fayfreethinkers.com

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 1:37 am**

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 1:45 am**

Skeptical Science Canards

SSC1
"It's the sun"
In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm

SSC2
"Climate's changed before"
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... period.htm

SSC3
"It's not bad"
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... atives.htm

SSC4
"There is no consensus"
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... sensus.htm

SSC5
"It's cooling"
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

SSC6
"Models are unreliable"
Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

SSC7
"Temp record is unreliable"
The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface ... ements.htm

SSC8
"It hasn't warmed since 1998"
For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-1998.htm

SSC9
"Antarctica is gaining ice"
Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct ... ng-ice.htm

SSC10
"Ice age predicted in the 70s"
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age ... -1970s.htm

SSC11
"CO2 lags temperature"
CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag ... rature.htm

SSC12
"We're heading into an ice age"
Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading ... ce-age.htm

SSC13
"Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming"
There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurrica ... arming.htm

SSC14
"Hockey stick is broken"
Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

SSC15
"Glaciers are growing"
Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.
Skeptical Science link is broken for canard 15

SSC16
"Climate sensitivity is low"
Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

SSC17
"Al Gore got it wrong"
Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore ... errors.htm

SSC18
"1934 - hottest year on record"
1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-ho ... record.htm

SSC19
"It's freaking cold!"
A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... eather.htm

SSC20
"Ocean acidification isn't serious"
Past history shows that when CO2 rises quickly, there was mass extinctions of coral reefs.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-a ... arming.htm

SSC21
"It's cosmic rays"
Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic- ... arming.htm

SSC22
Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy"
A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate ... hacked.htm

SSC23
"Sea level rise is exaggerated"
A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

SSC24
"It's Urban Heat Island effect"
Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-h ... effect.htm

SSC25
"Mars is warming"
Mars is not warming globally.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-mars.htm

SSC26
"Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle"
Thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic- ... n-made.htm

SSC27
"Animals and plants can adapt to global warming"
Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-ani ... arming.htm

SSC28
"It's a 1500 year cycle"
Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-ye ... -cycle.htm

SSC29
"CO2 effect is weak"
The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... effect.htm

SSC30
"Medieval Warm Period was warmer"
Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieva ... period.htm

SSC31
“Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming"
Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme ... arming.htm

SSC32
"Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions"
The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-c ... ssions.htm

SSC33
"Oceans are cooling"
The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

SSC34
"Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas"
Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-v ... se-gas.htm

SSC35
"Greenland was green"
Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenla ... -green.htm

SSC36
"Polar bear numbers are increasing"
Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-b ... arming.htm

SSC37
"Greenland is gaining ice"
Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenla ... ng-ice.htm

SSC38
"IPCC is alarmist"
The IPCC summarizes the recent research by leading scientific experts.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-sc ... sensus.htm

SSC39
"Other planets are warming"
Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... system.htm

SSC40
"There's no empirical evidence"
There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... arming.htm

SSC41
"We're coming out of the Little Ice Age"
Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming- ... ce-age.htm

SSC42
"It cooled mid-century"
Mid-century cooling involved aerosols and is irrelevant for recent global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... entury.htm

SSC43
"CO2 limits will harm the economy"
The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

SSC44
"Satellites show no warming in the troposphere"
The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satelli ... sphere.htm

SSC45
"Arctic sea ice has recovered"
Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arc ... overed.htm

SSC46
"CO2 is not a pollutant"
Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

SSC47
"It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low"
Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising CO2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... entury.htm

SSC48
"There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature"
There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-tem ... lation.htm

SSC49
"CO2 was higher in the past"
When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

SSC50
"It's not happening"
There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidenc ... arming.htm

SSC51
"Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use"
Most glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, notwithstanding a few complicated cases.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/mount-k ... o-snow.htm

SSC52
"There's no tropospheric hot spot"
We see a clear "short-term hot spot" - there's various evidence for a "long-term hot spot".
http://www.skepticalscience.com/troposp ... t-spot.htm

SSC53
"2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells"
A cold day in Chicago in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Decembe ... spells.htm

SSC54
"It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation"
The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific ... lation.htm

SSC55
"2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory"
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second- ... theory.htm

SSC56
"IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers"
Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 1000 page IPCC report
http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Hi ... iction.htm

SSC57
"Scientists can't even predict weather"
Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/weather ... ctions.htm

SSC58
"It's El Niño"
El Nino has no trend and so is not responsible for the trend of global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/el-nino ... lation.htm

SSC59
"IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests"
The IPCC statement on Amazon rainforests was correct, and was incorrectly reported in some media.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-fa ... orests.htm

SSC60
"It's a natural cycle"
No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... -cycle.htm

SSC61
"CO2 limits will hurt the poor"
Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lim ... overty.htm

SSC62
"CO2 effect is saturated"
Direct measurements find that rising CO2 is trapping more heat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturat ... effect.htm

SSC63
"Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated"
Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-lev ... ctions.htm

SSC64
"It's the ocean"
The oceans are warming and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-a ... arming.htm

SSC65
"Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans"
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcano ... arming.htm

SSC66
"It's not us"
Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

SSC67
"Corals are resilient to bleaching"
Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coral-bleaching.htm

SSC68
"It's aerosols"
Aerosols have been masking global warming, which would be worse otherwise.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/aerosol ... arming.htm

SSC69
"Greenland ice sheet won't collapse"
When Greenland was 3 to 5 degrees C warmer than today, a large portion of the Ice Sheet melted.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/stable- ... -sheet.htm

SSC70
"Neptune is warming"
And the sun is cooling.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... eptune.htm

SSC71
"Jupiter is warming"
Jupiter is not warming, and anyway the sun is cooling.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... upiter.htm

SSC72
"Clouds provide negative feedback"
Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds- ... edback.htm

SSC73
"CO2 has a short residence time"
Excess CO2 from human emissions has a long residence time of over 100 years
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

SSC74
"CO2 is not increasing"
CO2 is increasing rapidly, and is reaching levels not seen on the earth for millions of years.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lev ... easing.htm

SSC75
"CO2 measurements are suspect"
CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations across the globe, all reporting the same trend.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-mea ... tainty.htm

SSC76
"CO2 measurements are suspect"
CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations across the globe, all reporting the same trend.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-mea ... tainty.htm

SSC77
"Pluto is warming"
And the sun has been recently cooling.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-g ... arming.htm

SSC78
"Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun"
The sun has not warmed since 1970 and so cannot be driving global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm

SSC79
"Greenhouse effect has been falsified"
The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-gr ... -exist.htm

SSC80
"500 scientists refute the consensus"
Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/500-sci ... sensus.htm

SSC81
"Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"
The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-N ... ecline.htm

SSC82
"Arctic was warmer in 1940"
The actual data show high northern latitudes are warmer today than in 1940.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic- ... n-1940.htm

SSC83
"The science isn't settled"
That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

SSC84
"IPCC overestimate temperature rise"
Monckton used the IPCC equation in an inappropriate manner.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-ov ... arming.htm

SSC85
"Record snowfall disproves global warming"
Warming leads to increased evaporation and precipitation, which falls as increased snow in winter.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Record- ... arming.htm

SSC86
"It's soot"
Soot stays in the atmosphere for days to weeks; carbon dioxide causes warming for centuries.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/soot-global-warming.htm

SSC87
"CO2 is coming from the ocean"
The ocean is absorbing massive amounts of CO2, and is becoming more acidic as a result.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-com ... -ocean.htm

SSC88
"It's microsite influences"
Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/microsi ... rature.htm

SSC89
"It's microsite influences"
Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/microsi ... rature.htm

SSC90
"Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????"
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... y-2008.htm

SSC91
"Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960"
This is a detail that is complex, local, and irrelevant to the observed global warming trend.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ri ... roblem.htm

SSC92
"Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate"
Humans are small but powerful, and human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-hum ... limate.htm

SSC93
"Dropped stations introduce warming bias"
If the dropped stations had been kept, the temperature would actually be slightly higher.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped ... g-bias.htm

SSC94
"Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity"
Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climate scientists.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen ... tivity.htm

SSC95
"Southern sea ice is increasing"
Antarctic sea ice has grown in recent decades despite the Southern Ocean warming at the same time.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/increas ... ea-ice.htm

SSC96
"CO2 is not the only driver of climate"
Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is- ... limate.htm

SSC97
"Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995"
Phil Jones was misquoted.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jo ... e-1995.htm

SSC98
"It's global brightening"
This is a complex aerosol effect with unclear temperature significance.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... arming.htm

SSC99
"It's a climate regime shift"
There is no evidence that climate has chaotic “regimes” on a long-term basis.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... -chaos.htm

SSC100
"It's albedo"
Albedo change in the Arctic, due to receding ice, is increasing global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm

SSC101
"It's land use"
Land use plays a minor role in climate change, although carbon sequestration may help to mitigate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/land-us ... arming.htm

SSC102
"Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming"
Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/klaus-m ... sensus.htm

SSC103
"Peer review process was corrupted"
An Independent Review concluded that CRU's actions were normal and didn't threaten the integrity of peer review.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm

SSC104
"Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong"
Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen- ... iction.htm

SSC105
"It's methane"
Methane plays a minor role in global warming but could get much worse if permafrost starts to melt.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/methane ... arming.htm

SSC106
"CO2 limits will make little difference"
If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lim ... erence.htm

SSC107
"Ice isn't melting"
Arctic sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and might be all gone in a decade.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/melting ... arming.htm

SSC108
"They changed the name from global warming to climate change"
'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... arming.htm

SSC109
"Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain"
Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic- ... ea-ice.htm

SSC110
"Solar cycles cause global warming"
Over recent decades, the sun has been slightly cooling & is irrelevant to recent global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-c ... arming.htm

SSC111
"Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored"
An independent inquiry found CRU is a small research unit with limited resources and their rigour and honesty are not in doubt.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Freedom ... ntists.htm

SSC112
"Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project"
The 'OISM petition' was signed by only a few climatologists.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increas ... lants.html

SSC113
"It's not urgent"
A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... urgent.htm

SSC114
"Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected"
This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-e ... arming.htm

SSC115
"It's too hard"
Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... o-hard.htm

SSC116
"Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed"
Benny Peiser, the Oreskes critic, retracted his criticism.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/naomi-o ... arming.htm

SSC117
"Ice Sheet losses are overestimated"
A number of independent measurements find extensive ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ice-She ... elting.htm

SSC118
"Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming"
Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, not whether global warming is happening.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-T ... arming.htm

SSC119
"Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming"
Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, not whether global warming is happening.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-T ... arming.htm

SSC120
"Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic"
Melting ice leads to more sunlight being absorbed by water, thus heating the Arctic.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Melting ... Arctic.htm

SSC121
"Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature"
Soares looks at short-term trends which are swamped by natural variations while ignoring the long-term correlation.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/soares- ... rature.htm

SSC122
"A drop in volcanic activity caused warming"
Volcanoes have had no warming effect in recent global warming - if anything, a cooling effect.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming- ... canoes.htm

SSC123
"The IPCC consensus is phoney"
113 nations signed onto the 2007 IPCC report, which is simply a summary of the current body of climate science evidence
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hulme-I ... sensus.htm

SSC124
"CRU tampered with temperature data"
An independent inquiry went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-tam ... e-data.htm

SSC125
"IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period"
The IPCC simply updated their temperature history graphs to show the best data available at the time.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Me ... Period.htm

SSC126
"Renewables can't provide baseload power"
A combination of renewables supplemented with natural gas can provide baseload power.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewab ... -power.htm

SSC127
"Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup"
By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/breathi ... ioxide.htm

SSC128
"Mauna Loa is a volcano"
The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations and confirmed by satellites.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/mauna-l ... ements.htm

SSC129
"Sea level rise is decelerating"
Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics
http://www.skepticalscience.com/deceler ... l-rise.htm

SSC130
"The sun is getting hotter"
The sun has just had the deepest solar minimum in 100 years.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-p ... hotter.htm

SSC!31
"It's waste heat"
Greenhouse warming is adding 100 times more heat to the climate than waste heat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-h ... arming.htm

SSC132
"CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration"
That humans are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is confirmed by multiple isotopic analyses.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emi ... ration.htm

SSC133
"An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature"
CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we decrease emissions, global warming will accelerate this century.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/exponen ... arming.htm

SSC134
"It's ozone"
Ozone has only a small effect.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ozone-l ... arming.htm

SSC135
"Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming"
This possibility just means that future global warming could be even worse.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-v ... arming.htm

SSC136
"Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect"
Venus very likely underwent a runaway or ‘moist’ greenhouse phase earlier in its history, and today is kept hot by a dense CO2 atmosphere.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Venus-r ... effect.htm

SSC137
"It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940"
The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... 0-1940.htm

SSC138
"Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009"
Winter snow cover in 2008/2009 was average while the long-term trend in spring, summer, and annual snow cover is rapid decline.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

SSC139
"Water levels correlate with sunspots"
This detail is irrelevant to the observation of global warming caused by humans.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sunspot ... levels.htm

SSC140
"CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician"
The sun was much cooler during the Ordovician.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was ... vician.htm

SSC141
"Scientists retracted claim that sea levels are rising"
The Siddall 2009 paper was retracted because its predicted sea level rise was too low.

SSC142
"Scientists retracted claim that sea levels are rising"
The Siddall 2009 paper was retracted because its predicted sea level rise was too low.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Scienti ... levels.htm

SSC143
"Warming causes CO2 rise"
Recent warming is due to rising CO2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-co2-rise.htm

SSC144
"Antarctica is too cold to lose ice"
Glaciers are sliding faster into the ocean because ice shelves are thinning due to warming oceans.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Antarct ... e-loss.htm

SSC145
"Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass"
Greenland's ice loss is accelerating & will add metres of sea level rise in upcoming centuries.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Greenla ... e-mass.htm

SSC146
"DMI show cooling Arctic"
While summer maximums have showed little trend, the annual average Arctic temperature has risen sharply in recent decades.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-cooling-Arctic.htm

SSC147
"We're heading into cooling"
There is no scientific basis for claims that the planet will begin to cool in the near future.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/future- ... ooling.htm

SSC148
"Renewable energy is too expensive"
When you account for all of the costs associated with burning coal and other fossil fuels, like air pollution and health effects, in reality they are significantly more expensive than most renewable energy sources.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewab ... ensive.htm

SSC149
"Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures"
Temperature errors in the Great Lakes region are not used in any global temperature records.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Great-L ... rature.htm

SSC150
"Positive feedback means runaway warming"
Positive feedback won't lead to runaway warming; diminishing returns on feedback cycles limit the amplification.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/positiv ... arming.htm

SSC151
"It's only a few degrees"
A few degrees of global warming has a huge impact on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-deg ... arming.htm

SSC152
"Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?"
Official records, Editors and emails suggest CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of IPCC rules.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic ... s-ipcc.htm

SSC153
"It's satellite microwave transmissions"
Satellite transmissions are extremely small and irrelevant.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satelli ... ssions.htm

SSC154
"Royal Society embraces skepticism"
The Royal Society still strongly state that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/royal-s ... tainty.htm

SSC155
"We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution"
CO2 emissions were much smaller 100 years ago.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Industr ... arming.htm

SSC156
"CO2 only causes 35% of global warming"
CO2 and corresponding water vapor feedback are the biggest cause of global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-war ... ercent.htm

SSC157
"Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater"
Hansen was speculating on changes that might happen if CO2 doubled.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen- ... ighway.htm

SSC158
"Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick"
Ljungqvist's temperature reconstruction is very similar to other reconstructions by Moberg and Mann.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqv ... -stick.htm

Huffington Post Climate Articles

Climate Scientists Told To 'Stop Speaking In Code'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/0 ... 57588.html

Food Prices Increasing From Global Warming: Study
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/0 ... 58192.html

Arctic Ice Melting Faster Than Previously Thought: Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/0 ... 56924.html

A Cost of Denying Climate Change: Accelerating Climate Disruptions, Death, and Destruction
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-g ... 55032.html

Brown Recluse Spiders May Spread Across U.S. Due To Climate Change
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/2 ... 55594.html

2011 Tornadoes: Is Climate Change To Blame For The Devastating Weather?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/2 ... 55369.html

Water Supplies In Western U.S. Threatened By Climate Change: Interior Department Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/2 ... 53882.html

Climategate: What Really Happened?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/2 ... 52094.html

Obama Targets 'Climate Change Deniers In Congress'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/2 ... l#comments

Climate Change: Doing Nothing Will Cost More Than Preventative Measures, New Report Shows
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 50810.html

Climate Change Case Headed To Supreme Court
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... l?ir=Green

Supreme Court Casts Doubt On States' Global Warming Suit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 51110.html

The Implications Of The Landmark Global Warming Case Headed To The Supreme Court
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... l#comments

Supreme Court Hears Arguments In New Global Warming Case
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 50868.html

Charles Manson Breaks 20-Year Silence, Warns Of Global Warming
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 51187.html

The Galileo Syndrome
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-fl ... 49237.html

Highway to Hell: Why Shale Gas Fracking Is Worse Than Coal for Climate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-d ... 47710.html

Marijuana Carbon Footprint: Indoor Pot Production Uses 1 Percent Of U.S. Electricity, Study Says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 48865.html

Why We Underestimate the Earth and Overestimate Ourselves
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t ... l#comments

This Week in Climate Science: Contrails, Chinese Nuclear Power, Mangroves etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kro ... 47308.html

Game Changers for the Climate Movement
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rig ... 47218.html

Geoengineering: Scientists Debate Risks Of Sun-Blocking And Other Climate Tweaks To Fight Warming
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 44324.html

Cap-And-Trade Still A Work In Progress
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 45487.html

Should We Remain Silent About Climate Change?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-s ... t_82963403

Anti Anti-Science
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stol ... 43051.html

Tibetan Glaciers Melting, Dalai Lama Claims
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 44002.html

Green China?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-mil ... 43503.html

Developing Nations Pledge Actions To Curb Climate Change
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/2 ... l#comments

USDA Funds Climate Change Research For $60 Million
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/2 ... l#comments

Committee Republicans Unanimously Reject Measures Reaffirming Science Behind Global Warming
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 36219.html

Wind Speeds Increasing Over Oceans Could Be Causing More Rain: Study
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/2 ... 40864.html

The Clean Energy Revolution Won't Be About Clean Energy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-har ... 41082.html

Ancient Megadroughts Preview Climate Change Future
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 28137.html

Coral Reefs May Be Gone By 2050: Study
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 27709.html

NASA Study Says Ice Caps Melting at a Much Faster Rate [VIDEO]
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/12/nasa- ... ate-video/

Could A Small Nuclear War Reverse Global Warming?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 28496.html

House Panel Passes Bill To Stop EPA Climate Regulations
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 34256.html

'Climategate' Investigation Clears U.S. Scientists
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 27820.html

Melting Ice Sheets Now Largest Contributor To Rising Sea Levels: Study
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 33517.html

Colorado College-Sponsored Study Shows Westerners' Complex Opinions On The Environment
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 27445.html

Heavy Snowfalls, Extreme Storms Linked To Climate Change, Scientists Claim
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/0 ... 30104.html

Scientists Connect Global Warming To Extreme Rain
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/1 ... 24184.html

Amazon Drought May Have Bigger Impact On Global Warming Than U.S. Does In A Year
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/0 ... 18685.html

Fox News' Gene Koprowski Fishes For Sources To Debate Al Gore's Global Warming Argument
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/0 ... 18382.html

Christiana Figueres Warns Of 'Climate Chaos,' Urges Militaries To Invest In Prevention
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/1 ... 23641.html

The Funniest Fox News FAILS (PICTURES)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/2 ... conception

Posted: **Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:46 pm**

The gang's all here... a nice reference of the leading climate change deniers:

***
Of the top 10 scientists skeptical of anthropogenic climate change cited by:

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/cl ... able.html

#1: Roger A. Pielke, Sr. meteorologist, who actually says, “...
humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the
climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the
radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to
the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a
result of human activities.”
pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2006/07/25/misquotation-of-my-
views-on-climate-science/

#2: Arie Bodek, particle physicist, with no climate-related research papers at all (WNCRRPAA)

#3: Freeman Dyson, after 1988, only one peer-reviewed climate paper (and questionably so)

#4: Richard Lindzen, discredited Iris hypothesis, and has received indirect funding from Exxon Mobil.

#5: John E. Rhoads, astrophysicist WNCRRPAA, not same as J E Rhoads,
whose 1937 paper on nervous complications in leukemia contains the
phrase “mountain climate”.

#6: William Happer, particle physicist WNCRRPAA

#7: Antonio Zichichi, particle physicist WNCRRPAA

#8: Lowell S. Brown, quantum physicist WNCRRPAA, not same as LS Brown of feminist theory.

#9 J. Scott Armstrong, professor of marketing and advertising
WNCRRPAA

#10: Sallie L. Baliunas, whose publisher admitted her paper's
conclusions could not be supported by the evidence and that the
journal should have requested appropriate revisions prior to
publication. Baliunas' receives regular indirect funding from Exxon Mobil

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON

A viscount can call himself "lord", but he cannot claim to be a member
of the "House of Lords" in the British Parliament, when he is clearly
not so. I'd think EVEN YOU could understand such a simple idea.

The controversy arose because Monckton referred to himself as "a
member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote,"

2007-07-15). "Questions from the Select Committee Concerning My
Recent Testimony". Science & Public Policy Institute. Monckton said:
"... I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a
member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I
have never pretended otherwise."

Thus, on this and many other issues, Monckton is a proven LIAR.
Because his lies are so frequently patently obvious, he is regarded by
many as not of sound mind, let alone character.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo ... Brenchley

BTW, Chris Monckton, has indeed run for the House of Lords four times.
However, thus far, he has received a sum total of ZERO votes.

ROSS MCKITTRICK

Ross Mckittrick is an economist, not a physical scientist.

from Wikipedia, on McKittrick:

is a Canadian economist specializing in environmental economics and
policy analysis. He is professor of economics at the University of
Guelph; a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute, a Canadian free-marke
t public policy think tank; and a member of the academic advisory
boards of the John Deutsch Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.".

Also,

"The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a registered,
educational charity and think tank in the United Kingdom, whose
stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies"
envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming."

"In 2009, in response to a prediction by James E. Hansen from NASA
that sea levels could rise by 60 cm, he (Benny Peiser - head of the
GWPF) said that “The predictions come in thick and fast, but we take
them all with a pinch of salt. We look out of the window and it’s very
cold, it doesn’t seem to be warming.”

"Peiser was educated in West Germany and studied political science,
English, and sports science in Frankfurt."

So McKittrick, and his buddy McIntyre, are just paid shills, working
with other shills and buffoons like Peiser and Chris Monckton, people
more verbose than Fumes, Richard2, and SoCal here, but like our
homegrown, such shills have ZERO training in climate science. It's a
complete waste of time even scanning such blather.

ANTHONY WATTS

Watts claimed for years that NOAA temperatures had POSITIVE bias, via
poor station siting.

Which prompted NOAA to see if that was true. But what they found was
that poor siting lead to a slight NEGATIVE temperature bias.

"The Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres subsequently
accepted for publication a study, citing Watts' Surfacestations.org,
which concludes that "In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS
average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station
siting." [21][22] In fact, the analysis of unadjusted data from poorly
sited stations did reveal a bias, however, it was not the expected
bias. The poorly sited stations measured maximum temperatures on
average lower than the well sited stations. The authors note:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/u ... al2010.pdf

WILLIE SOON

Willie Soon's July 29th, 2003 response to Sen. James Jeffords (I,
Vermont) question 37, as given on page 90 of a 161 pages of hearing
testimony in,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-10 ... 92381.htm

(Senator Jeffords) Question 37. "Have you been hired by or employed by
or received grants from organizations that have taken advocacy
positions with respect to the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change, or legislation before the U.S. Congress
that would affect greenhouse gas emissions? If so, please identify
those organizations."

(Willie Soon): Response. "I have not knowingly been hired by, nor
employed by, nor received grants from any such organizations
described in this question."

Dissimilar to the cases for Roger Clemens or Scooter Libby, while it
appears that Soon was not under oath while lying to Congress about his
funding sources. Thus, he seems not to have committed a felony - at
that time. However, perhaps he was aware of treading very close to the
line, for he added the following item to his non-peer reviewed 2007
paper on polar bears.

"W. Soon’s effort for the completion of this paper was partially
supported by grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation,
American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation."

So, you're finally being honest about your funding, slick Willie. But
could you make being a fossil fuel toadie any plainer than that?

From http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/per ... hp?id=860

Most of the editors at Climate Research resigned, citing egregious
methodological errors regarding the 2003 paper Sallie Baliunas,
Willie Soon, etc. published there.

"five percent of the study, or $53,000, was funded by the American
Petroleum Institute. Soon and Baliunas were at the time paid
consultants of the George C. Marshall Institute. Soon has also
received multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between
2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled
$335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other contributers to Soon's research
career include the Charles G. Koch Foundation, which gave Soon two
grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010, and coal and oil
industry sources such as Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and
the Electric Power Research Institute."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_an ... ntroversy

"Dr. Soon has been a guest speaker at the Heartland Institute’s
International Conference of Climate Change (ICCC), an annual
conference on climate skepticism. In 2009 he spoke about his work in
debunking the hypothesis of man-made climate change. He was a Speaker
at the Heartland Institute’s 6th ICCC in 2011.
Source: Heartland Climate Conference 6

Soon was the chief scientific researcher at the Frontiers of Freedom's
Center for Science and Public Policy which was set up after $100,000
ExxonMobil grant in 2002.
Source: DeSmogBlog profile Willie Soon

Willie Soon has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past
decade by major US oil and coal companies.
Source: The Guardian "Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from
oil companies, papers show" by John Vidal

RICHARD LINDZEN

Richard Lindzen has been funded by the Western Fuels Association
and indirectly by Exxon through the Cato institute, Tech Central
Science Foundation, and Annapolis Center for Science-Based
Public Policy. And he seems to have lied repeatedly to mainstream
media about those ties. This began long ago. In 1991 Western Fuels
Assoc, a coal industry organization, paid Lindzen to testify before a
Senate sub-committee. In 1995, he received consulting fees of $2.5k
per day from oil and coal interests. He's even been quoted on BBC
describing Exxon Mobil as, "the only principled oil and gas company I
know in the US."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Even global warming denier Roy Spencer refutes Lindzen's iris hypothesis:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/ ... ck-study/

Indeed, Lindzen's main anti-AGW argument, his so-called "Iris effect",
that water vapor levels will drop with increasing global temperatur
es has been disproved many times.

As shown by Soden 1997; Soden et al 2002; Soden et al 2005, water
vapor increases with warming, and decreases with cooling....

"So in summary, the data and the models both agree that not only is
the water vapor feedback positive, it is quite close to the value
suggested by the models – Lindzen’s insistence on the converse seems
increasingly perverse."

http://www.realclimate.org/inde ... timony/

Several more peer-reviewed, data-based publications completely
undermine Lindzen's theory.

http://www.atmos.washington. ... 008.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature ... 207.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/ ... pdf+html
http://www.appmath.columbia. ... tted.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/c ... 49/841
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/ ... 3.shtml
http://www.realclimate.org/inde ... -vapor/

One questions whether Lindzen even believes his own claim, since he's
willing to bet against climatologist, James Annan, on the Earth not
warming, ONLY with a 0.2 DEG C HANDICAP, PLUS 2 to 1 ODDS.

"The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that
Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in
20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[56] James Annan, a
scientist involved in climate prediction, contacted Lindzen to
arrange a bet. Annan and Lindzen exchanged proposals for bets, but
were unable to agree. Lindzen's final proposal was a bet that if the
temperature change were less than 0.2 °C (0.36 °F), he would win. If
the temperature change were between 0.2 °C (0.36 °F) and 0.4 °C
(0.72 °F) the bet would be off, and if the temperature change were
0.4 °C (0.72 °F) or greater, Annan would win. He would take 2 to 1 odds."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard ... f_Lindzen

Andrew Dessler also studies global relative humidity, recently showing
that global water vapor levels are rising with rising global
temperatures, as expected

http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/joe/Minschwaner_2004.pdf

On Lindzen's Iris hypothesis, Dessler states, "Lindzen has completely
lost interest in maintaining even a shred of scientific credibility."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php ... ed-in-wsj/

In Lindzen's 2005 testimony before the House of Lords, he seems to believe water vapor levels will DROP as the planet warms
from increasing GHGs. However,

"... the amount of water vapor that can exist in the atmosphere
depends on the Clausius-Clapyeron equation that goes up with
temperature. However, it is conceivable that convective processes
might cause more extensive drying due to increased areas of subsidence
(the basis of the so-called Iris effect), but this applies mainly to
the upper troposphere and in the tropics only. As a general effect,
reductions in water vapor as temperature increases in general seem
rather unlikely."

"... The best examples to test this idea come from large and
relatively rapid changes in the climate such as El Nino events, the
eruption of Mt Pinatubo and the trends over the last few decades. In
each case (Soden 1997; Soden et al 2002; Soden et al 2005), water
vapor increases with warming, and decreases with cooling...."So in
summary, the data and the models both agree that not only is the water
vapor feedback positive, it is quite close to the value suggested by
the models – Lindzen’s insistence on the converse (while it has
generated increased attention on the subject) seems increasingly
perverse."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ ... estimony/

OPEC underwrote one Lindzen speech, (Harper's magazine, Dec. 1995).
One can also assume he was paid for his four separate anti-AGW op-ed
pieces in the Wall Street Journal.

Is Lindzen a shill? Shills take money to fool others, yet typically
don't really believe what they say. What does Lindzen really believe?
In November 2004, Lindzen said he'd be willing to bet that the earth's
climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British
climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would
only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php ... ._Lindzen

What does demanding such odds tell you about Lindzen's true beliefs?

Moreover, Lindzen also co-authored a 2001 National Academy of
Science's report on climate change that concluded, "Greenhouse gases
are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human
activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise."

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 9&page=29

If Lindzen didn't believe that, then why'd he agree to co-author it?
So, what does Lindzen really believe and how much does his funding
have to do with it?

Fact sheet gleaned from the web on Lindzen's ties to associations funded by Big Oil.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Sci ... mp=200606

FREEMAN DYSON

Dyson, once a good quantum physicist but now 88, hasn't done any real
research in 3 or 4 decades. His global warming views fossilized maybe
2 - 3 decades ago. He has other peculiar views, e.g., growing trees on
comets, using nuclear bombs for space travel. Yet, he also concedes that,

"One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as
oil and coal and natural gas."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyson ... ndex.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_ ... eretic-21

FRED SINGER

Fred Singer - ex-tobacco industry spokesperson, now global warming denial professional

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar ... eal-video
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Si ... and_smoke

IAN CLARK

"In the 2007 UK television documentary "The Great Global Warming
Swindle", he states that changes in global temperature correlate with
solar activity, saying "Solar activity of the last hundred years, over
the last several hundred years correlates very nicely on a decadal
basis, with sea ice and Arctic temperatures."[3] Data in the graph
Clark defends were modified from the original publication, leading to
suggestions among practicing climate scientists that these data were
falsified to improve the apparent correlation between solar activity
and temperature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Cla ... logist%29

TIM PATTERSON

Heartland Institute regular

Tim Patterson,

"In June 2007 he authored a general interest article in the Financial
Post (part of the National Post) predicting general climatic cooling
as the sun enters Solar cycle 25 about 2018. He based his prediction
on the close correlation between solar and climate cycles in his high
resolution analysis of late Holocene cores deposited under anoxic
conditions within deep Western Canadian fjords.[1] Solar cycle 25 will
be as weak as solar cycles in the early 19th century during a very
cold phase of the Little Ice Age. At this time drought and short
growing seasons would have made present day agricultural practices
used in areas like the grain growing region of western Canada
impossible. In a June 2007 presentation to the annual meeting of the
Ontario Agri Business Association in Huntsville, Ontario he stated
that "climatic cooling associated with Solar Cycle 25 should be of
concern to the Canadian agricultural sector. During any climatic
warming agricultural methods used to the south can be immediately
adapted. However, cooling such as may occur beginning about 2018 would
be an agricultural and national disaster as no one is farming north of us."

But shouldn't such science claims be reviewed first by science
journals rather than financial magazines where there's no plausible peer review?

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

HENDRIK TENNEKES

Fluid dynamicist, Hendrik Tennekes, also published his text on
Turbulence 39 years ago (with John Lumley, which I studied 30 years
ago). But then again,

"in an interview in the Dutch paper De Telegraaf, Tennekes says he was
ousted from his position at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute
due to his skepticism over climate change. After publishing a column
critical of climate model accuracy, Tennekes says he was told "within
two years, you'll be out on the street".[5]

"According to Gerbrand Komen, a retired KNMI researcher, Tennekes'
view on climate change played a minor role. More important were[6]
Tennekes' personality and his solitary views on a range of subjects.
As an example Komen recalls how Tennekes objected to the increase of
computing power for medium-range weather forecasting, because he
considered this unnecessary. According to Komen, Tennekes sometimes
supported this decision by referring to biblical texts."

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

WILLIAM GRAY

A hurricane expert who now seems to be ~85.

In 2006, Gray seemed to think GW is hoax to promote world government.

"In 2006, Gray predicted a cooling trend by 2009-2010.[9]

But 2010 is now officially tied for globally warmest year ever directly measured.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ ... 05_pf.html

Then again, wikipedia also cites...

"Peter Webster, a Georgia Institute of Technology professor, has been
part of the anonymous peer review on several of Gray's National
Science Foundation proposals. In every case he has turned down the
global warming research component because he believed it was not up to
standards, but recommended that Gray's hurricane research be funded. [10].

Webster, who has co-authored other scientific papers with Gray, is
also critical of Gray for his personal attacks on the scientists with
whom he disagrees. "Bill, for some very good reasons, has been the go-
to man on hurricanes for the last 35 years," says Webster. "All of a
sudden there are a lot of people saying things Bill doesn't agree
with. And they're getting a lot of press—more press than I like,
actually. I like the ivory tower. But he's become more and more radical."[10]

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

DAVID LEGATES

Dr. David Legates - Legates has received indirect contributions from
Exxon Mobil through the National Center for Policy Analysis, ~
$421,000, George C. Marshall Institute ~$630,000, Competitive
Enterprise Institute > $2 million.

PATRICK MICHAELS

Cato Institute (right wing think tank) fellow and editor of the "World
Climate Report", has received $100K from the Intermountain Rural
Electric Association, a Colorado fossil fuels cooperative.

In February 2009, Michaels in sworn testimony before the Congressio
nal House Energy and Commerce Committee, said that 3% of his $4.2m in
financial support came from the oil and gas industry.

However, on Aug. 15th, 2010, here's what Pat Michaels said while being interviewed on CNN:

ZAKARIA: “Can I ask you what percentage of your work is funded by the
petroleum industry?”

MICHAELS: “I don’t know. 40 percent? I don’t know.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20 ... michaels/

“Michaels has also received direct funding from the Koch brothers.
From their base in Wichita, Kansas, the Kochs control the largest
privately held oil company in the US. They gained notoriety during the
mid-term elections for bankrolling a leading, conservative Tea Party
organisation, Americans for Prosperity.

For years, the Koch brothers have been funnelling money to organisati
ons which oppose government regulations and deny the existence of
climate change.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen ... -congress.

The Koch brothers control America's largest privately owned coal and
oil company. Together, they have net assets in excess of $35 billion.

SHERWOOD IDSO

Together with sons Craig and Keith, runs a family business called
"Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which has
been directly funded for many years by Exxon Mobil - e.g., $10k in
1998, $15k in 2000, $40k in 2003, $25k in 2005, $10k in 2006, etc.

Sources: Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions Report, ExxonMobil
Foundata 2000 IRS 990, Exxon's World Wide Giving Report.

Sherwood and Craig Idso sit on boards or are members of various right-
wing think tanks, like the George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland
Institute, and SPPI.

http://www.marshall.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geor ... nstitute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPPI
http://www.heartland.org/events/2 ... ers.html

which all receive funding directly from Exxon.

DAVID DEMING

Feisty contrarian, who wrote the following letter to his Oklahoma
campus paper in response to a student article.

"I just want to point out that Kletter's 'easy access' to a vagina
enables her to 'quickly and easily' have sex with 'as many random
people' as she wants. Her possession of an unregistered vagina
also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases.
Let's hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most
gun owners are with theirs."

Not too surprisingly, that letter initiated a law suit and eventually
got Deming kicked out of his department.

Deming is an adjunct scholar for the National Center for Policy
Analysis, which has received $615,900 from ExxonMobil since 1998, as follows:

1998 - $65,900 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report
2000 - $30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support, Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990
2001 - $40,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Worldwide Giving Report
2002 - $30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Worldwide Giving Report
2003 - $75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report
2004 - $75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report
2005 - $75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report
2006 - $75,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report
2007 - $75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2007 Worldwide Giving Report
2008 - $75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: EXXON FOUNDATION AND CORPORATE GIVING 2008

DAVID EVANS

PhD. in electrical engineering - Quoted by some as "Australia's
chief climate scienstist". Actually, Dr. Evans has a total of one
published journal article in an unrelated field, but has no background
in climate or geosciences research at all.

However, he once worked in an Australian government office, where his
job was to tote up carbon emissions inventories. Maybe he just got
tired of that job, eh?

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-roc ... vid-evans

Also known to have "consorted" with Joanne Nova, extent of
relationship unclear.

TIM BALL

claims,

"I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an
extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction
of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and
the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of
Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years
I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."

But Prof. Dan Johnson says Univ. of Winnipeg has never had a climatology department.

"...According to Ball's website, he was not a climatology professor
at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years. And how could he have? He
did not even have an entry-level PhD until 1983, that would allow
even Assistant Professor status. During much of the 28 years cited, he
was a junior Lecturer who rarely published, and then spent 8 years as
a geography professor. His work does not show any evidence of research
regarding climate and atmosphere and the few papers he has published
concern other matters....

Yet, as recently as Monday Feb 5, 2007, the presumptuous Dr. Tim Ball
was still advertising himself as "the first Canadian PhD in climatology."

Here's his claim in the Calgary Herald

"Tim Ball is a Victoria-based environmental consultant. He was the
first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor of
climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years".

Later...

"I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an
extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction
of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and
the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of
Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years
I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg.

Then again, he'll occasionally contradict himself, ala:

He claims as well to have been a professor (again of climatology) at
the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, not28. However, he confirmed
in his own Statement of Claim in a pending lawsuit (look here ) that
he was a professor (of geography, never climatology) for just eight years.

Also, Dr. Ball claims never to have been paid by oil and gas
interests, but if you look here , you'll find a Globe and Mail story
in which Dr. Barry Cooper, the man behind Ball's former industry front
group, the Friends of Science , offers this clumsy admission: "[The
money's] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry," says Prof.
Cooper. "It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell
you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter,
or the individuals."

http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball ... -wont-die

But it's really not too hard to see why this guy feels he has to pad
his resume and why he felt he had to sell out and shill for fossil fuels.

From his FOUR peer-reviewed publications.

1983: "a long and relatively continuous record of daily and monthly
average temperatures has been created for Central Canada."

1982: "Changes in the migration pattern of geese are reflected in the
changing date of arrival at the same location over a long period of time."

Even better, 1981: "This paper describes historical climatic research
based on content analysis of Hudson's Bay company records.

And here, for the record, is an incomplete list of Canadian climatolog
ists, all of whom received their climatology PhDs before Ball (1983).
Each of these has a list of publications and accomplishments that
should leave the good Dr. Ball feeling chastened, if not humiliated,
when he tries to pass himself off as a Canadian expert.

***
[Just their names, I have edited out their credentials and the
extensive details of their expertise. Go to the link to see their
pictures too --Dar]

Leonard A. Barrie
George J. Boer
Ian Burton
James P. Bruce
Dr. Stephen Calvert, FRSC
Garry Clarke
R. Allyn Clarke
Jacques Derome
Keith Donald Hage
F. Kenneth Hare
Edgar Wendell Hewson
Steve Lambert
J. Ross Mackay
Gordon McBean
Dr. J. C. McConnell, FRSC
Norm McFarlane
Lawrence Mysak
Tim Oke
André Robert
Marie Elizabeth Sanderson

http://www.desmogblog.com/balls-self ... s-twaddle

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2 ... suit.php
http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy ... -tim-ball”

And what were Tim Ball's total of FOUR peer-reviewed publications about?

1983: "a long and relatively continuous record of daily and monthly
average temperatures has been created for Central Canada."

1982: "Changes in the migration pattern of geese are reflected in the
changing date of arrival at the same location over a long period of
time."

1981: "This paper describes historical climatic research based on
content analysis of Hudson's Bay company records."

Amazing science, Tim. Previous to fossil fuel shilling, Tim was a
"bean counter"

ROY SPENCER

In September 2011, the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Dr.
Wolfgang Wagner, resigned his editorship citing errors in the Spencer
and Braswell paper."

"In his resignation letter, he took the unusual step of publicly
criticizing Spencer and the paper's reviewers (Chris deFreitas). He
criticized the science behind the paper, stating that it had
"fundamental methodological errors" and "false claims," though he
did not announce that the paper would be retracted. Wagner further
criticized Spencer, Braswell and parts of the media for misreprese
nting the significance of their research:" (as in the above Forbes
Mag news blurb you're referring to).

And Wagner went on with:

"I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and
like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s
conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The
University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011, the main
author’s personal homepage, the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole
in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes, and the story “Does
NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News,
to name just a few."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_W._Spe ... te_note-20

Wikipedia goes on to report that:

"On 6 September 2011, a proof copy of a rebuttal, by Dessler, of
Spencer and Braswell's 2011 paper to be published in Geophysical
Research Letters was released.

"Dessler pointed out that Spencer uses a circular argument to suggest
that short term sea surface temperature changes are driven by cloud
variation. Specifically, Spencer uses the assumption that his
hypothesis is correct in establishing a value for the heat capacity
of the atmosphere and near surface oceans. Spencer then goes on to use
that heat capacity value to prove his assumption."

"Using a heat capacity value based on the work of others, Dessler
concludes that short-term global average sea surface temperature is
driven primarily by heat transport from deeper in the oceans as part
of the ENSO (in line with current understanding), thereby
vindicating Dessler's earlier method for establishing cloud
feedback. Dessler also points out that in comparing climate models
with data, Spencer used those that did least well at simulating the
ENSO while choosing to ignore those that simulated it well.[21]."

Dessler, A E (2011-09-06). "Cloud variations and the Earth's energy
budget". Geophysical Research Letters. Retrieved 2011-09-07.

I.e., getting caught red-handed using circular "logic" in science
"circles", is like your pistol doing a 180 - your own personal
circular firing squad.

I suspect Spencer and Braswell will find it a bit more difficult to
blow more smoke in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

Then again, Spencer may not care, given that Wikipedia goes on to mention:

From Wikipedia:

"In The Evolution Crisis, a compilation of five scientists who
reject evolution, Spencer states: "I finally became convinced that the
theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than
the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better
able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world."

Penfold, Michael (2007). The Evolution Crisis. ISBN 1900742241.

Looks like Spencer missed that period from 1980's on where emergence
physics, information theory, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics
showed how complexity emerges from simpler states, entirely by chance.

More from Wikipedia:

"Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship
of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[28]

The declaration states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent
design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —
are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting,
admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.
Earth's climate system is no exception."

JUDITH CURRY

from Scientific American, Oct. 25th, 2010

"Curry’s saga began with a Science paper she co-authored in 2005,
which linked an increase in powerful tropical cyclones to global
warming. It earned her scathing attacks on skeptical climate blogs."

'“The plausible worst-case scenario could be worse than anything we’re
looking at right now,” Curry says. The rise in temperature from a
doubling of CO2 “could be one degree. It could be 10 degrees."

That said, Curry now seems way out of her depth in this battle of
public perceptions, as analyzed by

climateprogress.org/2010/02/24/my-response-to-dr-judith-currys-
unconstructive-essay/

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

From the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy (AEI), here's
from a shotgun letter that reads like a bribe attempt.

“We are hoping to sponsor a paper by you and Prof. North that
thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as
they pertain to the development of climate policy”...
“If you and Prof. North are agreeable to being authors, AEI will offer
an honoraria of $10,000.”...

“Cordially, Steven F. Hayward, Ph.D, Resident Scholar, Kenneth Green,
Ph.D, Visiting Scholar”

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta ... s/AEI.pdf

As political “scientists”, Hayward and Green have no hard science
background at all.

Wikipedia notes that the AEI "is the most prominent think tank
associated with American neoconservatism, in both the domestic and
international policy arenas. Irving Kristol, widely considered a
father of neoconservatism, was a senior fellow at AEI (arriving from
the Congress for Cultural Freedom following the widespread revelation
of the group's CIA funding) and many prominent neoconservatives—inc
luding Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, and Joshua Muravchik—
spent the bulk of their careers at AEI."

It also observes that, "More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows
served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the
government's many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former
government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S.
ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former
chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a
longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an
AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
an AEI visiting fellow, and former deputy secretary of defense Paul
Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America ... ample-130

But who funds AEI?

Britain's newspaper, The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen ... atechange

reported that the AEI received $1.6 million from Exxon Mobil and noted
that former ExxonMobil CEO Lee R. Raymond was vice-chairman of AEI's
board of trustees. According to its own IRS and corporate giving
reports, Exxon has paid more than $3M to AEI since 1998.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/org ... id=9#src22

1998 - $200,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report

2000 - $240,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001 - $230,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
ExxonMobil 2001 Worldwide Giving Report

2002 - $260,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
ExxonMobil 2002 Worldwide Giving Report

2003 and 2004 - $230,000 both years from ExxonMobil Foundation
ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2005 - 2008 - $240000 each year from ExxonMobil Foundation
ExxonMobil 2007 Worldwide Giving Report

2009 - $235,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
ExxonMobil 2009 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments

Exxon stuffed their 2010 stocking too, topping $3M+

Then again, check out these American Petroleum Institute links:

http://www.google.com/search?q=1998+ ... firefox-a

http://www.google.com/search?q=1998+ ... firefox-a

http://www.google.com/search?q=TASSC ... firefox-a

Now Fox News says the Cooperative Enterprise Institute (CEI) wants to
replace the National Weather Service, which keeps honest temperature
records and where internet users can get free hourly forecasts, with
subscription-only, private businesses like Accuweather.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/ ... -service/

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

From wikipedia

“According to page nine of a [21] from the CEI contained on the
University of California, San Francisco's Legacy Tobacco Documents
Library (LTDL), the following companies and foundations were among
those listed as supporting CEI's work with annual contributions of at
least $10,000, currently the CEI's "Entrepreneurs" level:
Aequus Institute, Amoco Foundation, Inc., Lynde and Harry Bradley
Foundation, Coca-Cola Company, E.L. Craig Foundation, CSX Corporatio
n, Earhart Foundation, Fieldstead and Co., FMC Foundation, Ford
Motor Company Fund, Gilder Foundation, Koch Family Foundations
(including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, David H. Koch
Charitable Foundation, and Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation),
Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc., Curtis and Edith Munson
Foundation, Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Pfizer Inc., Precision
Valve Corporation, Prince Foundation, Rodney Fund, Sheldon Rose,
Scaife Foundations (Carthage Foundation and Sarah Scaife
Foundation), and Texaco, Inc. (Texaco Foundation).

Other documents in the LTDL show that CEI has received funding
directly from various tobacco companies.[22][23] For example, the
listing on the Philip Morris Glossary of Names: C[24] gives the note
"Received public policy grant from Philip Morris (1995); Pro-market
public interest group dedicated to advancing the principles of free
enterprise and limited government."

BJORN LOMBORG

Lomborg is no stranger to controversy. Here's from wikipedia

"Accusations of scientific dishonesty

After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was
accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists
brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish
Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The charges claimed
that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately
misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the
complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one
investigation.
[edit] DCSD investigation

On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The
ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically
dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise
in the fields in question:[7]

'Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under considerat
ion is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific
dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms
of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication
cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely,
the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good
scientific practice.'

BTW, it shouldn't matter to other than some of the religious, but
Lomborg is openly gay and apparently proud of it, unlike Karl Rove or
J. Edgar Hoover.

fayfreethinkers.com

Climate Reference List

Climate Reference List

Re: Climate Reference List

Re: Climate Reference List