A Few More Scientists who Disagree with Global Warming Alarmists

Posted on February 22, 2008. Filed under: Global Warming Hoax |

I’m posting this in response to “zeitgeiber”. He didn’t like the expert quoted in the previous “global warming” article I posted, so here’s a longer list.

Here are a few scientists who disagree with the Global Warming alarmists:

* Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: “Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity.” (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007

* Sallie Baliunas “[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.” In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that “there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content.”

* Robert M. Carter ,researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown.” (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 ) <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml

 * George V. Chilingar professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California and Leonid F. Khilyuk “The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation …, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities … . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.” (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 )

* William M. Gray ,professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State University ,”This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.” (BBC News, 16 Nov 2000 “I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.” (Washington Post, May 28, 2006 “So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing-all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.” (Discover, vol. 26 no. 9, September 2005) <http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/departments/discover-dialogue/>)

* Zbigniew Jaworowski ,chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw: “The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 … climate change fluctuations comes … from cosmic radiation (21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65) <http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf>)

* David Legates ,associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: “About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.” (May 15, 2006) <http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/>)

* Marcel Leroux former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin “The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, … solar activity, …; volcanism …; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned.” (M. Leroux, Global Warming – Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 ) <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/354023909X>)

* Tim Patterson ,paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?” <http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm>

* Frederick Seitz ,retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences “So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.”, Environment News, 2001  <http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=812>

* Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem ,”[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. … [A]bout 2/3′s (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.” His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. <http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar>

* Fred Singer ,Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia “The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect.” (Christian Science Monitor ,April 22, 2005) <http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0422/p08s01-coop.html> “The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.”, NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 . <http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf>. “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC’s Denial machine @ 19:23 – Google Video Link ) <http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html> – Google Video Link <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en>)

* Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics : “[T]here’s increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.” (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003) <http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-weather.html>)

* Henrik Svensmark , Danish National Space Center : “Our team … has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. … most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover.” <http://spacecenter.dk/xpdf/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf>

* Jan Veizer , environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa , “At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model …, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. … Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge.” (In J. Veizer, “Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle”, Geoscience Canada, March, 2005.) <http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QQS/is_1_32/ai_n13670777/pg_11>, <http://www.esd.mun.ca/~gac/JOURNALS/TOC/GACgcV32No1Web.pdf>)

More than 100 climate scientists have endorsed the Leipzig Declaration, which describes the Kyoto treaty as “dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive.” The endorsers include prominent scholars, among them David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.

“The dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record,” the Leipzig Declaration says bluntly. “In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever – in direct contradiction to computer model results.” The declaration, plus a wealth of information on every aspect of the global warming controversy, is posted at the Web site of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, http://www.sepp.org.

About these ads

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

17 Responses to “A Few More Scientists who Disagree with Global Warming Alarmists”

RSS Feed for Don’t Get Me Started… Comments RSS Feed

It is unfortunate that so many people have bought in to the anthropogenic global warming mistake when they could have investigated the issue themselves using credible sources readily available on the web. Some people are concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The assessment that there is over 50 times as much carbon in the ocean as exists in the atmosphere, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726 , does not appear to be very widely known. Apparently no one did any real research before or they would have discovered that 440 mya the planet plunged into the Andean-Saharan ice age, http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm , when atmospheric carbon dioxide was over ten times the present level, http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf if the original paper is preferred). With a little further real research they would have discovered that, in the current ice age, temperature trends have changed direction at many different temperature levels. See temperature anomalies from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat supplemented with recent data from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html or ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat . This could not occur if there was significant positive feedback. If they had also looked at the carbon dioxide level from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html they would have discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level typically lagged average earth temperature change by hundreds of years. If they had looked at the temperature data and Law Dome carbon dioxide data http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat and the recent data from Mauna Loa ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/mlo/ or other sources from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ they might have also noticed that there is no correlation, except possibly for the 22 years from 1976 to 1998 when carbon dioxide level and average global temperature both increased. None of the historical global climate data shows any significant influence of carbon dioxide level on temperature.
Peer review biased by group-think is de facto censorship. The result here is a plethora of papers advocating that human activity is causing global warming and a paucity of ‘peer reviewed’ published papers that objectively investigate the extent to which human-produced carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming. Since this is the case, it’s probably going to have to get a lot colder before very much changes in most of the media. It will get colder eventually and a lot of people are going to look pretty foolish. It might even get warmer first like it has four other times in the last 11000 years but that’s not likely since we are past due for the coming glacial age. During the coming glaciation, half of the population will starve because rice does not grow on ice.

Al Gore is the biggest fraud of the 21 century.

… and you should have a look at the open letter to the UN Sec Gen about the mistakes in the UN approach to ‘stopping climate change’, a wholly impossible objective, of course – see http://www.nrsp.com/letter

Tom Harris

Take a class in chemistry and biology. Do a simple test. Why is it so hard to accept that harmful chemicals are bad for the enviroment. What comes out of our cars is bad. If it is not then sit in a closed room with the car running. If its not bad our human bodies would be able to handel it.
Oil is harmful. If you don’t think global warming is the result of us using oil then please stop it from polluting our lungs. We can find better ways. We need to stop using oil. And then we don’t have to be so nice to saudi arabia.
And how come we didn’t try to free the people in saudi arabia. Why are politicians so nice to them? they do things far worse then Saddam did. Most muslims dodn’t like them either. they have a king, don’t allow women to drive, execute people for nothing…

people who do not agree with global warming, are a little bit cookooo! (in my opinion i am not saying that they must start believing what i believe but they must just start looking at the facts, and it is even worse if it is a scientist. but who knows i might be wrong maybe global warming doesn’t exist, but that is just my opinion.

Can someone please give me the title of Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov article? in which he stated what he said above. I need it if for an assignment!
thank you

Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: “Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity.” (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007

Tell me about it. I just had to drop an environmental class because I challenged the teacher (unprofressionally – don’t try this yourself) on Global Warming, and her attitude on my conservativism, and she got hopping mad at me and threatened me with plagarism. The highest crime in college. So I had to bail before I said something stupid and got suspended from financial aid or school.

Mr. “What the Heck”
I am curious to know how your unprofessional challenge of your teacher, and her stance on climate change, could possibly be related to “plagarism”
May I ask what you challenged her with?

the teacher wanted her out of her class any way she could! evin fraiming for plagerisme!

Global warming is a conspiricy the government created for higher taxes and more power!
With global warming at there sides they can control the car we drive and the houses we can live in and evin the amount of childrin we can have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am pleased to inform you of my research on “Long oceanic wave resonance: implications on climate variability and global warming”. I think the subject that is addressed in this study should provide some new insight about global warming, planetary wave resonance being a phenomenon that was previously unsuspected.
I hope you will find some interest. I would be very pleased if you could give me your opinion.
You can find the context of this work to the address http://dl.free.fr/rjaIXu8XM, and the links to articles. You have just to click on “Telecharger les fichiers” (download the files)
Could you, please, transfer this message to the persons who are potentially interested in this topic.
Sincerelly yours,
Jean-Louis Pinault

There is no such thing as global warming, because look at everyone dying in Europe, Russia, Alaska, Belgium, etc. Due to outrageously cold weather that never happens there. And explain to me how everyone is getting record breaking snow. That means there is no such thing as global warming its just made up so that they can take our money.. To many lies in the world and everyone don’t be a follower be a leader experience it for yourself its all fake i know because i have gone to all these places. So all those liers can kiss my butt.

There are too many lies out there so we can’t trust anyone anymore. Also scientist can make thermometers anywhere read whatever they want it to read.

So in that case we are smarter than all those scientist cause they think there’s “global warming” which in reality we all know there’s not everyone just thinks scientist are always right when there really not they’re just another human being.

So email me at ltarnaski@yahoo.com if you have any questions because i have witnessed all of this stuff and all those things scientist are saying about global warming is fake 100%.

Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: