SunShine 2011/09/15 20:17:11

The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning...
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Patriot Unit 2011/09/15 22:19:21
    Patriot Unit
    My question would be, why did nobody listen to the truth to begin with. All they wanted to hear was that it was a bad thing, what mother nature, or the natural law is all about. And why has so many in government including the president ignored the truth for so long?

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • jumpboots 187th PIR 2011/09/28 03:46:13
    jumpboots 187th PIR
    Once again the gullible along with the MSM were sucked in by the old sky is falling,run,run,hide your head in the sand routine,or you can call it another ponzi schem.
  • jumpboots 187th PIR 2011/09/20 01:14:15
    jumpboots 187th PIR
    The truth was ignored because of the green machine pushing big bucks into the fear part of the lie,so that they could reap billions for themselves.
  • Cathy 2011/09/19 18:43:09
    Good for him. I don't believe in that junk anyway, lol.
  • Rusty 2011/09/18 09:51:45
  • whipnet 2011/09/17 17:29:21 (edited)
    They call it "Climate Change" now. That way they're covered when they change it from freezing to warming and back to freezing over a couple of decades. What ever scares people most.

    covered change freezing warming freezing couple decades scares people
  • Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA 2011/09/17 15:04:23
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    "Global Warming?" I thought they don't use that term any more. Yeah, the Libs want to hedge their bets and use the phrase "Climate Change" (that you can believe in)...because it requires a leap of faith to think that Human interaction is imposing 'warming' while some places is really getting colder... (like where I keep my beer)

    As one famous radio host is prone to say: "Follow the Money"

    Algore is the guy that has substantial interest in the Carbon Credit markets, and if nobody is motivated to trade these absolutely intangible and useless tax benefit credits then Algore can make any money off of his whacko carbon trading floor.

    tax benefit credits algore money whacko carbon trading floor Al Gore carbon Credits
  • Chukroast 2011/09/17 00:45:22
    I'm taking the "wait and see" attitude about global warming. Truth of the matter: I doubt if I'll be around to see the ocean level rise by more than three inches in my lifetime.
  • keeper 2011/09/16 23:35:35
    I am positive that Gore has taken him off of his Christmas list!!! LMAO
    Good for him...I like it when sanity prevails over a huckster flim flam man.
    gore christmas list lmao sanity prevails huckster flim flam flim flam man gore
  • 4dc 2011/09/16 22:32:40
  • mal 4dc 2011/09/18 02:22:32
    we will, however we will be going north while gore goes south..
  • busyboots 2011/09/16 21:18:27
    If it sounds like a scam and walks like a scam...........
  • dlsofsetx 2011/09/16 20:09:41
    As I have mentioned in previous posts,the same crowd who claim man-made pollution is behind global warming claimed man-made pollution was causing a new ice age in the late 1970's.
  • Turings... dlsofsetx 2011/09/17 16:43:53
    Wolf! Wolf! WOLF!!!!!
  • dlsofsetx Turings... 2012/06/01 17:50:44
    More like Chicken Little;"The sky is falling!"
  • Charles E dlsofsetx 2011/09/18 18:05:12
    Charles E
    And blaming the same man made pollutants.
  • carri byers 2011/09/16 19:01:00 (edited)
    carri byers
    This has always been the golden ticket for the global governance supporters. If the UN can get control of energy, water and resources in the name of saving the planet, global governance is a tiny step away.
  • JoeM~PWCM~JLA 2011/09/16 18:28:47
    Kochman's article says it all. It is all BOB's fault!

    Bob = Bright orange ball. (the one up in the sky during the day time.)
  • lrb 2011/09/16 17:32:22
    The irony of the situation is that Global Warming would be much more believable if it were not so dogmatic and overzealous in crushing in any questions about it's viability as a scientific theory. Had the Global Warmers the same power of Catholic Church did in the 15th and 16th centuries, I'm sure we'd see Global Warmer deniers being burned at the stake left and right. I would question any scientific theory whose main supporters couldn't tolerate criticism and claimed that it was an absolute truth as do the Global Warmers.
  • sammanilla 2011/09/16 17:23:52
    Is there no general science in schools anymore? CO2 is such a simple subject we were taught about it starting before our teens.

    Based on the simplicity of the subject, no beating around the bush, money had to be involved in Gore's scam. Something had to silence the thousands of "experts" who knew better and cashola is the answer.

    Dr. Ivar Giaever for Congress!
  • MadAsHEck 2011/09/16 17:14:31 (edited)
    I spent 20 years in the Naval Weather Service. And was skeptical over the big Al Gore thing all along. There were too many conflicting stories all along.

    But Gore used the old addage "Tell a lie loud enough, and often enough" and the majority will believe in. He's now a multimillionaire, and the average citizen will soon be paying Energy costs 300% higher in the near future. Especially in the winter, as many scientists are forecasting a Mini Ice Age as occured in the Dark Ages.

    And the other day on the news, Colorado getting snow already? Record Low Temps in North Dakota already. We in Washington went from 10 days in the 80's about a week ago, to what they are calling record low temps now.
  • txmoni7 MadAsHEck 2011/09/17 01:48:01
    I agree with you 100%
  • magmaman 2011/09/16 16:25:31
    ''STAND UP"
  • txmoni7 magmaman 2011/09/17 01:50:36

    You better believe we will rebuild after we rid the WH of that destroyer! That snake!
  • magmaman 2011/09/16 16:24:42
    ''STAND UP"
  • RicemanSTM ~POTL~PWCM~JLA~AFCL 2011/09/16 16:20:37
    ..."climate change"...yeah...they're called...seasons...
  • txmoni7 Riceman... 2011/09/17 01:55:09
    LOl exactly! Are people that stupid that expect each season is to be the exact same as the season from the prior year??? LMAO
  • Riceman... txmoni7 2011/09/17 03:41:01
    It's funny, but Rush said something pretty profound. The whole reason it feels warmer to everyone is because we're all used to air conditioning.... :-)
  • txmoni7 Riceman... 2011/09/17 08:44:10
    You know, he's right! That is so true...
  • Riceman... txmoni7 2011/09/18 00:00:24
    It makes sense if you think about it... :-)
  • mustangluver 2011/09/16 16:06:04
    He knows there's nothing that can be done to change the changing of the weather..
    change changing weather
  • Jackie 2011/09/16 15:52:01
    It will get continually harder for the Government to push this farce of global warming. Only the left wing idiots buy it now.
  • ZippyTheWonderMonkey 2011/09/16 15:49:51
    What surprises me the most is that it took this long for scientists to start doing this. He won't be the last, I can all but guarantee that.
  • Kochman 2011/09/16 14:55:08
    This is a good read. Long but fairly comprehensive.

    This article lists living and deceased scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream assessment of global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies.

    Climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions relating directly to past and ongoing global warming about the scientific opinion on climate change were as follows:

    1.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]
    2."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]
    3.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. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise...



    This is a good read. Long but fairly comprehensive.

    This article lists living and deceased scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream assessment of global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies.

    Climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions relating directly to past and ongoing global warming about the scientific opinion on climate change were as follows:

    1.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]
    2."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]
    3.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. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise of 9 cm to 88 cm, excluding "uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet".[5] "Overall it is expected that benefits will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures, especially in developing countries." [6]

    This article is an attempt to list notable scientists who have made statements in disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the Third (or Fourth) Assessment Report of the IPCC. Inclusion is based on the following specific criteria:

    1.For the purposes of this list, qualification as a scientist is reached by publication of at least one peer-reviewed article in their lifetime in a broadly construed area of "natural sciences". The article need not have been written in recent years nor be in a field relevant to climate.
    2.Attributable statements of disagreement in any venue in the individual's own words (not merely inclusion on petitions, surveys, or lists).
    The Wikipedia definition of Notability of people is used in this article. "Notable" is not used in the common language meaning of "a person of distinction or great reputation",[7] and does not necessarily indicate a person's scientific or professional standing in their own field, or in the field of climate science.

    Position: Accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable. Individuals in this section conclude 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.

    Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society:
    "First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it."[8]

    Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences:
    "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[9]

    "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[10][11]

    "It is generally agreed that doubling CO2 alone will cause about 1 °C warming due to the fact that it acts as a ‘blanket.’ Model projections of greater warming absolutely depend on positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds that will add to the ‘blanket’ – reducing the net cooling of the climate system. ... This, however, is not the case for the actual climate system where the sensitivity is about 0.5 °C for a doubling of CO2."[12]

    "Motivated by the observed relation between cloudiness (above the trade wind boundary layer) and high humidity, cloud data for the eastern part of the western Pacific from the Japanese Geostationary Meteorological Satellite-5 (which provides high spatial and temporal resolution) have been analyzed, and it has been found that the area of cirrus cloud coverage normalized by a measure of the area of cumulus coverage decreases about 22% per degree Celsius increase in the surface temperature of the cloudy region. ... The calculations show that such a change in the Tropics could lead to a negative feedback in the global climate ... The response to a doubling of CO2, which in the absence of feedbacks is expected to be about 1.2°C, would be reduced to between 0.57° and 0.83°C (depending on y) due to the iris effect."[13]

    Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre:
    "There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[14] "The bottom line is that virtually all climate research in Australia is funded from one source – namely, the government department which has the specific task of selling to the public the idea that something drastic and expensive has to be done."[15]

    Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute:
    "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."[16]

    "It is my professional opinion that there is no evidence at all for catastrophic global warming. It is likely that global temperatures will rise a little, much as IPCC predicts, but there is a growing body of evidence that the errant behavior of the Sun may cause some cooling in the foreseeable future."[17] "The political dichotomy about climate change is fueled by gross exaggerations and simplifications on both sides of the fence."[17]

    Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists:
    "Models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[18] "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it."[19]

    "Not only do we need to improve the ‘mathematics’ of the models but it is also necessary to improve the measuring devices and their sensitivity. ... Cloud characteristics are very important in order to allow a comparison between model forecasts and experimental data. ... When a proton enters our atmosphere, it acts as a nucleus of condensation for water vapour and thus contributes to cloud formation. ... In the last half billion years, earth has lost, four times, its polar caps: no ice at the North Pole and none at the South Pole. And, four times, the polar caps were reconstituted. Man did not exist then, only the so-called cosmic rays, discovered by mankind in the early twentieth century. The last cosmic ice age started 50 million years ago when we entered into one of the galaxy arms."[19]

    Position: Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
    Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus view
    1979-2009: Over the past 3 decades, temperature has not correlated with sunspot trends. The top plot is of sunspots, while below is the global atmospheric temperature trend. El Chichón and Pinatubo were volcanoes, while El Niño is part of ocean variability. The effect of greenhouse gas emissions is on top of those fluctuations.
    1860-1980: In contrast, earlier there was apparent similarity between trends in terrestrial sea surface temperatures and sunspots (related to solar magnetic activity: TSI varies slightly while UV and indirectly cosmic rays vary somewhat more).Both consensus and non-consensus scientific views involve multiple climate change influences including solar variability and internal forcings, plus human influences such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use change.[20] However, they can differ in which factor(s) gets considered quantitatively major versus more minor.[20][21]Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

    Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences:
    "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."[22][23][24] "Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1 degrees Celsius in the past ten years — however, it never happened."[25] "By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years and by mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age.”[25]

    Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:
    "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities--over 80 percent--occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."[26]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."[26]

    "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[27]"One can have surface warming from a variety of reasons. So the key layer of air to look at is the one-to-five-mile up layer of air. ... Now, this is the layer of air sensitive to the human-made warming effect, and the layer that must warm at least as much as the surface according to the computer simulations. Yet, the projected warming from human activities can't be found in the low troposphere in any great degree."[26]

    George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California:
    "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."[28]

    Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:
    "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. 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. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[29]

    Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland:
    "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[30]

    David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester:
    "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[31]

    Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University:
    "Temperatures during most of the last 10,000 years were somewhat higher than at present until about 3,000 years ago. For the past 700 years, the Earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age and generally warming with alternating warm/cool periods. ... Georef lists 485 papers on the Medieval Warm period and 1413 on the Little Ice Age for a total of 1,900 published papers on the two periods. Thus, when Mann et al. (1998) contended that neither event had happened and that climate had not changed in 1000 years (the infamous hockey stick graph), geologists didn't take them seriously and thought either (1) the trees they used for their climate reconstruction were not climate sensitive, or (2) the data had been inappropriately used."[32]

    "Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."[33]

    William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, 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."[34] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[35] "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."[36]

    William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University:
    "All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[37]

    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology:
    "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[38]

    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."[39]

    "Many records reveal that the 20th century is likely not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium, although it is clear that human activity has significantly impacted some local environments."[40]

    Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:
    [Global warming] "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[41]

    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?"[42][43]

    Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide:
    "Natural climate changes occur unrelated to carbon dioxide contents. We've had many, many times in the recent past where we've rapidly gone into a greenhouse and the carbon dioxide content has been far, far lower than the current carbon dioxide content. It was only 1,100 years ago where Greenland was populated. It was called Greenland because it was green. There were crops, there were cattle there. ... We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[44]

    Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo:
    "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error, because the Medieval warm period (the "Climate Optimum") and the Little Ice Age both are absent from their curve, on which the IPCC bases its future projections and recommended mitigation. All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate (Willson, R.C & Hudson, H.S. 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42-44; and Coffey, H.E., Erwin, E.H. & Hanchett, C.D.: Solar databases for global change models. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/s... Warmer climate was previously perceived as an optimum climate and not catastrophic. ... On a wet basis the Earth's atmosphere consists by mass of ~73.5% nitrogen, ~22.5% oxygen, ~2.7% water, and ~1.25% argon. CO2 in air is in minimal amount, ~0.05% by mass, and with minimal capacity (~2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor"[45]

    Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University, wrote a booklet proposing a phenomenological theory of climate change based on the physical properties of the data. Scafetta describes his conclusions writing:
    "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."[46][47]

    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."[48]

    "The climatic variability attributable to solar activity is larger than could be expected from the typical 0.1% changes in the solar irradiance observed over the decadal to centennial time scale [Beer et al., 2000; Soon et al., 2000]. ... Over the solar cycle, the interplanetary magnetic field varies considerably, such that the amount of tropospheric ionization changes by typically 5%. Svensmark [1998, 2000], Marsh and Svensmark [2000a] as well as Palle Bago and Butler [2000] have shown that the variations in the amount of low altitude cloud cover (LACC) nicely correlate with the cosmic ray flux (CRF) reaching Earth over two decades. A recent analysis has shown that the latitudinal variations of the LACC are proportional to the latitudinal dependence of the low altitude ion concentrations [Usoskin et al., 2004]."[49]

    "Recent theoretical and experimental studies (Dickenson, 1975; Harrison and Aplin, 2001; Eichkorn et al., 2002; Yu, 2002; Tinsley and Yu, 2003) relate the CRF to the formation of charged aerosols, which could serve as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), as demonstrated independently by ground-based and airborne experiments (Harrison and Aplin, 2001; Eichkorn et al., 2002)."[50]

    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."[51][52] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[53]

    "The current warming cycle is not unusual. ... The Earth consistently goes through a climate cycle marked by alternating warmer and cooler periods over 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years)." "When the sun is less active, its solar wind weakens and provides less shielding for the Earth from the cosmic rays that bounce around space." "We have a number of shorter-term proxies (cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies) that testify to the global nature of the 1,500- year climate cycles. ... Models that posit a human impact on the climate must better take this evidence into account before any conclusions are drawn regarding humanity’s ability to prevent future climate change."[52]

    "The IPCC summary report presents selected facts and omits important information. The summary (correctly) reports that climate has warmed by 0.3 °C to 0.6 °C in the last 100 years, but does not mention that there has been little warming if any (depending on whose compilation is used) in the last 50 years, during which time some 80% of greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere. ... The summary does not make it explicit that the IPCC time scale for warming has now been stretched out — doubled, in fact, from 2050 to 2100 — making any possible impact less dramatic. The summary also does not mention an authoritative U.S. government statement; it quotes a global warming as low as 0.5 °C by 2100 — only half of the IPCC's lowest 1995 prediction."[54]

    Willie Soon, astrophysicist, 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."[55]

    Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville:
    "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".[56]

    "It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.) BUT…everything else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming."[21]

    "A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system... Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved ... my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation."[21]

    Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London:
    "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[57]

    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."[58]

    We find that the observed variation of 3–4% of the global cloud cover during the recent solar cycle is strongly correlated with the cosmic ray flux. ... The effect is larger at higher latitudes in agreement with the shielding effect of the Earth's magnetic field on high-energy charged particles.[59]

    Variations in the cosmic-ray influx due to solar magnetic activity account well for climatic fluctuations on decadal, centennial and millennial timescales ... to reconcile abundant indications of the Sun's influence on climate (e.g. Herschel 1801, Eddy 1976, Friis-Christenen 1997) with the small 0.1% variations in the solar cycle measured by satellites. ... The connection offers a mechanism for solar-driven climate change much more powerful than changes in solar irradiance.[60]

    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."[61]

    Position: Cause of global warming is unknownScientists in this section conclude 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:
    "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[62]

    Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris):
    "The increase in the CO2 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. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."[63]

    Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University:
    "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] 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 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[64]

    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:
    "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[65]

    "The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. ... El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. ... The global warming hypothesis states that there are positive feedback processes leading to gains g that are larger than 1, perhaps as large as 3 or 4. However, recent studies suggest that the values of g is much smaller."[66]

    Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory:
    "Carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[67]

    David Deming, geology professor at the 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."[68]

    Position: Global warming will have few negative consequencesScientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment.

    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:
    "The rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes." (May 2007)[69] "On average, a 300-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to yield increases of 15% for CAM crops, 49% for C3 cereals, 20% for C4 cereals, 24% for fruits and melons, 44% for legumes, 48% for roots and tubers and 37% for vegetables."[69]

    [There was not] "a single coherent area within the SCPDSI maps that 'showed a statistically significant trend over the 1901-2002 period,' once again demonstrating that one of the major calamitous predictions of the world’s climate alarmists (that more dramatic droughts accompany global warming) is found to be totally unsupported by real-world data over a vast area of North America."[69]

    Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University:
    "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming." (2003)[70]

    "If strong positive feedbacks existed, the Earth would likely exhibit a radically unstable climate, significantly different from what has characterized the planet over the eons... Ramanathan & Collins, by the use of their own natural experiments, have shown how the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans totally nullifies the greenhouse effect of water vapor there, with high clouds dramatically increasing from close to 0% coverage at sea surface temperatures of 26°C to fully 30% coverage at 29°C... And in describing the implications of this strong negative feedback mechanism, Ramanathan & Collins state that ‘it would take more than an order-of-magnitude increase in atmospheric CO2 to increase the maximum sea surface temperature by a few degrees.'"[71]

    The warming of the last hundred years is seen to be basically a recovery from the global chill of the Little Ice Age, which was a several-hundred-year period of significantly cooler temperatures than those of the present that persisted until the end of the nineteenth century."[71]

    Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia:
    "Scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter." (October 16, 2003)[72]

    "One way to project the future with confidence is to look to history, when it was warmer... There is very strong evidence that the integrated warming – that’s temperature times time – was much greater for millennia after the end of the recent ice age around 10,800 years ago... In those millennia – which are only the blink of a geologist’s eye ago – trees used to grow where there is now only barren tundra. When they died, they were preserved in the acidic bogginess, so we can tell exactly when they were alive with carbon dating. It’s very clear that the forest in Eurasia used to extend all the way to the Arctic Ocean during that warm period... The Arctic Ocean was likely to have been largely ice-free during the summer during much of this time – from 6,000 to 8,000 years ago – as noted by the University of Stockholm’s Martin Jacobsson in a 2010 edition of the scientific journal Quaternary Science Reviews. The Geological Survey of Norway found something similar in 2008. Not only did Greenland’s ice survive – so did the polar bear."[73]

    Now deceasedThe lists above only include living scientists. The following are deceased.

    August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007) believed that the cause of global warming was unknown. Retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming, in 2006 he said:
    [Computer modeling results gave] "usually an envelope of figures, one which said the planet could warm 6 deg in the next 100 years and the other end of the envelope was perhaps half a deg in 100 years. And you know which one would be quoted" [in the media] ... "So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that's like 12c in $100." "'It's miniscule ... it's nothing,'".[74]

    Reid Bryson (1920–2008) believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes. Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, in 2007 he said:
    "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."[75]

    Marcel Leroux (1938–2008) believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes. former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin, in 2005 he said:
    "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."[76]

    Frederick Seitz (1911–2008) believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes. A former solid-state physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, he said in 2001:
    "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."[77]

    "The first thing to note is that the 100 years of global warming occurred in two stages--a temperature rise of approximately a half-degree Fahrenheit early in the century from 1910 to 1940, and another half-degree temperature rise toward the end of the century in the 1980s and 1990s. Between these two periods of warming, from the 1940s to the 1970s, the Earth actually cooled somewhat. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cannot cool the planet; they can only warm it... Aerosols are produced mainly in the industrialized nations of the Northern Hemisphere and usually do not get across the equator; they are washed out by rain in a few weeks... In the Southern Hemisphere the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should be fully evident. But it is not. The two hemispheres display the same pattern of temperature change. The fact that the cooling in the 1950s and 1960s is a feature of the temperature records of both hemispheres indicates that the absence of the predicted global warming cannot be due to aerosols."[77] "So we have to conclude that some other natural factors in climate change were at work in those middle decades of the century."[77]
  • carri b... Kochman 2011/09/16 19:05:42
    carri byers
    WOW!! That was a lot of work. Thanks for all the great quotes. I cut and pasted to my Word file and will refer to it in my debates with the globalwarmingslugs.
  • Kochman carri b... 2011/09/16 19:10:15 (edited)
    I can't take credit for it.
    I found it googling "List of possible causes for global warming" and saw this article.

    Have to fight the LIES!
  • carri b... Kochman 2011/09/18 02:09:55
    carri byers
    Thanks again!
  • Rore73 2011/09/16 14:17:44
    Wouldn't it be nice to see this spattered all over the front page of the newspapers and during the prime time TV media? Global warming appears to be another liberal money making scheme.
  • Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA 2011/09/16 12:59:53
    Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA
    Good for him. He didn't succumb to the delusional leftwing peer pressure.
  • Steve King 2011/09/16 12:48:04
    Steve King
    I am still confused on the Global Cooling climate change thing from the 70s and 80s, because of that, I decided to ignore the Global Warming thing. It is all BS.
  • G.J. hard left manifestoe... 2011/09/16 12:28:55
    G.J.   hard left manifestoe01/21
    first it was the lie global warming next they changed it to climate change to cover their positions sadly our children in schools are fed this lie of global warming also our children are being fed a new history book that has no bearing on the truths of our history. It started when they took God out of the schools at minimum Jesus was a part of the worlds history. the talk about Gandhi, and the Muslim God but not anything about our history as they believe rewriting it will divide us further.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/18 18:24:40

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals