Any doubts about Climate Change?

**bsnub** · 04-09-2016, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by nisakiman

current 'scientific consensus' (which is actually nothing of the sort, as there are many climatologists who disagree)

Why don't you name all these climatologists who disagree? I challenge you to do it. I dare you.

Another science denier attempted to do it on this thread and failed epically.

I await your response.

**RPETER65** · 04-09-2016, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by nisakiman

current 'scientific consensus' (which is actually nothing of the sort, as there are many climatologists who disagree)

Why don't you name all these climatologists who disagree? I challenge you to do it. I dare you.

Another science denier attempted to do it on this thread and failed epically.

I await your response.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries.

A majority of earth and climate scientists are convinced by the evidence that humans are significantly contributing to global warming.[1][2]
This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies.

The scientific consensus is that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming at that time were as follows:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[3]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[4]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[5] The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.[6]
These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations;[7] the consensus has strengthened over time.[8][9]

There have been several efforts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a 2008 US senate minority report,[10] the Oregon Petition,[11] and a 2007 list by the Heartland Institute,[12] all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds.[13][14][15]

For the purpose of this list, a "scientist" is defined as an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. Since the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, each has made a clear statement in his or her own words (as opposed to the name being found on a petition, etc.) disagreeing with one or more of the report's three main conclusions. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Few of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature; most are from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations.

NB: Only individuals who have their own Wikipedia article may be included in the list.

Contents
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said 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 may 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.

David Bellamy, botanist.[16][17][18][19]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[20][21]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[22][23]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[24][25][26][27]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[28][29]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[30][31]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[32][33][34][35]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]
Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[43][44]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[45][46][47]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[48][49]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[50][51]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[52][53]
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[54]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[55][56][57][58]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[59]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[60][61]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[62][63]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[64][65]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[66][67]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[68][69]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[70]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[71]
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[72][73]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[74][75][76]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[77][78][79]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[80][81]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[82][83]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[84][85]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[86][87]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[88][89]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[90][91]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[92][93]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[94][95]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[96][97]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[98][99]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[100][101]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[102][103]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[104][105]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[106][107]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[108][109]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[110][111][112]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[113][114]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[115][116]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[117][118][119][120]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[121][122]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[123][124]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[125][126]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[127][128]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[129][130]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[131][132]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[133][134]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[135][136]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[137][138]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[139][140][141]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[142][143]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[144][145]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[146][147]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[148][149]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[150][151]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[152][153][154]
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [155][156]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[157][158]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[159][160]
Deceased scientists

This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming[161]
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[162]
Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University[163][164]
William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[165][166]
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute[167][168][169]
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[170]
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[162][171]

Wikipedia › wiki › List_of_scientists_op...

**aging one** · 04-09-2016, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Wikipedia › wiki › List_of_scientists_op...

The source negates the entire post. This is not an objective article but yet one written by the nutters who then upload the crap to WIKI for all to see.

The worst source you could pick other than the mouth of your man Donald.

**bsnub** · 04-09-2016, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by aging one

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Wikipedia › wiki › List_of_scientists_op...

The source negates the entire post. This is not an objective article but yet one written by the nutters who then upload the crap to WIKI for all to see.

The worst source you could pick other than the mouth of your man Donald.

I have already recognized several of the names. Many are affiliated with the heartland foundation. The same foundation that says smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer.

I am familiar with several on the list and most of their opinions do not hold up to peer review. A remarkably small list actually and most them are not climate scientists but are physicists, geologists etc. Pretty long reach there.

**harrybarracuda** · 04-09-2016, 12:05 PM

Let's start with the first one.

David Bellamy is a botanist who thinks it doesn't matter what the C02 does to the weather because it helps plants grow.

Forget the fact that all that arable land will be underwater eh, the silly old coot?

**bsnub** · 04-09-2016, 12:23 PM

Piers Corbyn
Judith Curry
Richard Lindzen

These three just to name a few have been sited by denialists several times in this thread over the years. These "scientists" have been universally discredited and their views do not hold up to peer review.

**RPETER65** · 04-09-2016, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Let's start with the first one.

David Bellamy is a botanist who thinks it doesn't matter what the C02 does to the weather because it helps plants grow.

Forget the fact that all that arable land will be underwater eh, the silly old coot?

Let's look at the entire list and see there are climatologists in that list, the challenge was to name but one climatologist who denies the the global warming alarmists theories.

**RPETER65** · 04-09-2016, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by aging one

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Wikipedia › wiki › List_of_scientists_op...

The source negates the entire post. This is not an objective article but yet one written by the nutters who then upload the crap to WIKI for all to see.

The worst source you could pick other than the mouth of your man Donald.

I have already recognized several of the names. Many are affiliated with the heartland foundation. The same foundation that says smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer.

I am familiar with several on the list and most of their opinions do not hold up to peer review. A remarkably small list actually and most them are not climate scientists but are physicists, geologists etc. Pretty long reach there.

The point here is, these scientist have a much greater understanding about the earth and it's ever changing climate than you ever will.

**RPETER65** · 04-09-2016, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by aging one

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Wikipedia › wiki › List_of_scientists_op...

The source negates the entire post. This is not an objective article but yet one written by the nutters who then upload the crap to WIKI for all to see.

The worst source you could pick other than the mouth of your man Donald.

1. Donald is not my man.

2.your post shows a typical libtard attempt to discredit the post by discrediting the source without addressing the content,weak,weak,weak.

**pulvarien** · 05-09-2016, 06:44 AM

There was an interesting power struggle in austrailia where the society of engineers and geologists supported global warming. The problem here was a vote was never taken. It took a few years but a vote was forced and the results were a majority of engineers and geologists in austrailia do not believe global warming is man made and the society leadership [my but the greens are devious in seeking power] was forced to alter its stance.

The only place you would find this out is from!!!! Drum roll please, yes the site that cannot be mentioned Climatedepot.com.

**bsnub** · 05-09-2016, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The point here is, these scientist have a much greater understanding about the earth and it's ever changing climate than you ever will.

A completely meaningless statement. Many of these "scientists" are held in low regard by their peers but you don't seem to understand what the peer review process is.

I have also looked into a number of these names and many of them have in no way come out against human influenced climate change. The list is bogus.

Fail

**RPETER65** · 05-09-2016, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The point here is, these scientist have a much greater understanding about the earth and it's ever changing climate than you ever will.

A completely meaningless statement. Many of these "scientists" are held in low regard by their peers but you don't seem to understand what the peer review process is.

I have also looked into a number of these names and many of them have in no way come out against human influenced climate change. The list is bogus.

Fail

Maybe you could back this up with your sources defore you state fail.

**bsnub** · 05-09-2016, 06:53 AM

**bsnub** · 05-09-2016, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Maybe you could back this up with your sources defore you state fail.

Why don't you start by verifying that your wikipedia article is valid. It has no crediblity and can not be verified elsewhere hence the justification in calling it a fail. Hell even I could add Santa Clause to that list if I wanted too. Once again find a credible source.

**RPETER65** · 05-09-2016, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The point here is, these scientist have a much greater understanding about the earth and it's ever changing climate than you ever will.

A completely meaningless statement. Many of these "scientists" are held in low regard by their peers but you don't seem to understand what the peer review process is.

I have also looked into a number of these names and many of them have in no way come out against human influenced climate change. The list is bogus.

Fail

Meaningless? You are meaningless,or do you claim to have more knowledge of climatology than the climatologist sited in my post. In all acualitity as you are not a climatologist nor are you personally involved in the research, you only read what comes from the alarmist, no first hand information. You like to portray a superior knowledge of all these scientific facts you post, if so show your credentials so us plebes can really feel impressed, as it is you are just another babbling idiot with no edjucation in the field of climatology, or my guess is no field of science.

**RPETER65** · 05-09-2016, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Maybe you could back this up with your sources defore you state fail.

Why don't you start by verifying that your wikipedia article is valid. It has no crediblity and can not be verified elsewhere hence the justification in calling it a fail. Hell even I could add Santa Clause to that list if I wanted too. Once again find a credible source.

In other words no, time to pass the buck.

**bsnub** · 05-09-2016, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

you only read what comes from the alarmist

What or who would that be?

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action;

Thats a lot of alarmists.

BTW Aren't you a creationist? Why are you posting in a thread about science?

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

**Mr Earl** · 05-09-2016, 09:04 AM

^so snubs since there is such a concensus regarding man made climate change, why aren't steps being taken to fix the problem?
Steps like;
petrol rationing, zero emmission mandates, banning the single use plastics industries. Government subsidies for bicycling, bicycle manufacture/maintenance, and promoting renewable industries like hemp/bamboo.
Where are the subsidies for zero emmission vehicles, mass transpotation, eco-friendly agriculture?

These all could come about fairly quickly and would have many healthy side effects right away.

So why aren't these steps being taken right now snuby?

Is it that perhaps all the governments and science involved are actually owned by the globalist corporations and global banking cartels who are contributing to the wholesale destruction of the planet?

Think about it some.....

**RPETER65** · 05-09-2016, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

you only read what comes from the alarmist

What or who would that be?

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action;

Thats a lot of alarmists.

BTW Aren't you a creationist? Why are you posting in a thread about science?

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

I wasn't aware creationist were banned from posting in a thread about science.
I am not spreading alarmist propaganda as you are only questioning the reality climate change is mostly caused by man.
Still waiting for your academic credentials.

**bsnub** · 05-09-2016, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I wasn't aware creationist were banned from posting in a thread about science.

Ah a paradox...

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I am not spreading alarmist propaganda as you are only questioning the reality climate change is mostly caused by man.

So the 197 scientific organizations listed in my post of whom literally thousands of scientists are members are all spreading propaganda? Right....

What you are implying would be the largest degree if collusion in human history.

**ENT** · 05-09-2016, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Let's start with the first one.

David Bellamy is a botanist who thinks it doesn't matter what the C02 does to the weather because it helps plants grow.

In fact that version of the CO2 theory's a loada crap.

Plants both expel and intake CO2 and O2, cyclically.

Nightly, it's CO2 expelled after O2 intake, in sunlight O2 is produced, while CO2 is absorbed by the plant for photosynthesis.

Neither process has diddly squat to do with global warming.

**RPETER65** · 05-09-2016, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

you only read what comes from the alarmist

What or who would that be?

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action;

Thats a lot of alarmists.

BTW Aren't you a creationist? Why are you posting in a thread about science?

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

I wasn't aware creationist were banned from posting in a thread about science.
I am not spreading alarmist propaganda as you are only questioning the reality climate change is mostly caused by man.
Still waiting for your academic credentials.

**Mr Earl** · 05-09-2016, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

^so snubs since there is such a concensus regarding man made climate change, why aren't steps being taken to fix the problem?
Steps like;
petrol rationing, zero emmission mandates, banning the single use plastics industries. Government subsidies for bicycling, bicycle manufacture/maintenance, and promoting renewable industries like hemp/bamboo.
Where are the subsidies for zero emmission vehicles, mass transpotation, eco-friendly agriculture?

These all could come about fairly quickly and would have many healthy side effects right away.

So why aren't these steps being taken right now snuby?

Is it that perhaps all the governments and science involved are actually owned by the globalist corporations and global banking cartels who are contributing to the wholesale destruction of the planet?

Think about it some.....

Seems like humanity as a whole is either too stupid and/or greedy to take serious steps to solve a rather obvious problem.

**bsnub** · 05-09-2016, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Seems like humanity as a whole is either too stupid and/or greedy to take serious steps to solve a rather obvious problem.

It is both Earl.

**AntRobertson** · 05-09-2016, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Seems like humanity as a whole is either too stupid and/or greedy to take serious steps to solve a rather obvious problem.

It is both Earl.

You're talking to someone who owns not one, not two, but eight vehicles.

That's the kind of specious, sophomoric 'reasoning' you're dealing with when it comes to Earl. Just as bad as any denialist. Maybe even worse since it's such a pointless distraction.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions