Climate change: Dickering with chemistry and physics ...and losing badly.

#41
They're either industry shills or moronic laymen. But climate science would attract neither (and hence be like quantum electrodynamics) were it not for real world implications.
A few of the scientists on the following list have undoubtedly been accused of being "industry shills" but that doesn't necessarily mean they're on the take and/or not saying what they believe:

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st 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.

  • David Bellamy, botanist
  • Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist,
  • Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.
  • Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria
  • Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
  • Joseph D'Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College
  • Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences
  • Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973)
  • Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.
  • Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the MIT
  • Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
  • Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce
  • Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada
  • Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)
  • Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research
  • Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science
  • Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator
  • Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry
  • Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography
  • Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
  • Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science
  • Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes


To see the full list click on this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
 
#42
The following would not fit in my previous post:

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.


Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
Deceased scientists

These scientists published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

To see the full list click on this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

PS: I believe in climate change. I believe in global warming and I believe in global cooling. I also believe that the Earth is just entering a period of significant global climate change as a result of a Grand Solar Minimum. The greatest unknown factor at this point is how strong the effect will be on the climate and, as some scientists predict., we will experience a mini ice age or, as others predict, the effects of AGW will offset any potential cooling.

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, and I don't think we can't change the climate by voting on it.
 
Last edited:
#43
You seemed to have forgotten the initial graph on the link you posted which puts the climate change denying scientists listing in context. I.e. they only form around 2% of scientists views on climate change. Oops.

Here is the graph for completness so as to avoid giving the impression that this scientific minority has more credibility than is the case.

Cheers!



The following would not fit in my previous post:

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.


Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
Deceased scientists

These scientists published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

To see the full list click on this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

PS: I believe in climate change. I believe in global warming and I believe in global cooling. I also believe that the Earth is just entering a period of significant global climate change as a result of a Grand Solar Minimum. The greatest unknown factor at this point is how strong the effect will be on the climate and, as some scientists predict., we will experience a mini ice age or, as others predict, the effects of AGW will offset any potential cooling.

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, and I don't think we can't change the climate by voting on it.
 

kmol

Registered
#44
A few of the scientists on the following list have undoubtedly been accused of being "industry shills" but that doesn't necessarily mean they're on the take and/or not saying what they believe
Another topic that comes up in the "Merchants of Doubt" film is another motive for some of these scientists -- a Cold War focus on keeping the U.S. economy unhindered by environmental regulation. This clip (about 4 mins) addresses 2 of the scientists in the Wikipedia listing, Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz:


...and this is another clip of Fred Singer (about 2 mins):


...in which, presented with internal corporate documents acknowledging his connection to media disinformation campaigns, he disavows his knowledge & expertise in an area he previously had been providing a confident, contrarian opinion.



I don't think we can't change the climate by voting on it.
But what about the legislation banning the use of chlorofluorcarbons, or the Clean Water Act, or the Clean Air Act?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_environmental_law

It would seem that national policy could make a difference.

It's true that the issue is very complicated, and there are a lot of difficulties, given the central place that oil/plastics hold in our modern society.

However, it seems preferable to face the issues straight, ambitiously attempt to find replacements, and then stand by the necessity of oil/plastics where replacements are found.