Who Are the Scientists Disagreeing With Global Warming-Part 1

People who still believe in a man-caused global warming often love to say that “97% of scientists agree that there is a man-caused global warming due to emissions of carbon dioxide.” This statement is simply bogus and unfounded in fact. Some of those people who make the untrue claim also like to say that very few real scientists disagree with the man-caused, carbon dioxide driven global warming theory. The suggestion is that the people who disagree aren’t scientists at all. So who are the scientists who disagree that there is global warming caused by increased man-produced carbon dioxide emissions? If you’ve been taken in by the media promoted statement, you might just be surprised at who actually opposes the theory, based on scientific findings.

Where did the 97% figure come from

It is important to note that the data I’ve been reporting isn’t made up and it hasn’t been simply pulled out of the air. It came from real scientists and researchers, many of whom weren’t initially against anthropogenic global warming theories until they applied actual science to the issue.

Before we begin, it is worthwhile to find out where the ‘97% of scientists’ figure came from. Although this isn’t talked about, where the number came from is a matter of record.

It began with a master’s student from the University of Illinois who decided to do a study in 2009, for the purpose of showing that there was a consensus of scientists who believed that CO2 emissions produced by man were causing catastrophic and rapidly increasing global warming.

For her study, she produced an online survey with two questions. From the small number of scientists who answered the survey, of which only 5% were actually climate scientists, 79 scientists were cherry-picked to take part. Of those scientists, 77 of them said that the earth was warmer now than in 1800 and that the activities of man were a contributing factor. (Remember that this was shortly after the official ‘end’ of the little ice age, so the first question for many scientists *should* be yes.) Thus, 97.47% agreed with global warming since 1800. In other words, this number came from a tiny sampling that didn’t even use scientific methodology to arrive at a conclusion.

Later, another person tried to draw a conclusion, again not scientific, by reviewing recently published scientific papers, to conclude how many scientists agreed with the theory. This study was widely discounted because there was no consideration of the fact that around 90% of papers written that disagreed with global warming weren’t published because most scientific journals refused to publish anything that didn’t support global warming theories. (This situation is still happening today, no matter what data is presented, who presents it, or how the data was gathered. The overwhelming rule is that if ‘it’ doesn’t agree with man-caused global warming theories, ‘it’ isn’t going to be published, period.)

Climatology basis

The numbers clearly show that there has never been a consensus of scientists who agree with anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming. What is even more alarming is that climatology isn’t a true science, it is a pseudo-science. This is probably a contributing factor as to why the scientific method was discarded when arriving at the fictitious 97% consensus number.

The fact is that no degree at all is needed in order to be a climatologist. In 2010, there were approximately 950,000 climatologists in the US alone. Most of these had no science degrees and a large number of the most prominent among those who didn’t have science degrees agreed with the anthropogenic global warming theory. Even then, the majority of climatologists in the US in 2010 neither agreed with or disagreed with the theory, which is telling in itself.

It should also be pointed out that consensus has little meaning except for as a talking point. For over 1500 years, the consensus was that the earth was the center of the solar system, galaxy, and universe. We know that wasn’t true, but that shows the worth of scientific consensus.

Part two actually lists a number of the scientists and shows that they are actual scientists who disagree with the current global warming theories, not inexperienced people without degrees or scientific training. They also aren’t just Americans.


What do you think?

Written by Rex Trulove


  1. This planet, Earth, has no ‘Norm’. There were times it was covered in Ice. Times Hippopotomi lived in Wales. There were times that Niagara Falls froze….

    The Earth is a dynamic planet, it isn’t always X degrees and X precipitation.

    Right now, for example, (I live in Jamaica, that’s tropics) I often have to sleep with socks because it is cold…(fine, cold for me…okay…but the temperature at night is colder between Nov and May than it was ten years ago)…..

    There must be a line drawn between Climate Change and Pollution. The plastic in the Pacific is human caused, as are all the results. The change in climate…is not human caused…it is a natural cycle.

    I assume there has been a shift in polarity or Earth’s position which has caused the changes which are actually slight, all things considered.

    • I agree with you. When I use the term ‘normal’, I’m actually talking about the average. Right now, we are below average, in terms of temperatures. Over 90% of the time the earth has been here, it has had no ice caps at all. You are right; it is natural. Also correct; man, as a whole, has been a major polluter and really needs to clean up his act.

    • Thank you. That is really the whole point. A great deal of the current costly regulations and laws are simply because people haven’t take the time to think things through and they don’t have the raw data.

    • The evidence supports what you’ve always believed. That is especially true when we look back at the core sample and fossil records for the last 10,000 years and even more so if we look back several million years. One of the problems is that although we’ve identified many of those patterns and cycles, we haven’t identified them all. What we don’t know still tends to confound us. :))

  2. The claim is actually that 97% of climate experts – not scientists – take the consensus view. This is an average from seven surveys taken between 2004 and 2015.

    • Since there is absolutely no criteria for being a “climate expert”, anyone who claims to be a climatologist is one, according to today’s definitions. That is simple logic. Since this is the case, I’d submit that most climate experts know very little about science, so their opinions mean very little. Most scientists that have anything to do with climate studies, though, are in disagreement with the anthropogenic global warming theory, though, and that is shown very easily, as I’ve done.

      Personally, if I wanted to have my gallbladder removed, I’d much rather have it done by someone who is an actual doctor and who went to school for it than to have it done by someone who merely claimed to be an expert. They might well know what they are doing, but without specific schooling, I don’t know that and there is no proof.

      By the same token, since there is no accredited requirement to be a climatologist or climate expert, what they say *must* be taken with a grain of salt, or perhaps a few grams. Albert Gore passed himself off to the world community as a climatologist and this is very fraudulent, as has been shown repeatedly.

    • Yes, I’m presenting the truth. Each person can look at the actual true data and is free to make up their own minds. We already know what most would do if they were given the doctored information NASA and NOAA have been dispensing. Still, the fact is that many acclaimed, respected, knowledgeable, and leading scientists who do have something to do with climate research say that there is nothing to anthropogenic global warming. I tend to listen to the true experts (as opposed to those who merely say that they are experts). Apparently, a lot of other people do, too, which could possibly explain why a growing number of people, worldwide, are seeing through the whole thing.

      • Interestingly, many of the scientists who are experts in the climate used to advocate the very theories they now say are false. In fact, many of those scientists I’ve mentioned originally thought there was something to the global warming theories until they started doing in-depth scientific studies on it. Naturally, there will be some people that grasp onto old theories that don’t hold up. They most likely aren’t going to like or agree with what I say because they don’t want me to muddle the issue with the facts. :))

    • That is extremely understandable, especially since false data has been used for the last couple of decades to panic people into thinking that the end of the world was neigh. (It could be, but if it is, my bet is on God, not man.) I just recommend that you keep an open mind about the data, especially that claiming that man is so important and powerful. The truth is there, but a person needs to dig for it and it is never reported by the media.