preview.tinyurl.com/c23h4 -> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
sea level rise of 9 cm to 88 cm, and increases in some types of extreme weather. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.
While the first point is now accepted by virtually all climate scientists, a small number of scientists actively disagree with the second or third points. This article lists scientists who have, since the Third Assessment Report, published research or made public comments opposing at least one of the conclusions listed above.
Dissent reported by this article is based on reaction to the Third Assessment Report, until public comments on the full Fourth Assessment Report are broadly available.
edit The cause of global warming is unknown Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.
content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear.
is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 03 C ... At this moment in time we know only that: Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."
University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming.
University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."
University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind."
edit Global warming is mostly due to natural processes Scientists in this section conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than human activities for the observed rising temperatures.
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."
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."
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."
This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect.
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.
The only proof of anthropogenic climate change ever offered, which to my mind is fallacious, is that temperature has increased with Western industrialisation. Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science."
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."
Universit Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... 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."
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.
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."
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.
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."
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."
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."
edit Climate forecasting isn't as accurate as the IPCC ranges imply Scientists in this section conclude that it isn't possible to predict global climate accurately enough to justify the narrowness of the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. These scientists don't specifically conclude that the numbers are too high, or specifically conclude that the numbers are too low, merely that the numbers are likely to be inaccurate in either direction due to the difficulty of global climate modeling.
Ben Herman, University of Arizona Department of Atmospheric Sciences:"When you compare satellite, mid-troposphere satellite observations, with surface observations they don't agree with climate models", "there are all kinds of complicated feedback mechanisms that come into play that the models cannot property handle, " the temperature predictions being made today are done "off the hat and without any backing."
Duke University, and Linda Pilkey-Jarvis: "Assumption upon assumption, uncertainty upon uncertainty, and simplification upon simplification are combined to give an ultimate and inevitably shaky answer, which is then scaled up beyond the persistence t...
|
http://csua.com/feed/