Some research suggests that the changes in Antarctic sea ice—both where it is increasing and where it is decreasing—are caused in part by a strengthening of the westerly winds that flow unhindered in a circle above the Southern Ocean. “Antarctic sea ice is governed more by wind than by temperature,” said NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos. “The effects of climate change play out differently in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere.”

Scientists say that this westerly wind pattern has grown stronger in recent years as a result of climate change. However, because Antarctic sea ice is so vulnerable to the changes in both the atmosphere and ocean, researchers are also looking at other climate patterns, such as the high latitude response to El Niño-Southern Oscillation, as well as the effects of changing ocean temperature and circulation, to understand how Antarctic sea ice is changing.

Stammerjohn and other scientists say that declining sea ice around the Antarctic Peninsula probably helps destabilize continental ice in that area by allowing the air above the ocean in that region to warm more than before. These continental ice areas are shrinking and therefore contributing to sea level rise. Stammerjohn said, “Though it is true that, on average, Antarctic sea ice is not changing, or even slightly increasing, the overall average hides a very large regional decrease that could have global consequences.”

PantherHunter, why do you only provide the isolated facts that support your denial but ignore the vast amount of facts that support global warming? Are you ever embarassed by your dishonesty?

Panther, cherry-picking data does not change decades of scientific research by hundreds of climatologists around the globe. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and adding itt to the atmpsphere will warm the climate. Politics has nothing to do with it.

Ah, yes. Panther. Another guy who comments without reading the articles. He knows what it says. Doesn't have to actually read it.

Not to mention that the Antartic sea ice is an annual event but Arctic is the one that stays frozen, although changing in size seasonally.

And the northern ice cap is shrinking not expanding.

Panther is just wrong on many levels.

What article?!

Panther, are you ever embarassed by your dishonesty?

It appears that Panther Hunter has slunk away now that his dishonesty has been exposed.

Facts are not dishonest Goober but if I were to include your hypothesis and propaganda with the facts I have posted then those facts would no longer be facts but dilutions filled with lots of probably(s) and possibly(s) and you and your propagandist buddies already have that angle covered ... I'll stick with what has ALREADY been proven until such time there is quantifiable refuting data.

Panther Hunter, you have no shame. On the previous page of this thread you referenced the US National Snow and Ice Data Center as the source for your claim that anarctic sea ice is increasing. Yet you obviously never actually read the article. Here is a quote from the article you referenced:

Some research suggests that the changes in Antarctic sea ice—both where it is increasing and where it is decreasing—are caused in part by a strengthening of the westerly winds that flow unhindered in a circle above the Southern Ocean. "Antarctic sea ice is governed more by wind than by temperature," said NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos. "The effects of climate change play out differently in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere."

Scientists say that this westerly wind pattern has grown stronger in recent years as a result of climate change. However, because Antarctic sea ice is so vulnerable to the changes in both the atmosphere and ocean, researchers are also looking at other climate patterns, such as the high latitude response to El Niño-Southern Oscillation, as well as the effects of changing ocean temperature and circulation, to understand how Antarctic sea ice is changing.

Stammerjohn and other scientists say that declining sea ice around the Antarctic Peninsula probably helps destabilize continental ice in that area by allowing the air above the ocean in that region to warm more than before. These continental ice areas are shrinking and therefore contributing to sea level rise. Stammerjohn said, "Though it is true that, on average, Antarctic sea ice is not changing, or even slightly increasing, the overall average hides a very large regional decrease that could have global consequences."

You quote isolated facts that you pretend prove global warming does not exist yet do not actually read the article itself. You ignored vast quantity of facts that proves global warming. You deny those.

I suppose you get your information from Fox News or other propaganda outlets rather than read real scientific articles. You are the one with an agenda and you are dishonest and a hypocrite. You revel in your dishonest ignorance.

Here you go again posting these long drawn out scientific opinions while I simply state quantifiable data points ... you're a sad little man dummy.

Good luck with all of your guessing, assumptions and hypothications, hopefully you will never be put to task over them, for your sake.

Also liar, I never said global warming does not exist and FOX News is not in the science business, they are a mere news outlet ... way to stay on point with your obvious agenda though dummy!!

Panther, LOL, I love how everything anyone else says is opinion whereas everything you say is fact.

Yes it did, but that does not change the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and adding it to the atmosphere will increase the greenouse effect.

Unsubstantiated speculation!!! The earth has a way of healing itself from it's pesky mites called humans.

So all the climate scientists are wrong. Got it.

I just love guys like you who are smarter than all the world's leading scientists and climatologists.

If you went to 3 or 4 leading specialists for a physical ailment and they all told you that needed an operation would you ignore their opinions because some drunk sitting next to you at a bar said it was all a lot of jive? Cause that's about how much sense you and your crowd are making. Your good old "common sense" trumps anything all those "elititist experts" have to say.

We have known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas for over 150 years. It is not speculation. it is physics.

"Unsubstantiated speculation!!! The earth has a way of healing itself from it's pesky mites called humans."

Really, and just how many times in history has man changed the climatology of the planet and the earth healed itself ?

And how do you think it will heal itself this time ?

All of you need to speak slower, I'm not fluent in idiot!

Spell-check is a Good thing Jethro and yes, there are many places around the globe that are colder than normal ... hopefully those that inhabit those regions won't freeze to death.

You have repeated about 6 falsehoods in one paragraph

Skeptic Argument:
Scientists in the 1970s were predicting global cooling. Why should we believe their warnings of global warming?

Answer: FALSE
Global Cooling in the 70s was NOT the issue.

7 scientific papers predicted cooling.
44 scientific papers predicting global warming - AGW.

So there were 6 times as many scientific papers predicting global warming as there were for global cooling in the 1970s.

But the popular mass media got hold of the cooling story and publicized it.
Newsweek maybe.

There was some concern that aerosols like sulpher oxides, which are emitted when fossil fuels are burned, would cause cooling. These pollutants block out incoming sunshine. Starting in the 1970s, we have reduced our aerosol emissions due to environmental laws designed to reduce smog and acid rain.

The aerosols were masking some of the warming from greenhouse gases.
CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries. Aerosols only a few years.
We are still producing aerosol emissions, when burning fossil fuels.

To a certain extent, these aerosols are still masking the stronger warming effect of greenhouse gases.

The 2007 IPCC report was based on over 10,000 research papers, and there have been thousands more since then.

Compare that with 7 papers from 35 years ago

Corn based ethanol is not an idea from environmentalists, but from big corporations like Big Ag, oil companies and those industries that sell chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Panther Hunter, you have no shame. You are dishonest and a hypocrite. See the previous page of this thread for more detail.

I have to admit Slick Rick, you are an eloquent liar and distorter of fact!

As for you "normal", you're just an idiot.

Panther: "Climates have changed throughout time, sometimes dramatically."

Yes they have, as all climate scientists are well aware. But you fail to explain why you think that is relevant to the current debate. How does it tell us anything about whether humans can affect the climate ALSO?

panther hunter, ethanol was the brainchild (and I use that term loosely) of the Bush Administration and was mandated at the end of his first term that 8% of the fuel production had to be ethanol and/or biodiesel based. that number continues to go up, to offset oil imports.

other alternatives for ethanol production included switchgrass, sugar cane, etc. but to bring the Agribusiness consortiums into the picture, they decided to use existing products, corn and soybeans and take away from the human consumption inventories. this drove prices of corn and soybeans up, even as record acreage and harvests abounded. the government has subsidized both corn and ethanol producers, even with corn and soybean prices at record highs for the past 5 years. so essentially, both ag and energy businesses have been triple dipping by getting the highest prices for their commodity products, charging higher fuel prices and getting subsidized by the taxpayers. in the rush to jump on this bandwagon, producers of wheat, beans, other grains, etc. have switched their acreage to corn and soy because they represent bigger cash crops. So you end up paying higher prices for other agricultural products, including beef, poultry, pork, dairy, cheese and butter. Currently, the US is selling excess ethanol inventories overseas making even more money for the energy companies and receiving subsidies for energy export sales. However, there has been no cutback in ethanol production in the US to match domestic usage and thereby increasing inventories of feedcorn and soybeans for food which would lower overall food prices and reduce taxpayer subsidies to both ag and energy companies. But the Koch brothers, specifically, would not stand for this. And let's face it, they are the voice of the electorate.

This is just for you Slick Rick the Habitual Liar & "Normal Person" the Retard ...

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences said in a 2007 news agency interview: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity."^[24]
• 
  
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said in a 2002 lecture for The Heritage Foundation: "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities—over 80 percent—occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."^[25]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."^[25] "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."^{[26][not in citation given]}
• 
  
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in a 2004 newspaper letter:"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO₂ relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO₂, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."^[27]
• 
  
• Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland said in a 2006 newspaper article: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."^[28]
• 
  
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester was reported to have said in a 2007 paper in the International Journal of Climatology: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."^[29]
• 
  
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University said in a 2006 presentation to the Geological Society of America: "Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO₂ began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO₂, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO₂. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5 °C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."^[30]
• 
  
• William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."^[31]
• 
  
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"^[32]
• 
  
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology wrote in a 2004 article and book: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."^[33]
• 
  
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware wrote in a 2006 article for the National Center for Policy Analysis: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."^[34]
• 
  
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in 2005: Global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"^[35]
• 
  
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada said in a 2007 newspaper article: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO₂ levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO₂ levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO₂ levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"^[36][37]
• 
  
• Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide said in a 2002 television debate: "Natural climate changes occur unrelated to carbon dioxide contents. We've had many, many times in the recent past where we've rapidly gone into a greenhouse and the carbon dioxide content has been far, far lower than the current carbon dioxide content... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".^[38]
• 
  
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University said in a 2010 article originally written for the Italian magazine La Chimica e l’Industria (Chemistry and Industry): "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."^[39][40]
• 
  
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo said in a 2007 presentation to the 9th International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error, because the Medieval warm period (the "Climate Optimum") and the Little Ice Age both are absent from their curve, on which the IPCC bases its future projections and recommended mitigation. All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate (Willson, R.C & Hudson, H.S. 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42–44; and Coffey, H.E., Erwin, E.H. & Hanchett, C.D.: Solar databases for global change models. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html). Warmer climate was previously perceived as an optimum climate and not catastrophic. ... On a wet basis the Earth's atmosphere consists by mass of ~73.5% nitrogen, ~22.5% oxygen, ~2.7% water, and ~1.25% argon. CO₂ in air is in minimal amount, ~0.05% by mass, and with minimal capacity (~2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor"^[41]
• 
  
• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said in a 2006 online essay: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."^[42]
• 
  
• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia said in a 2005 award acceptance speech: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."^[43] Also in a 2006 television program: “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”^[44]
• 
  
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was reported to have said in a 2003 paper for Energy & Environment: "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."^[45]
• 
  
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville said in 2008 testimony to a US Senate committee: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".^[46]
• 
  
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center said in a 2007 paper for Astronomy & Geophysics: "The case for anthropogenic climate change during the 20th century rests primarily on the fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increased and so did global temperatures. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001) have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule."^[47]
• 
  
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa said in a paper published in Geoscience Canada in 2005: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO₂, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. The two scenarios are likely not even mutually exclusive, but a prioritization may result in different relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."^[48]

Yes, you have found and pasted a bunch of quotes carefully chosen to support your point of view. I can fins 100 times as many that support the other way. So? Science is not about dueling quotes. it is about logic and the weight of evidence. Overall, that is on the side of AGW. Are there still observations that need to be explained? Of course. But calling people idiots is not legitimate scientiifc debate.

Yeah, and you've got quantifiable empirical data from the last few hundred million years to support your hypothesis, right Jethro?

Panther Hunter, you have no shame. You are dishonest and a hypocrite. See the previous page of this thread for more detail.

Panther, Tick's comment was not about the last few hundred million years, so why do ypu bring it up? Climate scientists understand better than you do about the empircal data for the last few hundred million years. That is one way they learn how the climate worls, and can therefore predict anthropogenic climate change. It is really quite interesting. Perhaps you should check it out sometime, rather than insulting people who know more than you do.

"Just Normal"...

All you have done here is yammer mindlessly about something you know absolutely nothing about while posting the possibilities and postulations of a couple of people in the scientific community ... you are nothing more than a boor.

"Jock"...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... "that is one way they know how the climate works" ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... THESE LOONS CAN'T EVEN GET THEIR FACTS STRAIGHT ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE CLIMATE RIGHT NOW, let alone for multiple decades and ESPECIALLY not for millions of years ... jeez, surely you are joking.

Also, you must have overlooked this part of rick's post ... "This would not occur under normal circumstances, where you would expect about equal numbers" ... one would have to have the data going back quite some time (millions of years) to be able to say what "normal" is ... try and keep up pal.

Panther: "All you have done here is yammer mindlessly about something you know absolutely nothing about while posting the possibilities and postulations of a couple of people in the scientific community ..."

Since that is exactly what you do, what is the difference?

Panther - By "normal," Rick was clearly referring to the null hypothesis of no current trend. What happened millions of years ago is irrelevant to that hypothesis.

So, what you're saying is you hate plant food ... is that about right Goober?

Panther Hunter, you have no shame. You are dishonest and a hypocrite. See the previous page of this thread for more detail.

Yyyyaaaaaaawwwwnn ... why don't you go back and read the previous page dummy.

Sssshhhhhhh, you're going to scare all the lemmings away, they oceans and they really hate plant food!!

Sure STAN, and trees cause more pollution than any man made toxins. That's according to your poster boy, Ronny Ray Gun. LOL Do yourself a favor and seriously consider a brain transplant.

Panther Hunter, you have no shame. You are dishonest and a hypocrite. See the previous page of this thread for more detail.

stanboy, CO2 does not "evaporate," and the oceans are currently a net sink for carbon dioxide.

The 1936 heatwave was a heatwave and says very little about global warming. Nobody has ever claimed it hasn't been warm before.

And, PRESTO! It's warm again.

stanboy, it will be warm and cold many times, from now until eternity. And that will be true whether or not the climate is changing, or why.

Sailguy, Would'nt it be great if you were even 10% as important as you think you are. You keep us poor, unwashed absolutely spellbound.

stan, I fail to see how your insults are in any way relevant to the scientific arguments that Rick is making.

There are no scientific facts in Rick's post but there are several out and out lies ... jeez.

Panther, you have no idea whether anything Rick said is true or not. You assume they are lies because you don't want them to be true. Science doesn't work that way.

Your comment is completely idiotic.

Al Gore has NOTHING to do with the science.

As soon as you see a comment from a so called skeptic, that contains the words - Al Gore, be assured that they have no clue what they are talking about.

Al Gore has nothing to do with it.

Climate scientists don't work for him

Climate scientists don't work with him

Climate scientists also do not work for the IPCC
And they are not paid by the IPCC or the UN

Some volunteer their time to the IPCC, on top of their day jobs doing the research at academic and government research centers that have NOTHING to do with the IPCC.

I know you think this is all a political conspiracy, so I understand your anger. But you are going to learn eventually that the science is real.

Panther Hunter, you have no shame. You are dishonest and a hypocrite. See the previous page of this thread for more detail.

Slick Rick,

You apparently know absolutely nothing about anything I said but thanks for the rant, I think it's cute!

Jock,

It's not a conspiracy genius, you obviously know about as much as Rick does on the matter ... no worries, I completely understand, I have been coming around here for 3-4 weeks now and know all too well the types of uninformed and uneducated lemmings that frequent the MSNBC Psyche Ward.

Normal,

You're an idiot ...

The conclusion is the same after the heat island effect is controlled for, and the predciton of AGW is not based on temperature observations anyway.

RICK, Don't you know that all the people you mention are "elitist" University types, what the hell would they know. Now Joe, who I met at my local bar tells me it's all a lot of bunk and there's nothing to worry about. I'm going with Joe's say so, that's good enough for me.

Besides, who the hell are you going to believe, the Koch Brothers or your lying eyes???

"Slick Rick the Habitual Liar"

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next 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.

• Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society ^[9]
• 
  
• Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics and professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, said in a 2011 email explaining his failure to renew his membership of the American Physical Society: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period." He calls global warming the "new religion," and, along with more than 100 scientists, wrote in a letter to President Obama, "We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated." ^[10][11][12] Giaever also refers to climate science as "pseudoscience".^[13][14]
• 
  
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences^[15][16][17]
• 
  
• 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), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing^[18]
• 
  
• Garth Paltridge, retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, Visiting Fellow ANU^[19]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London^[20]
• 
  
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said in a 2009 essay: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."^[21]

This is just for you Slick Rick the Habitual Liar & "Normal Person" the Retard ...

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences said in a 2007 news agency interview: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity."^[24]
• 
  
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said in a 2002 lecture for The Heritage Foundation: "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities—over 80 percent—occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."^[25]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."^[25] "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."^{[26][not in citation given]}
• 
  
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in a 2004 newspaper letter:"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO₂ relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO₂, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."^[27]
• 
  
• Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland said in a 2006 newspaper article: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."^[28]
• 
  
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester was reported to have said in a 2007 paper in the International Journal of Climatology: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."^[29]
• 
  
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University said in a 2006 presentation to the Geological Society of America: "Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO₂ began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO₂, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO₂. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5 °C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."^[30]
• 
  
• William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."^[31]
• 
  
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"^[32]
• 
  
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology wrote in a 2004 article and book: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."^[33]
• 
  
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware wrote in a 2006 article for the National Center for Policy Analysis: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."^[34]
• 
  
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in 2005: Global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"^[35]
• 
  
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada said in a 2007 newspaper article: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO₂ levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO₂ levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO₂ levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"^[36][37]
• 
  
• Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide said in a 2002 television debate: "Natural climate changes occur unrelated to carbon dioxide contents. We've had many, many times in the recent past where we've rapidly gone into a greenhouse and the carbon dioxide content has been far, far lower than the current carbon dioxide content... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".^[38]
• 
  
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University said in a 2010 article originally written for the Italian magazine La Chimica e l’Industria (Chemistry and Industry): "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."^[39][40]
• 
  
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo said in a 2007 presentation to the 9th International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error, because the Medieval warm period (the "Climate Optimum") and the Little Ice Age both are absent from their curve, on which the IPCC bases its future projections and recommended mitigation. All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate (Willson, R.C & Hudson, H.S. 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42–44; and Coffey, H.E., Erwin, E.H. & Hanchett, C.D.: Solar databases for global change models. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html). Warmer climate was previously perceived as an optimum climate and not catastrophic. ... On a wet basis the Earth's atmosphere consists by mass of ~73.5% nitrogen, ~22.5% oxygen, ~2.7% water, and ~1.25% argon. CO₂ in air is in minimal amount, ~0.05% by mass, and with minimal capacity (~2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor"^[41]
• 
  
• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said in a 2006 online essay: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."^[42]
• 
  
• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia said in a 2005 award acceptance speech: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."^[43] Also in a 2006 television program: “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”^[44]
• 
  
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was reported to have said in a 2003 paper for Energy & Environment: "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."^[45]
• 
  
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville said in 2008 testimony to a US Senate committee: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".^[46]
• 
  
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center said in a 2007 paper for Astronomy & Geophysics: "The case for anthropogenic climate change during the 20th century rests primarily on the fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increased and so did global temperatures. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001) have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule."^[47]
• 
  
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa said in a paper published in Geoscience Canada in 2005: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO₂, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. The two scenarios are likely not even mutually exclusive, but a prioritization may result in different relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."^[48]

RICK, you can also inform our dear friends on the Right that up until a couple of years ago, their nominee, Willard the Weathervane acknowledged that Climate Change is real

"Slick Rick the Habitual Liar"

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next 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.

• Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society ^[9]
• 
  
• Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics and professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, said in a 2011 email explaining his failure to renew his membership of the American Physical Society: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period." He calls global warming the "new religion," and, along with more than 100 scientists, wrote in a letter to President Obama, "We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated." ^[10][11][12] Giaever also refers to climate science as "pseudoscience".^[13][14]
• 
  
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences^[15][16][17]
• 
  
• 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), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing^[18]
• 
  
• Garth Paltridge, retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, Visiting Fellow ANU^[19]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London^[20]
• 
  
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said in a 2009 essay: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."^[21]

This is just for you Slick Rick the Habitual Liar & "Normal Person" the Retard ...

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences said in a 2007 news agency interview: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity."^[24]
• 
  
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said in a 2002 lecture for The Heritage Foundation: "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities—over 80 percent—occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."^[25]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."^[25] "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."^{[26][not in citation given]}
• 
  
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in a 2004 newspaper letter:"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO₂ relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO₂, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."^[27]
• 
  
• Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland said in a 2006 newspaper article: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."^[28]
• 
  
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester was reported to have said in a 2007 paper in the International Journal of Climatology: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."^[29]
• 
  
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University said in a 2006 presentation to the Geological Society of America: "Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO₂ began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO₂, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO₂. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5 °C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."^[30]
• 
  
• William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."^[31]
• 
  
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"^[32]
• 
  
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology wrote in a 2004 article and book: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."^[33]
• 
  
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware wrote in a 2006 article for the National Center for Policy Analysis: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."^[34]
• 
  
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in 2005: Global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"^[35]
• 
  
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada said in a 2007 newspaper article: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO₂ levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO₂ levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO₂ levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"^[36][37]
• 
  
• Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide said in a 2002 television debate: "Natural climate changes occur unrelated to carbon dioxide contents. We've had many, many times in the recent past where we've rapidly gone into a greenhouse and the carbon dioxide content has been far, far lower than the current carbon dioxide content... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".^[38]
• 
  
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University said in a 2010 article originally written for the Italian magazine La Chimica e l’Industria (Chemistry and Industry): "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."^[39][40]
• 
  
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo said in a 2007 presentation to the 9th International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error, because the Medieval warm period (the "Climate Optimum") and the Little Ice Age both are absent from their curve, on which the IPCC bases its future projections and recommended mitigation. All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate (Willson, R.C & Hudson, H.S. 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42–44; and Coffey, H.E., Erwin, E.H. & Hanchett, C.D.: Solar databases for global change models. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html). Warmer climate was previously perceived as an optimum climate and not catastrophic. ... On a wet basis the Earth's atmosphere consists by mass of ~73.5% nitrogen, ~22.5% oxygen, ~2.7% water, and ~1.25% argon. CO₂ in air is in minimal amount, ~0.05% by mass, and with minimal capacity (~2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor"^[41]
• 
  
• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said in a 2006 online essay: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."^[42]
• 
  
• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia said in a 2005 award acceptance speech: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."^[43] Also in a 2006 television program: “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”^[44]
• 
  
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was reported to have said in a 2003 paper for Energy & Environment: "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."^[45]
• 
  
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville said in 2008 testimony to a US Senate committee: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".^[46]
• 
  
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center said in a 2007 paper for Astronomy & Geophysics: "The case for anthropogenic climate change during the 20th century rests primarily on the fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increased and so did global temperatures. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001) have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule."^[47]
• 
  
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa said in a paper published in Geoscience Canada in 2005: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO₂, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. The two scenarios are likely not even mutually exclusive, but a prioritization may result in different relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."^[48]

This is just for you Slick Rick the Habitual Liar & "Normal Person" the Retard ...

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences said in a 2007 news agency interview: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity."^[24]
• 
  
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said in a 2002 lecture for The Heritage Foundation: "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities—over 80 percent—occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."^[25]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."^[25] "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."^{[26][not in citation given]}
• 
  
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in a 2004 newspaper letter:"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO₂ relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO₂, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."^[27]
• 
  
• Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland said in a 2006 newspaper article: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."^[28]
• 
  
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester was reported to have said in a 2007 paper in the International Journal of Climatology: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."^[29]
• 
  
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University said in a 2006 presentation to the Geological Society of America: "Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO₂ began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO₂, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO₂. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5 °C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."^[30]
• 
  
• William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."^[31]
• 
  
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"^[32]
• 
  
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology wrote in a 2004 article and book: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."^[33]
• 
  
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware wrote in a 2006 article for the National Center for Policy Analysis: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."^[34]
• 
  
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in 2005: Global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"^[35]
• 
  
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada said in a 2007 newspaper article: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO₂ levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO₂ levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO₂ levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"^[36][37]
• 
  
• Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide said in a 2002 television debate: "Natural climate changes occur unrelated to carbon dioxide contents. We've had many, many times in the recent past where we've rapidly gone into a greenhouse and the carbon dioxide content has been far, far lower than the current carbon dioxide content... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".^[38]
• 
  
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University said in a 2010 article originally written for the Italian magazine La Chimica e l’Industria (Chemistry and Industry): "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."^[39][40]
• 
  
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo said in a 2007 presentation to the 9th International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error, because the Medieval warm period (the "Climate Optimum") and the Little Ice Age both are absent from their curve, on which the IPCC bases its future projections and recommended mitigation. All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate (Willson, R.C & Hudson, H.S. 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42–44; and Coffey, H.E., Erwin, E.H. & Hanchett, C.D.: Solar databases for global change models. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html). Warmer climate was previously perceived as an optimum climate and not catastrophic. ... On a wet basis the Earth's atmosphere consists by mass of ~73.5% nitrogen, ~22.5% oxygen, ~2.7% water, and ~1.25% argon. CO₂ in air is in minimal amount, ~0.05% by mass, and with minimal capacity (~2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor"^[41]
• 
  
• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said in a 2006 online essay: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."^[42]
• 
  
• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia said in a 2005 award acceptance speech: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."^[43] Also in a 2006 television program: “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”^[44]
• 
  
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was reported to have said in a 2003 paper for Energy & Environment: "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."^[45]
• 
  
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville said in 2008 testimony to a US Senate committee: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".^[46]
• 
  
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center said in a 2007 paper for Astronomy & Geophysics: "The case for anthropogenic climate change during the 20th century rests primarily on the fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increased and so did global temperatures. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001) have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule."^[47]
• 
  
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa said in a paper published in Geoscience Canada in 2005: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO₂, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. The two scenarios are likely not even mutually exclusive, but a prioritization may result in different relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."^[48]