A Few More Scientists who Disagree with Global Warming Alarmists
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.