Can you name a climate scientist who disputes that humans are causing global warming?

Question

Can you name a climate scientist who disputes that humans are causing global warming?

Answer 1

I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but Dr. William Gray seems to fall into that category. I don't think he believes that humans have enough effect to warm the planet at all, at least that was the impression I had when I saw him speak a couple of years ago. You might dispute that he's a climate scientist, because his primary career research has been in hurricane meteorology. I don't think that's fair, though. He's done a tremendous amount of important research in atmospheric science and I think it would be splitting hairs to argue that he's not a climate scientist.

Answer 2

Not even coldfuse disputes some anthropogenic contribution to global warming - that should be enough to scare you to death and checking the evidence all over again!



The link below is a list of scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Yes, I was lazy enough to let Wikipedia do the work; however, it is well-referenced.



The only scientists listed in the "global warming is not occurring or has ceased" category are Timothy Ball, a geographer; Robert Carter, a geologist; and Vincent Gray, a coal chemist. I suppose one might question one or two of their disciplines, but all are apparently passionate about climate change.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: You may find a number of the requested quotations in the "Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes" category. Here are some...



"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"



"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."



"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."



"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".

Answer 3

I can but won't because: (1) it would compromise my anonymity, some friends' identities, and personal conversations; but mostly (2) "dispute" is a continuum of "uncertainty" and every natural system contains uncertainty in the form of unexplained variance.



The majority of climate scientists support AGW, but that support ranges from 'evidence suggests' to 'damn sure' based on where their particular data have led them - and not all data are equal.



Deniers are a different set of people that predominantly believe in a binary solution (reject-accept), whose opinion is biased by an unyielding a prior assumption that the solution is 'reject', and who firmly dispute everything that does not support their belief regardless of what the evidence suggests - up to and including claims of vast global scientific conspiracies and imaginary political organizations.



===



Starbuck --



No, you are not the only one.

Answer 4

"Any way you look at it, the evidence for internally-forced climate change is pretty clear. Based upon this satellite evidence alone, I do not see how the IPCC can continue to ignore internally-forced variations in the climate system. The evidence for its existence is there for all to see, and in my opinion, the IPCC’s lack of diagnostic skill in this matter verges on scientific malpractice." - Spencer



http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/clouds-dominate-co2-as-a-climate-driver-since-2000/

Answer 5

You gave 3 good examples

Lindzen, Spencer, Christy

I think where you go wrong is those scientists probably agree that humans are causing some "warming" by our emissions of CO2 but that warming is small compared to other factors so in reality our emissions of CO2 aren't causing the recent warming but only slightly bumping up an already warming trend. They just don't think it is that significant a problem precisely because the sensitivity is low as you alluded to.

Answer 6

Not sure if this will help, but I think Dr Jon Dehn at UAF might someone to talk to. I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure he doesn't think climate change is anthropogenic. He is a vulcanologist, not a climatologist, though. I don't see anything in his publications that looks like what you are after, but link is below, check for yourself or give him a call.



[EDIT - I forgot Dr Akasofu, also at UAF, but, again, not a climatologist]

Answer 7

Spencer, like Lindzen, believes clouds are a net negative feedback.



Of course you can't have a feedback without the initial force; like Lindzen he believes man contributes to some warming but not much.



It is Spencer's work btw that is showing record high temperatures since early November. This month is really busting the records.

Answer 8

You know Dana, if any reasonable person went to their doctor and the doctor said "I'm sorry but I think you may have cancer, if we act now we can deal with it" it would be a fool who would ignore their doctor or try to brush aside the doctor's expert opinion. Well, the scientists are telling us the planet has cancer and that we need to act now before it gets worse. Too many people are ignoring them. Too many people are being slefish - it's not their planet it's everone's planet. - - - - - - - - - - - - TO C.BARLA (Above) Let me shed some light on the valid points you made. The last ice agen ended due to the position of Earth within the many cycles that it and the Sun go through, these cause peiodic and predictable warming and cooling. These natural cycles have been around since time immemorial and are the sole trigger for historical warming and cooling. We do know why the planet is waring today - an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. By and large the same gases provide a natural greenhouse effect that ensures this planet maintains a habitable temperature. They effectively insulate the planet due to their physical capability of blocking the escape into space of thermal radiation. Any changes to their concentrations affects the insulative properties of our atmosphere. We also know a great deal about the sun, so much so that we can measure variance down to millionths (of Watts per square metre per year) Finally, no these aren't the same people that were foretelling the coming of another ice age back in the 70's. This is more the work of the media than of scientists and is something that some skeptics have blown out of all proportion. In truth, there was no global cooling scare in the 70's as anyone who was around back then will confirm.

Answer 9

Ha, I am probably the only once who actually work with these people. We are inviting Lindzen, Singer actually to come out and help fight the AB32 debacle in California. Know them through Cohen and the APS members who have had it with the left wing anti science gig spewed by the socialist left. More and more of scientists are now coming forward as they see the danger in what is happening by these greedy scientists on this issue.



Dana, unfortunately you believe much of what you read especially from the Berkeley institution and that is your downfall. You have no idea what is going on behind the scenes and what is being done to stop this tirade by corrupt scientists in AGW and many other aspects of science today. The slander and libel by AGW scientists to non believers is unprecendented in science history and scientists are now fighting back to protect their reputation.

Answer 10

There are a few who have the right credentials to call themselves a climate scientist and there are a few who may not have the requisite piece of paper from a University but have extensively studied the climate all the same.



The first ones that come to mind are listed below. There's perhaps another 10 or 12 which I haven't listed because they have strong connections to Exxon, Western Fuels and Chevron so their opinions are likely to be somewhat skewed.



I've included a link to each of the respective pages on Wikipedia with the exception of Kulka who doesn't appear to have a page (odd) so I've linked an article with some of his comments.





• Phil Stott (Geographical Biologist but has studied the climate) believes that the Sun is by far the largest contributor to global warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stott



• Sally Baliunas (Astronomer) believes that greenhouse gases can not be responsible for increased warming. Accepts the planet is warming, hasn't provided any alternative hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas



• Bill Gray (Meteorologist) believes that global warming is a hoax and doesn't exist but somewhat contradictory is his claim that warming does exist but is caused by oceanic oscillations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray



• George Kulka (Professor of Climatology - retired I think) states that most of the warming is natural and humans only have a small role to play

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225822.300-histories-the-ice-age-that-never-was.html



• Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist) cites the argument that CO2 levels have lagged behind temperatures in the past and therefore CO2 isn't a driver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Patterson



• William Kininmonth (Meteorologist) believes that the majority of warming is due to natural causes and that the IPCC have grossly over-estimated the human impact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kininmonth_(meteorologist)



• Nir Shaviv (Astrophysicist) believes that the majority of the warming to date can be attributed to natural causes but that the majority of future warming will be anthropogenic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv

Answer 11

Can't give you a name but....



In the survey of the American Geophysical Union a mere 97.2% of the climatologists active in research answered "Yes" to:



Do you think human activity is a significant

contributing factor in changing

mean global temperatures?



1.4% answered no. 1.4% answered unsure.



And the AGU is not the only place to find climatologists. So, there are a few somewhere. Let's see if anyone can come up with a name.



By the way, a mere 96.4% answered "risen" to:



When compared with pre-1800s

levels, do you think that mean global temperatures

have generally risen, fallen, or

remained relatively constant?



My guess is that some interpreted "pre-1800" to include times many thousands of years ago, before the last ice age.



Bottom line: Even some climatologists will believe strange things. Let's see if anyone can find the needle in a haystack .



By the way folks, Lindzen has acknowledged that humans are the main cause of the present warming. He just thinks that some mysterious negative feedback (he's been unsuccessful at trying to prove it's clouds) will arise to save us.



Someone might find a public statement from Spencer, he won Realclimate's award for "the scientist with the greatest discrepancy between his scientific papers and his public statements" award recently.



Christy is the least likely possibility of the three. In 2003, the American Geophysical Union released a statement "Human activities are increasingly altering Earth's climate, and that natural influences alone cannot explain the rapid increase in surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century." John Christy was a co-drafter of the statement. And, he's a pretty consistent guy.



The AGU strengthened their statement in 2007, but I can't find anything about Christy being involved.

Answer 12

Climate scientists let me think what exactly is that... a long term weather forecaster?



And we all know how difficult it is to forecast 2 weeks weather in advance never mind 10 or 50 years therefore climate scientists must manufacture their own crystal ball science as they are studying something that can never be quantified. Moreover it contrary the traditional sciences which are based on sound facts and open data. These are some of the reasons why most other scientists don't believe in the long term weather forecast and climate scientists.

Answer 13

I'm also showing scientists that say the man-made warming is 'negligable,' or, as August H. Augie Jr. said, "It's miniscule ... it's nothing."



Not all of these are climate scientists, but as Trevor said, the fact that they've done research is enough. And allow me to point out that only 20% of the IPCC has "had dealings" with the climate (which basically means 0% are climatologists), and all of the scientists I've posted are far more qualified than the IPCC is.



I also threw in quotes for some of the scientists:



Timothy Ball http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=4cc39711-79fc-43ad-a2c0-73a1b4fe88a2&k=70079



Robert M. Carter http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html



Vincent R. Grey (founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition) http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1



Khabibullo Abdusamatov http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html http://www.ogoniok.com/4933/24/



Ian Clark http://www.nrsp.com/clark_letter_22-03-04.html



David Douglass http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html



William Happer "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"http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/



Tad Murty said AGW 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" http://magazine.carleton.ca/2005_Spring/1535.htm



Tim Patterson, a paleoclimatologist, said "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 http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4



Ian Plimer http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s650126.htm



Philip Stott http://parliamentofthings.info/climate.html



Henrik Svensmark http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf



Claude Allègre (I don't have a link to his article in English, but it's called Climat: la prévention, oui, la peur, non, if you want to search it yourself)



John Christy, proffesor of atmospheric science and contributor to several IPCC reports, said "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." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries



Petr Chylek http://downloads.heartland.org/2329bo.pdf



William R. Cotton http://climatesci.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/cotton-climate.pdf



David Deming (called AGW "misinformation and irrational hysteria.") http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543



Chris de Freitas http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2006510223000.CSC_News_3.PDF



Ross McKitrick (I realize that he's an economist, but consider reading his research before you complain) http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/jgr07.html http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01/ross-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx



August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (deceased) http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/04/30/1626112.htm



Reid Bryson (deceased) 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." http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html



Frederick Seitz http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=812













Now, it'll be interesting to see what you do, Dana. Odds are that despite the fact that the other skeptics and I gave you the answer to your question, you'll pick an alarmist for best answer, simply because they agree with you. Of course, because I wrote this, you may let it go to a vote just to prove me wrong. So what you should do is pick a skeptic, rather than picking an answer that simply agrees with your views or letting it go to a vote. If you create a new account and pretend to be skeptic, than you should return your college degrees you claim to have, because you won't deserve to even talk about science.



Gary, you described every alarmist on this site perfectly. Perhaps we should call them deniers?

Answer 14

Bjorn Lomborg

Patrick Moore



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Patrick Moore, founder and former President of Green Peace

http://www.sho.com/site/video/brightcove/series/title.do?bcpid=1305032885&bclid=1316298235&bctid=1316298234



Patrick Moore, founder and former President of Green Peace

http://www.nmatv.com/video/526/Penn--Teller-Environmental-Hysteria



Bjorn Lomborg

The secpitcal environmentalist

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geurTX1VNL.ikAnllXNyoA?p=The+sceptical+environmentalist&fr2=sb-top&fr=slv8-dyc&sao=0

http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/69-file/skeptenvironChap1.pdf

Answer 15

no all deniers are funded by evil big oil, while all AGWs are funded by joe sixpack who instead of buying his/her beer sends them money that way they are totally unbiased

edit

Please provide supporting evidence in your answer, such as a relevant quote.

exact quote from Joe Sixpack "me an elma may are so worried about global warnin that instead of buyin arr budwiser wern sendin the money to stop this hear global warnin because its hotter than bejesus in this trailer"