly identifying that there were no major
"unexplained" factors in the two earlier
warming periods can one make the claim that AGW
is the predominant forcing factor for late 20th
To simply assert that this is so "by default"
since no other explanation can be found is no
argument at all. Is this the "fatal flaw"
in the AGW theory?
[*] No studies... well,
no consensus-sanctioned studies ... but there
are good scientists who challenge Al Gore and
work [The Chilling Stars] explains the cooling
trend the world experienced from the 1940s to
the mid 1970s. This period also saw one of the
greatest outputs of GHG in history and man made
global warming theorists have a great deal of
trouble dismissing it. Peter Taylor, in Climate
Science Review includes these words about
the mid-20th-century cooling period:
1950-1980 cooling period: clouds,
aerosols and global dimming
Many commentators have assumed that
the dip since 1945, when the carbon
dioxide theory would have required
continued warming, can be explained
by volcanic dust and anthropogenic
sulphates – so called, ‘global
dimming’. This thesis was based
upon inputs to computer models of
sulphate pollution and observations
of volcanic activity and atmospheric
dust loads – but I have yet
to trace and review the original papers
that were used in support of these
model inputs... I can find only passing
comments with no references. The thesis
is often quoted even in respected
peer-reviewed journals, but with no
reference to the data that would support
the conclusion – perhaps because
it was derived from modelling studies
and the authors of these papers simply
refer to the modelling results.
The requisite data are not readily
available in the literature and the
process of incorporation into models
is not transparent... There is sufficient
grounds to doubt that either volcanic
dust data or anthropogenic sulphates
can account for this major dip, and
there is evidence from satellite studies
that changes in... cloud patterns
are implicated... Furthermore, recently
published indices of the ‘dust
veil’ from volcanoes provide
no supporting evidence... Thus, natural
factors are implicated that relate
to the transparency of the atmosphere
Examining critically the work of such as Lockwood,
Solanki, Usoskin, and Svensmark/Friis-Christensen,
Taylor goes on to show in detail that there is
a strong and continuing correlation with the cosmic
ray factor if we look carefully...
to Basics: data from the past + telling fragments
Here are telling but strictly unverified "anecdotal"
evidence I picked up from sceptics' discussion
blogs. This is always the way in which alerting
evidence appears: very seldom can it leap straight
into the heavily-protected peer reviews - and
rightly so - but this early evidence is still
crucial to hear.
The glaciers have been shortening for 200 years.
They started shortening a century before significant
amounts of CO2 were produced by human activity.
Notice also that the shortening is linear. Hydrocarbon
use increased six-fold and the glacier melting
rate did not change at all. The glaciers started
shortening long before we were using significant
amounts of hydrocarbons, and, when we increased
our use by six-fold, the shortening rate did not
change. Therefore, human hydrocarbon use is evidently
not the cause of glacier shortening or the mild
natural temperature increase that is causing that
shortening. From http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7009
TNA: What about Gore’s demonstration in
his movie, with those very large graphs, that
CO2 tracks right along with temperature and is,
therefore, the cause of that warming?
Dr. Robinson: In those curves, the temperature
goes up before the CO2 and goes down before the
CO2. The CO2 lags the temperature. And the reason
it does is that the CO2 rise is caused by the
temperature rise rather than vice versa. As temperatures
rise, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans,
just as the carbon dioxide is released from soft
drinks when their temperature rises. [Recent ice
studies show the temperatures changed about 800
years before the CO2 levels.] Gore shows the curves
with poor resolution, so that this cannot be seen
by the viewer.
Ice cores go back a million years or more. However,
the vital factor... is the records for
measuring ice core lengths and the conclusions
drawn on those samples are what is important,
and these records are fairly recent. Various ice
cores of varying depths have been drilled only
since 1956, and the first ice core to reach bedrock
was drilled in 1966...
Many respected scientists around the globe claim
that until 1985, published CO2 readings were published
correctly, but after 1985 certain readings disappeared
from publication. That's 23 years of censorship
and skewed study. Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal
research scientist at the University of Alabama
in Huntsville, formerly a senior scientist for
climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight
Center, says, "For those scientists who value
their scientific reputations, I would advise that
they distance themselves from politically motivated
claims of a 'scientific consensus' on the causes
of global warming." Likewise, Zbigniew Jaworowski,
Ph.D., chairman of the Scientific Council of the
Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
in Poland, said, "Attempts to support the
global warming thesis with analyses of the carbon
dioxide content in glacial ice samples are based
on fudged data and ignorance of the physical processes
of glacial ice formation." From http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080503/OPINION/805030360
The Earth’s warming since 1850 totals about
0.7 degrees C. Most of this occurred before 1940.
The cause: a long, moderate 1,500-year climate
cycle first discovered in the Greenland ice cores
in 1983. The cycle abruptly raises our temperature
1 to 3 degrees C above the mean for centuries
at a time--as it did during the Roman Warming
(200 BC to 600 AD) and Medieval Warming (950 to1300
AD). Between warmings, Earth’s temperatures
shift abruptly lower by 1 to 3 degrees C--as they
did during the 550 years of the Little Ice Age,
which ended in 1850. The ice cores and seabed
fossils show 600 of these 1,500-year cycles, extending
back at least 1 million years.
The atmosphere is approaching CO2 saturation--after
which more CO2 will have no added climate forcing
From the Vostok ice core data, during glacial
periods, often a rising temperature trend with
a rising carbon dioxide level suddenly changed
direction and became a falling temperature trend
in spite of the carbon dioxide level being higher
than when the temperature was increasing. This
could not be if carbon dioxide causes a positive
feedback. The Andean-Saharan Ice Age occurred
when the carbon dioxide level was over ten times
its current level. What is different now that
could lead to runaway temperature increase? The
determination that non-condensing greenhouse gases
have no significant influence on average global
temperature is not refuted by any climate history.
The assertion ‘it’s the sun’
appears to be too simplistic. Of course the sun
is part of it but several other things affect
the temperatures at the measuring sites. These
other things may include solar wind, cosmic rays,
UV, magnetic strength, relative humidity (propensity
to form clouds), ocean turn-over, and possibly
other factors. Apparently, no one has sorted all
this out yet. Graphs of NOAA and other data (all
referenced) are presented here.
One observation from these graphs is that the
recent (last 130 years or so) average global temperature
data has not been unusual...
I have, so far, only determined that CO2 does
not cause Global Warming and that there is no
such thing as ‘water vapor feedback’.
To my knowledge the combination of factors that
contribute to climate has still not been sorted
out. The reason why increased greenhouse gas level
has no influence on average global temperature
is proven here
There was never much threat of Greenland becoming
ice-free - it did not do that 100,000 years ago
when the global average was 2C warmer than this
inter-glacial. Peter Taylor, in a note to me
to Basics: Data from the Cosmos, Sun and Earth
Some telling and graphic evidence from Solar
Changes and the Climate from ICECAP
Download the pdf file with this
little gem and more... with such clear visual
evidence we believe the correlation has to be
there somewhere, even if the maths needs refining...
Read about Cosmic
Rays and Climate - the story of Svensmark
and Friis-Christensen. Read here
about The Chilling Stars: the new theory of
global warming that refers to the effects
of solar magnetic flux and cosmic rays on cloud
cover: Svensmark and Friis-Christensen are the
scientists who deserve the Nobel Prize, in the
opinion of a growing number of people, for both
courage and good science. Read here their recent
reply to Lockwood's criticisms
about the diminishing solar activity and the possibility
of another Maunder minimum and "Little Ice
Read Peter Taylor's Climate Science
Review, downloadable from his website here
about the 1500-year-long Unstopabble Global
Look how the solar irradiance,
from 1600 to the present, fits the known global
The "Scientific Consensus" on Global
Warming a Myth?
from Amazon Books: The
Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist
author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave
scientists--all leaders in their fields-- who
dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change
alarmists (despite the threat to their careers)
Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists
who dispute the alarmist view on global warming
are corrupt crackpots and "deniers",
comparable to neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust.
These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd
hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific
institutes in the world. Their work is cited and
acclaimed throughout the scientific community...
Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with
him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.
Guess he never met these guys:
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of
the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics
of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes
the famous "hockey stick" graph that
launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International
Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's
hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland
of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and
Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says
"no major scientist with any long record
in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that
global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research,
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states
"there exists no sound theoretical framework
for climate predictability studies" used
for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman
of the American Meteorological Society's Committee
on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says
"there are no known scientific studies that
show a conclusive physical link between global
warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's
foremost physicists, former president of the European
Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls
global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned
expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate
research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming
hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these
assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological
Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading
geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of
Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director
of the International Arctic Research Center, twice
named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists,"
says much "Arctic warming during the last
half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National
Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science,
he was among the first to sound the alarm on the
dangers of global warming. His view now: "The
cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology
at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says
global warming alarmists "are trumpeting
catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the
models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the
space research laboratory of the Russian Academy
of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International
Space Station's Astrometria project says "the
common view that man's industrial activity is
a deciding factor in global warming has emerged
from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher
at the Institute for Environmental Studies at
Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the
Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions
of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University,
calls the most influential global warming report
of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific
member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System
Research in Germany, who argues that changes in
the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the
principal cause of global warming: "The sun
has been at its strongest over the past 60 years
and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's
most eminent physicists says the models used to
justify global warming alarmism are "full
of fudge factors" and "do not begin
to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director
of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president
of the International Association of Geomagnetism
and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's
behavior could account for most of the warming
attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating
new book, The Deniers
from Michigan Pete, comment at
on 26-04-08: I think we need to stop worrying about
the polar bears...
A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern
Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining...
In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-sq kilometre region,
the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the
mid-1980s to 2,100 today. "There aren't just a
few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears,"
said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent
20 years studying the animals."
updated 3rd April 2009