in

Love ItLove It

Who Are the Scientists Disagreeing With Global Warming-Part 2

This part is a continuation of part 1 and actually contains the names and credentials of 21 of the thousands of actual true scientists who disagree with the man-caused global warming theories that are based on the increase in CO2 emissions. As will be seen, these are distinguished people.

Who are the scientists?

It would be impossible to write a comprehensive list of the scientists who disagree with the anthropogenic global warming theory. In one petition alone disagreeing with the theory, there are over 31,000 signatures. These are primarily true scientists.

However, it is possible to give a notion as to the scientists and their fields of expertise who disagree with the theory. Again, this is only a partial list.

Scientists who disagree with the current idea of man-caused, due to carbon dioxide emissions, theories of global warming:

John Christy; Professor of Atmospheric Science, Director of Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama. Mr. Christy received the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal and a special AMS award.

Kary Mullis; biochemist, numerous science awards including the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993.

Robert Balling, Jr; Professor of geology, Arizona State.

Khabibullo Abdussamatov, Russian astrophysicist, one of the supervisors of the Russian section of the International Space Station and head of the Space Research Laboratory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Vincent Courtillot; French astrophysicist and engineer. Vincent has two doctorates from the University of Paris.

Timothy Ball; Canadian historical geographer who has a bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and PhD. He retired as a Professor of Geology in 1996. The PhD is in climatology.

David Douglass; physicist and Associate Professor of the University of Rochester. Mr. Douglass has a bachelor’s degree and a PhD in physics. He is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society.

Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Geology at the University of Stockholm. He is a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Tad Murty, Oceanographer, former president of the Tsunami Society. Adjunct Professor of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, retired, of Australia. Mr. Kininmonth holds a Bachelor of Science and a Master’s of Science. He also runs the Australasian Climate Research Institute.

Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology with expertise in paleoclimatology and paleoceanography. Mr. Patterson holds a PhD in geology and is a member of the Geological Society of America and the Society for Sedimentary Geology.

Ian Plimer; Australian geologist, Professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide and Professor Emeritus of Earth Science at the University of Melbourne. He has numerous scientific awards. He holds both a Bachelor’s of Science and a PhD.

Nir Shaviv; Professor of physics and department chair at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, with specialties in astrophysics and climate science. He was postdoctorate at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics and has been a full professor since 2012.

Willie Soon; astrophysicist and aerospace engineer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (originally coming from Malaysia). Mr. Soon holds a PhD and received an award from the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society. He also has other awards.

Henrik Svensmark; Professor and physicist at the Danish Space Institute, where he is also the director of the center. Mr. Svensmark has held post-doctorate positions at the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics and the Niels Bohr Institute.

George Taylor; former director of the Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University, until retirement. Mr. Taylor has a bachelor’s in mathematics and a master’s in meteorology.

Ivar Giaever; physicist, Professor Emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Professor at University of Oslo, and president of Applied Biophysics. Ivar has a PhD degree and has numerous awards, including a Nobel Prize in Physics. He also has a fellowship at the University of Cambridge.

Harrison (Jack) Schmitt; the last living crew member of Apollo 17 and the last living person to have walked on the moon. Mr. Schmitt was the chair of the NASA Advisory Council until 2008 and is a geologist and has a PhD in that scientific discipline, which he received from Harvard. He also studied at the University at Oslo.

Philip Stott; Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London. He has written and published three science books and four other books.

Henk Tennekes, former director of research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute. Henk was a professor of Aeronautical Engineering at Pennsylvania State University and is retired.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu; professor of geophysics, retired, and the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center.This is only 21 of at least 31,000 scientists who disagree with the anthropogenic global warming theory, some of them vigorously, based on actual science. It is clear that they aren’t “crack-pots”, they are from different scientific disciplines, and they include scientific award winners, including winners of the Nobel Award. They also aren’t just Americans. They include scientists from the US, the UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Japan, China, Russia, and many other countries. This also shows easily that there is no 97% consensus among scientist, who support man-caused global warming.

Listening to the mainstream media, you might hear that the only people who disagree with the man-caused global warming theory are ‘arm-chair scientists’ who have no science degrees or scientific expertise. Don’t believe it. The opposite is actually true.

Report

What do you think?

Legend

Written by Rex Trulove

Story MakerPoll MakerQuiz MakerYears Of MembershipList MakerGallery MakerImage MakerEmbed MakerContent Author

32 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. I have to say, I’m not convinced that global warming isn’t real. I’d be interested in reading some of the science behind the theory. I mean, the earth is getting hotter, ice caps are melting, weather disasters such as tsunamis and hurricanes are becoming more widespread and frequent. It would have to be a very convincing argument that would explain away these phenomenon without blaming global warming

    2
    • Actually, the number of natural disasters have been declining over the past couple of decades, as compared to the previous few decades. The number of deaths and amount of property damage is higher, but that is probably because more people are now living in places that are at risk. However, the globe IS warming up. That has never been a contention. It has been warming up for 10,000 years. If it wasn’t, much of the world would still be under ice. It cooled way down for several centuries, during the little ice age, and still isn’t as hot as it was before the little ice age, but it has been warming up since that time. The question is whether this is ‘normal’, and there is a huge amount of data that says that it is.

      Incidentally, tsunamis have nothing to do with climate or weather. Tsunamis are usually triggered by earthquakes, which also have nothing to do with climate or weather. Having lived in an active earthquake zone for most of my life, which also happened to be volcanic, both earthquakes and volcanoes are of tremendous interest to me. My interest in the climate began in the 1970s when I wrote papers in school about the topic. At that time, most people believed in global cooling and that we were about to have another ice age. I was, um, skeptical. However, at least few people were trying to make it seem that man was so omnipotent that he was the cause of the global cooling (which I never believe existed in the first place.) lol Thus, my interest in volcanoes and earthquakes is personal, while my interest in the climate really isn’t.

      • Scientific method works by analyzing a phenomenon, theorizing about how that phenomenon came about, then dismissing all the possible reasons that do not support the theory. If all the reasons are dismissed, then so is the theory and a new one must be sought. However, if there is a reason that supports the theory it tends to be accepted unless somebody can produce a better one.

        In the case of global warming, none of the “natural” reasons, in any combination, match the data. However, when man-made production of greenhouse gases is factored into the model, the match is extremely close. That is the reason why the vast majority of climate scientists – i.e. scientists across the world who take ALL the factors into account – are agreed that the current amount of global warming cannot be ascribed to natural factors alone.

        1
        • Actually, there are several “natural” reasons that do fit the theory that the earth has been warming up for the last 200 years. Again, what we don’t know far exceeds what we do know, though, and new information is continually coming to light that has a direct bearing on the debate, even though it is sometimes a long time before someone realizes it.

          I can give a very simple example. We know that the worst of the little ice age coincided with a time when there were almost no sunspots. Could it be that the opposite could be true and that a period of more than the average number of sunspots could somehow trigger global warming? I don’t know and I’m unaware of anyone trying to make a correlation. Of course, even assuming that the lack of sunspots was a direct cause of the little ice age, scientists don’t know why. It would be a case of unraveling one mystery and finding several more in the process, but at least it could have something to do with it.

          Another example; we know that we are overdue for a polaric reversal, and there are signs that it has begun, but we honestly have no idea of what collateral effects such a reversal will have.

          Another example; fairly recently, we passed through the arm of the Milky Way to which the solar system is a part. Since this happens over a protracted period of time, we have little idea (except for quite unproven theories) of what impacts that might have. One of the last times it happened, there was a mass extinction event, but we don’t know if it is related or not. It could be coincidence, but it might not be, and few people were alive at the time to document it.

          • Rex, These are factors that have already been accounted for in the models that climate scientists work from. As I said, even given the extremes that such factors might produce, they do not explain the data unless the man-made element is included. Of course, I can only state to you what I have read, but it certainly makes sense to me.

            As for mass extinction events, have you read my Virily post on “magma blobs”? http://dld.bz/gnmQn

            1
          • John, remember that I’m a computer engineer by training. NONE of these are “accounted for” in the computer model. That is part of what so many people don’t understand. To write a computer program that accounted for all of the variables, particularly since most of these are still poorly understood so we don’t know what all the variables are, would not only take a team of engineers over a decade, the model wouldn’t and couldn’t be accurate. That isn’t the way computer engineers, programmers, etc. approach it.

            In some of the first models, some points were taken to be automatically true; such as that there was definitely global warming since 1800. These were the constants. Some of the constants, I agree with, but some are very iffy. The models then went on to cheat in a way that is called “reverse engineering”. That is, you have a baseline, defined by the constants. You also have a subjective conclusion. The program is then designed that fits both the constants and the conclusion. Since some of the constants are questionable and the conclusions are subjective (not everyone agrees with them), the program is flawed before it is even online.

            The simple fact, though, is that few of the other variables and possibilities are written into the program. There isn’t a way to do so without losing all accuracy. The reason should be easy to see. Let’s simply take the Maunder Minimum (time of very few sunspots) to show this. Although it looks like the Maunder Minimum was the cause of the little ice age, there isn’t enough data to say for sure if it was or not and not everyone agrees that it was a cause.

            If it was a cause, solar scientists still don’t know what caused it and no theories fit all the facts. We don’t know why there were almost no sunspots for three-quarters of a century. We don’t know how the lack of magnetic storms on the surface of the sun that we observe as sunspots could have such an impact on earth’s climate. We don’t know why or exactly when it actually started. We don’t know the mechanism that started it. We don’t know the mechanism that ended it. We can’t predict when the next minimum will occur, assuming that one will. We don’t know for a fact that increased sunspot activity would have the opposite effect.

            All of these and more create variables to the computer programmer. We have far more questions than we have answers. Frankly, we don’t know. Accounting for ALL of the variables can’t be done without having those answers. That is also just the potential natural cause of the Maunder Minimum. There are dozens of more potential causes of global warming, each of which has its own variables. Then the entire program, variables, constants, and all, must agree with (and explain) the geologic history, which has gaps.

            Bottom line; natural causes haven’t been accounted for and can’t be, and no computer model from either side of the debate has been accurate because of it.

    • You are very welcome. I would hope that people start taking the time to think about it for themselves and to look at the actual data (though it isn’t always easy to find), rather than simply letting someone else tell them what they should think. :))

  2. I think it is unwise to give much credence to the “Petition Project” claim (the 31,000 figure). If you think that the 97% Consensus is based on dodgy statistics you certainly cannot accept the Petition Project as being genuine.

    3
    • Have you actually read what those I listed have said about how anthropogenic global warming is a farce and why? Have you checked any of the other scientists who’ve signed that petition (and similar ones)? In fact, many have written books about it, since they are blocked from publishing in scientific journals…have you read any of those books?

      We know exactly where the 97% statistic came from and how it was a tremendously small sampling. As it happens, we also know what the actual experts who’ve signed the petitions are saying and have been saying about global warming. It isn’t a secret. Yet, the number and quality of the men and women who’ve spoken out in disagreement with the theory will be doubted by anyone who doesn’t approach it with an open mind and who doesn’t actually try to see what they are saying and why.

      • What matters are the facts, and the facts – as agreed by the vast majority of people who have spent years studying these matters and considering all the implications – are that the planet is getting warmer and that mankind is largely responsible for the warming over the last two centuries.

        Of course not everyone will agree – when have intelligent people ever agreed 100% about anything? But the consequence of that is that what should ensue is debate conducted at a rational, non-emotional level, with none of the parties to that debate being forced to say things with which they do not really agree – due to external political or commercial interests.

        It is therefore vitally important to examine the motivations of the debaters, and to discount the views of people – on either side – who can be seen as being unduly influenced. Every statement must be open to the question “why are you saying that?” and the answers to that question must be acceptable to everyone.

        At the end of the day it is science that must win. We must know what is really going on, why it is happening, and what we can do to protect the planet for future generations.

        2
        • I’m sure that the science will win out, which is the primary purpose of presenting the facts rather than what is commonly given out by the media and others as fact when it isn’t. It is also why I tend to use raw data rather than any data that is tampered with.

          I also agree that what Nobel Prize winners in science say has a strong impact, since they are normally not motivated by the big money that the alarmists tend to be motivated by. Of course, there are exceptions. Albert Gore, for instance, the alarmist ‘poster boy’, is clearly motivated by big money and big government, nor has he tried to hide that fact.

          One thing I don’t think many people give much thought to is that ALL scientists are people first. They all have the same flaws all the rest of us have. It doesn’t mean that they don’t know what they are talking about, only that they are human. (Many allegations against them are also false, for the same reason. The accusers are also human and have their own motivations which are probably not very altruistic.)

          • Rex, Where are you getting your raw data from? Do you have a private satellite that is beaming temperature data down to Montana? I would suggest that you – as well as everybody else who has commented on this issue – must be reliant on information that is being filtered through various channels. The question is – which channels can you trust, and ditto for the analyses of that data that you are bound to encounter?

            1
          • Actually, in many cases, NASA and NOAA published the original data and only later retracted it or altered it. That original data still exists, though it isn’t always easy to find. In other cases, organizations, associations, and companies published the raw data as it came in. Again, it isn’t always easy to find, but it exists.

  3. That’s an interesting list. It contains a number of people who have connections with organisations devoted to rubbishing science – on behalf of , and paid for by, big oil – and also several who have made comments that are directly contradicted by true scientific facts.

    2
    • You are stating an opinion that is a talking point of Alarmists, but which holds very little water. For that matter, we know why the Alarmists are creating their fantasy. In a word, power. Every nation that has been taken in by the unfounded theory has lost money in numerous ways, have suffered economic decline, and yet in each case, the governments have become stronger and usually larger. That is what is truly behind the alarmist talking points like the one you mentioned. As I said in one of the first exposes, follow the paper trail. It is enlightening.

      • Top of your list – John Christy. Who is he? Apart from some impressive credentials, he has been an “expert” for the Heartland Institute. And what is that? A supposedly independent think tank that has used all sorts of dirty tricks to debunk various movements that do not suit right-wing politicians. Among its past activities were efforts to claim that tobacco smoking did not cause cancer, because they were partly funded by the big tobacco companies. I’m sorry – but anyone associated with that particular organization is highly suspect in my book!

        As you can see, Rex, I have followed the paper trail and been enlightened!

        1
        • It is good to know that you put so much credence in opinion. I prefer putting more credence in fact, which I’ve presented. Just from the opinion standpoint, though, I could also mention that some of the people on the expansive list were also very strongly in favor of anthropogenic global warming and were highly touted by the alarmists…up until those people acquired so much data that was contrary to the theory and switched sides. The moment they changed their beliefs, smear campaigns were launched in attempts to discredit those individuals, even though the alarmists had previously touted them. It is a pity that the whole topic is so tremendously political on both sides. Politics usually excludes true science.

          • I think you have to look very hard at those people who changed their mind because they came across fresh data – which is perfectly acceptable from a scientific standpoint – and those who did so because their paymasters told them to, which would render everything they say highly suspect.

            I fully accept that this could have happened with people on different sides of the debate, but there are far too many instances of supposed experts who are deniers and turn out to have dodgy backgrounds. Unfortunately, they include just about everyone on your list – there are a few exceptions, but a quick comparison with the list produced by DeSmogBlog – https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database – suggests otherwise.

          • Just as many of those supporting the theories have dubious backgrounds, so that isn’t a basis at all. As I said before, they are all humans, regardless of professions, and thus many of them will have skeletons in the closet. That is true of most debates, too.

Leave a Reply