| Revision as of 14:33, 7 February 2010 editGemtpm (talk | contribs)204 edits This page summarises skeptiks views. It is needed alongside summaries of 'believers' views, and I suppose WP editors own← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:43, 7 February 2010 edit undoCanterbury Tail (talk | contribs)Administrators86,732 edits redirect, page already exists. All this page is is a content fork and copy and paste article from materials found on the web.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #redirect ] | |||
| Climate Skeptics include many leading researchers and scientists, such as Professor ] of James Cook Universtiy and Dr ]. | |||
| ==View of prominent sceptics== | |||
| Former UN Scientist Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris (who resigned from UN IPCC in protest): “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.” | |||
| UN IPCC scientist Vincent Gray of New Zealand: “This conference demonstrates that the debate is not over. The climate is not being influenced by carbon dioxide.” | |||
| Canadian Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball: “If we are facing at all, I think it is that we are preparing for warming when it is looking like we are cooling. We are preparing for the wrong thing.” | |||
| Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers: “The 2000-year trend is not flat, so a warming period is not unprecedented. 1500-year cycle as proposed by Singer and Avery is consistent with Loehle climate reconstruction. 1500-year cycle implies that recent warming is part of natural trend.” | |||
| Hurricane expert and Meteorologist Dr. William Gray: “There are lot’s of skeptics out there, all over the U.S. and the rest of the world. has been over-hyped tremendously; most of the climate change we have seen is largely natural. I think we are brainwashing our children terribly.” | |||
| UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn: “There is no evidence that CO2 has ever driven or will ever drive world temperatures and climate change. The consequence of that is that worrying about CO2 is irrelevant. Our prediction is world temperatures will continue to decline until 2014 and probably continue to decline after that.” | |||
| Weather Channel founder and meteorologist John Coleman: “Serious scientists and serious students of global warming have concluded after a lot of effort that there is little basis for the thought that we are going to have catastrophic global warming.” | |||
| Dr. Benny Peiser of the Faculty of Science of Liverpool John Moores University in UK: “ caused so much trouble in Europe. It’s not working, it’s never going to work. It won’t have any effect on the climate, but only that there will be more unemployed in Europe. If that helps the climate, perhaps that is a solution.” | |||
| Atmospheric physicist Ferenc Miskolczi, formerly with NASA’s Langley Research Center: “The runaway greenhouse effect is physically impossible. The observed global warming has nothing to do directly with the greenhouse effect; it must be related to changes in the total absorbed solar radiation or dissipated heat from other natural or anthropogenic sources of thermal energy.” | |||
| Meteorologist Art Horn: “There are thousands of scientists around the world who believe that this issue is not settled. The climate is not being influenced by carbon dioxide.” | |||
| German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for political action on global warming.” | |||
| Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut: “The fluctuations in Earth’s temperature are caused by astronomical phenomena. The combined effects of all ‘greenhouse gases,’ albedo changes, and other Earthly changes account for no more than about 3 degrees C of the changes during transitions between ice ages and interglacials.” | |||
| Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review: “It is my belief that the strident and frequent claims of catastrophes caused by man-made global warming are stated with a degree of confidence not warranted by the data. Too many people are too confident about too many things. That was the simple message of the Heartland conference, and one that I hope sinks in.” | |||
| {As qupted here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865dbe39-802a-23ad-4949-ee9098538277] | |||
| Despite this, much of the debate has been presented as a battle between 'scientists' who are neutral and support the theory, and 'vested interests' or cranks on the other. But climate skeptcism includes a significant critique of the theory that human CO2 emissions are dangerously enhancing the greehouse effect has been made from the politically neutral or 'philosophy of science' perspective. | |||
| Professor John David Lewis of Duke University, USA, has challenged many of the claims made by proponents of man-made climate change theory, in an article in the politically neutral journal Social Philosophy and Policy (Volume 26 No. 2 Summer 2009), saying: 'Those predicting environmental disasters today focus on particular issues in order to magnify the gravity of their general claims, and they push those issues until challenges make them untenable. Rhetorical skill and not logical argument has become the standard of success.' | |||
| In a review article, published in the Times Higher on the 03 December 2008, <ref>{{cite news|url= http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409337&c=2 </ref> Professor Gwyn Prins, the director of the Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events at the London School of Economics, says that the 'principle product of recent science is to confirm that we know less, less conclusively - not more, more conclusively - about the greatest open systems on the planet', and goes on to predict that for this reason, the 'Kyoto Flyer' is about to hit the buffers at Copenhagen. | |||
| Professor Mike Hulme's, a 'climate scientist' at the University of East Anglia's centre for such research, offered a comprehensive defence of scepticism in the December Wall Street Journal <ref>{{cite news|url= http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571613215771336.html </ref> | |||
| noting: "Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete." | |||
| And the British social scientist and philosopher, Martin Cohen, wrote a front page feature for the again poltically neutral and scienticially respectable Times Higher Education (London <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2 </ref>) in an issue timed to coincide with the UN Climate Conference at Copenhagen (the issue was printed on 10 December 2009), highlighting what he calls the contradictions of the Climate Change camp. | |||
| Both Cohen and the academics and others commenting on the article offer specific objections to the science of Climate Change theory including doubts over the historical relationship of CO2 and temperature. J.M Davidson points out that the 'brute fact' of 'record CO2 levels' - higher than they have been since recorded time seems to be a myth and that a book published in 2007 by Ernst-Georg Beck, ( Energy and Environment, Vol 18 No 2,) gives a different story. An analysis of more than 90,000 contemporaneous measurements of atmospheric levels of CO2 between 1812 and 1961. The record starts in 1812 at 390 ppmv, (and that was the year of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, when he arrived back in France with only 10% of the troops who had stared the march , most of them being lost to the arctic cold conditions encountered en route.) CO2 levels peaked in 1825 at 450 ppmv, (still in the little ice age, remember,) then fell back, and peaked again at 440 ppmv in 1942. | |||
| Another objection is the disputed use of positive feedbacks such as increased water vapour to 'exaggerate' the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect, as also argued by Richard Lindzen (formerly a member of the IPCC) who says that it is rather the opposite, and that increased water vapour could turn into clouds and thus cause cooling. | |||
| The temperature record is also disputed, for example and Peter Taylor, in a detailed comment, argues that "there would be no global warming scare without the warming from 1980-2005" as for "40 years before that temperatures dipped into a trough". Taylor adds that "We are at the top of a natural peak driven by a complex solar and ocean linked cyclic system - evidence for which goes back thousands of years." The article has been widely quoted on the internet. <ref> | |||
| For example: | |||
| http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/257-suddenly-its-cool-again-to-be-a-sceptical-philosopher.html | |||
| http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4617 | |||
| http://www.junkscience.com/</ref> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} | |||
Revision as of 14:43, 7 February 2010
Redirect to: