OT: Global Warming (continued from "Who will take the h

[conversationpc]

Global warming is POSSIBLY aided by man but the science is not conclusive. That's all I have to say here. If you'd like further discussion, move it to another thread.

That's just not true, bro. You're a standup dude, very intelligent, and very informed, but there is no debate about the causes of global warming. The CO2 levels right now are 600% higher than they EVER have been in the history of the world - and it started to increase at the exact start of industrialization.

Bullcrap. Like I said, the science is not settled, not even close to it. Consider this comment from Steven Milloy (publisher of JunkScience.com, CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute)...

The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm and the estimated temperature increase since 1880 (when regular temperature recordkeeping began) is estimated to be about 0.60 degrees Centigrade.

Since at least half of this temperature increase pre-dated 1950 – prior to any significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – we can estimate that the 30 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is associated with a temperature increase of about 0.30 degrees Centigrade. This supports the idea that doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution levels would cause less than a one degree Centigrade increase – and we’re not close to such a doubling.

Since this small variation in global temperature is well within the historical climate record, panic hardly seems warranted.

So where does all the fuss about manmade CO2 and global warming come from? Not from actual temperature measurements and greenhouse physics – rather it comes from manmade computer models relying on myriad assumptions and guesswork. Many models incorporate hypothesized “positive feedbacks” in the climate system, which tend to amplify model predictions. But no model has been validated against the historical temperature record. So they don’t “radiate” much confidence when it comes to forecasting temperatures.

Of course, in typical fashion, his science is attacked by those who claim his ties to the oil industry have compromised his findings but the same can be said of those who believe in man-made global warming being tied to those pushing the environmentalist agenda.

[Wheels Of Fyre]

Global warming is POSSIBLY aided by man but the science is not conclusive. That's all I have to say here. If you'd like further discussion, move it to another thread.

That's just not true, bro. You're a standup dude, very intelligent, and very informed, but there is no debate about the causes of global warming. The CO2 levels right now are 600% higher than they EVER have been in the history of the world - and it started to increase at the exact start of industrialization.

Bullcrap. Like I said, the science is not settled, not even close to it. Consider this comment from Steven Milloy (publisher of JunkScience.com, CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute)...

The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm and the estimated temperature increase since 1880 (when regular temperature recordkeeping began) is estimated to be about 0.60 degrees Centigrade.

Since at least half of this temperature increase pre-dated 1950 – prior to any significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – we can estimate that the 30 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is associated with a temperature increase of about 0.30 degrees Centigrade. This supports the idea that doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution levels would cause less than a one degree Centigrade increase – and we’re not close to such a doubling.

Since this small variation in global temperature is well within the historical climate record, panic hardly seems warranted.

So where does all the fuss about manmade CO2 and global warming come from? Not from actual temperature measurements and greenhouse physics – rather it comes from manmade computer models relying on myriad assumptions and guesswork. Many models incorporate hypothesized “positive feedbacks” in the climate system, which tend to amplify model predictions. But no model has been validated against the historical temperature record. So they don’t “radiate” much confidence when it comes to forecasting temperatures.

Of course, in typical fashion, his science is attacked by those who claim his ties to the oil industry have compromised his findings but the same can be said of those who believe in man-made global warming being tied to those pushing the environmentalist agenda.

I would argue that it's more of a POLITICAL agenda than an environmentalist one. I'm all for having dominion (caring for) the environment but let's not permit ourselves to be driven by a fabricated fear.

[Socratic Methodist]

I've come to the conclusion that peopple just LOVE to be contrary, and argue. In fact, they thrive on it.

What is the harm in believing in Man-made global warming? Seems a logical thing to believe in - because if it ends up being true, we have it covered - done something about it. If we don't believe in it and it is true we are fucked.

[conversationpc]

I've come to the conclusion that peopple just LOVE to be contrary, and argue. In fact, they thrive on it.

What is the harm in believing in Man-made global warming? Seems a logical thing to believe in - because if it ends up being true, we have it covered - done something about it. If we don't believe in it and it is true we are fucked.

The harm is that those who believe it is all or mostly man-made also want to tax everyone to death and enact laws that will erode the liberties we now enjoy. These could seriously burden the economies of not only nations like ours but emerging economies. Environmental companies like The Sierra Club and others and those who hold stock or other such things in these companies stand to take in a windfall in profits if these kinds of things are enacted, yet they will argue tooth and nail that any or most scientists who disagree with man-made global warming are simply in the pockets of energy companies.

Like I said, I believe there is a possibility that man has played a part but the science is not settled and even many of the scientists who do believe in global warming indicate that there is probably not much at all that we can do about it.

[Socratic Methodist]

I've come to the conclusion that peopple just LOVE to be contrary, and argue. In fact, they thrive on it.

What is the harm in believing in Man-made global warming? Seems a logical thing to believe in - because if it ends up being true, we have it covered - done something about it. If we don't believe in it and it is true we are fucked.

The harm is that those who believe it is all or mostly man-made also want to tax everyone to death and enact laws that will erode the liberties we now enjoy. These could seriously burden the economies of not only nations like ours but emerging economies. Environmental companies like The Sierra Club and others and those who hold stock or other such things in these companies stand to take in a windfall in profits if these kinds of things are enacted, yet they will argue tooth and nail that any or most scientists who disagree with man-made global warming are simply in the pockets of energy companies.

Like I said, I believe there is a possibility that man has played a part but the science is not settled and even many of the scientists who do believe in global warming indicate that there is probably not much at all that we can do about it.

Dave, with all due respect, your position is flawed. You say that people that are for global warming claim the scientists that are against it are in the pockets of the oil industry. The oil industry is a huge lobby. When there are engines that run on water, alcohol, grain, and other substances OTHER than oil, but they've never been mass produced - kinda lends itself to being true. We've seen evidence in this kind of strong-arm tactic before.

You will never see the end of alcohol, oil dependency, or tobbaco - no matter how many deaths are linked to alcohol and tobbaco - because too many people are employed by these industries, and too many people get rich from the sale of these things. And I guess you can now put oil in there as well, due to the fact that many people get rich off the production of oil-based products, and many people are DYING due to oil.

Oil is big business. They can do ANYTHING they want. Even silence engine-inventors. Even debunk global-warming - even though it is absolutely true.

[conversationpc]

Dave, with all due respect, your position is flawed. You say that people that are for global warming claim the scientists that are against it are in the pockets of the oil industry. The oil industry is a huge lobby. When there are engines that run on water, alcohol, grain, and other substances OTHER than oil, but they've never been mass produced - kinda lends itself to being true. We've seen evidence in this kind of strong-arm tactic before.

Sorry, Sean, you're just assuming that all scientists who don't believe in man-made global warming ARE in the pockets of the energy industry, so my position is not the one that is fundamentally flawed. I'm sure there are some who are taking money from them, however, there are thousands who are not who are saying the same things. You can't just make a blanket statement dismissing their arguments because a few are involved in some way in the energy industry.

Your statement is just as wrong as if I would say something along the lines of "Man-made global warming is all crap science because those who claim it is man's fault are taking money from The Sierra Club and other environmentalist nutjobs".

They can do ANYTHING they want. Even silence engine-inventors. Even debunk global-warming - even though it is absolutely true.

Yes, global warming is absolutely true. MAN-MADE global warming is NOT absolutely true.

[Rick]

Whatever the cause is, and I've heard good points on both sides, it needs to be worked on. We have to live on this planet, and if there is something that can be done to reverse it, then that should happen. If we leave it unchecked and let it run its course, it could cause widespread death or extinction. The limit to how hot this planet can get is way above human tolerance.

[Marc S]

Unbelievable that there are luddites still arguing that this isn't, in the most part, self inflicted. Wake the fuck up.

[Rick]

Unbelievable that there are luddites still arguing that this isn't, in the most part, self inflicted. Wake the fuck up.

Gotta make me look shit up don't ya?

[conversationpc]

Unbelievable that there are luddites still arguing that this isn't, in the most part, self inflicted. Wake the fuck up.

Unbelievable that there are "luddites" still arguing that this isn't the normal, non self-inflicted, climatic cycle that the earth always goes through, for the most part...

1 - Warming & cooling cycles are the norm. The earth constantly goes through them.
2 - The sun is getting warmer

Again, this isn't to say that man doesn't play a small part or possibly more but we aren't the ones who need to "wake the fuck up". Typical environmentalist garbage...Make no points, back it up with no expert opinions, throw a bomb, and vacate the premises.

[conversationpc]

Unbelievable that there are luddites still arguing that this isn't, in the most part, self inflicted. Wake the fuck up.

Gotta make me look shit up don't ya?

It's kinda funny, because if you do look up the term and read its definition, it appears to apply much more to the wacko environmentalists than it does those that understand that the science for this stuff is nowhere near settled.

[conversationpc]

Unbelievable that there are luddites still arguing that this isn't, in the most part, self inflicted. Wake the fuck up.

BTW, the scientific community in the late 60s and into the 70s were arguing that we were entering a period of global cooling and that we needed to cover the north pole with soot to warm up the globe. Were they "luddites" also?

[Rick]

Unbelievable that there are luddites still arguing that this isn't, in the most part, self inflicted. Wake the fuck up.

Unbelievable that there are "luddites" still arguing that this isn't the normal, non self-inflicted, climatic cycle that the earth always goes through, for the most part...

1 - Warming & cooling cycles are the norm. The earth constantly goes through them.
2 - The sun is getting warmer

Again, this isn't to say that man doesn't play a small part or possibly more but we aren't the ones who need to "wake the fuck up". Typical environmentalist garbage...Make no points, back it up with no expert opinions, throw a bomb, and vacate the premises.

That's the first time I've ever even seen you quote the f word.

[Socratic Methodist]

Dave, are you a member of the 'Flat Earth Society'?

[conversationpc]

Unbelievable that there are luddites still arguing that this isn't, in the most part, self inflicted. Wake the fuck up.

Unbelievable that there are "luddites" still arguing that this isn't the normal, non self-inflicted, climatic cycle that the earth always goes through, for the most part...

1 - Warming & cooling cycles are the norm. The earth constantly goes through them.
2 - The sun is getting warmer

Again, this isn't to say that man doesn't play a small part or possibly more but we aren't the ones who need to "wake the fuck up". Typical environmentalist garbage...Make no points, back it up with no expert opinions, throw a bomb, and vacate the premises.

That's the first time I've ever even seen you quote the f word.

I was using Marc S's words against him. I wouldn't ever use that word on my own. Don't care for it.

[conversationpc]

Dave, are you a member of the 'Flat Earth Society'?

Give me a break, Sean. This is hardly comparable to those who believe the earth is flat and you can fall off the edge into oblivion. Those people and the moonbats who don't believe we ever landed on the moon should move to rural Montana and set up permanent residence in the nutfarm community.

[Socratic Methodist]

Dave, are you a member of the 'Flat Earth Society'?

Give me a break, Sean. This is hardly comparable to those who believe the earth is flat and you can fall off the edge into oblivion. Those people and the moonbats who don't believe we ever landed on the moon should move to rural Montana and set up permanent residence in the nutfarm community.

Well, I guess I'm heading to rural Montana.....cause I'm one of those Moonbats.

[conversationpc]

Well, I guess I'm heading to rural Montana.....cause I'm one of those Moonbats.

I know...I remember from a discussion back on The Cooler. I refer you to a post I made early on here about this topic...

The moon landing was the brainchild of none other than George W. Bush and was staged in daddy's back yard, utilizing good ol' Texas sand, a few strategically placed paper machet rocks, and a couple of unemployed bums dressed in hazardous waste outfits. They were paid well for their part and are now living comfortably in Vero Beach as part of an exclusive retirement community.

[Marc S]

I'm not vacating the premises or some kind of 'typical environmentalist' who spouts garbage. I'm afraid any scientific theory can be made to say anything, I mean 73% of all statistics are made up anyway. Most science is bought and paid for by the multinationals. Always will be. Whether its the oil cartels telling us its ok to run 6 litre SUVs that do 10 mpg or the Unabombers telling us the end of the world is nigh unless we denounce technology.

Its just common sense. How stupid do I have to be to comprehend that if you shove enough CO2 into the atmosphere, global warming will occur. Ozone depletion was not made up, it was fact and the CFC ban helped alot.

The point is IF we don't do something and YOU ARE WRONG, then we are up the swanny without a paddle. End of. If we do take measures and you are right then it can only further improve the environment.

Tell you what, you keep burying your head in the sand, keep believing the oil companies and that lying dipshit of a president of yours and all of his puppeteers. They will be long gone by the time this place is so messed up. Think of something I can tell my 4 yr old twins in 40 years time, when the cuddly polar bears they love to see on the TV and in the Zoo have gone the way of the dodo. Selfish is what it is.

[RedWingFan]

Can anyone answer this question?

Why doesn't Al Gore accept the debates when he's challenged to them by scientists or scholars that disagree with him?

[conversationpc]

I'm not vacating the premises or some kind of 'typical environmentalist' who spouts garbage. I'm afraid any scientific theory can be made to say anything, I mean 73% of all statistics are made up anyway. Most science is bought and paid for by the multinationals. Always will be. Whether its the oil cartels telling us its ok to run 6 litre SUVs that do 10 mpg or the Unabombers telling us the end of the world is nigh unless we denounce technology.

Its just common sense. How stupid do I have to be to comprehend that if you shove enough CO2 into the atmosphere, global warming will occur. Ozone depletion was not made up, it was fact and the CFC ban helped alot.

The point is IF we don't do something and YOU ARE WRONG, then we are up the swanny without a paddle. End of. If we do take measures and you are right then it can only further improve the environment.

Tell you what, you keep burying your head in the sand, keep believing the oil companies and that lying dipshit of a president of yours and all of his puppeteers. They will be long gone by the time this place is so messed up. Think of something I can tell my 4 yr old twins in 40 years time, when the cuddly polar bears they love to see on the TV and in the Zoo have gone the way of the dodo. Selfish is what it is.

Typical liberal garbage argument...Everyone that disagrees gets called names and their arguments are merely pooh-poohed as "simple-minded" and they are naive. Then there are the bomb-throwers like Robert Kennedy that will call you a traitor if don't fall hook, line, and sinker for all the so-called science that the man-made global warming crowd spew out.

Secondly, I'm all for cleaning up the environment and limiting the amount of garbage being spewed into the air. That's just plain old common sense. What I'm not for are skyrocketing taxes to pay for junk science that has not been proven to work and initiatives that are more for lining the pockets of global warming nuts like Al Gore than it is to clean up the environment.

Here are a few quotes from Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg:

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

...

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

...

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

...

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

...

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

[conversationpc]

[RedWingFan]

Can anyone answer this question?

Why doesn't Al Gore accept the debates when he's challenged to them by scientists or scholars that disagree with him?

Anyone????? Anyone at all?

[conversationpc]

Can anyone answer this question?

Why doesn't Al Gore accept the debates when he's challenged to them by scientists or scholars that disagree with him?

Anyone????? Anyone at all?

Because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Heck, even the New York Times printed an article saying how inaccurate his film was, though some of the same critics say he is correct on the big picture. Doesn't make sense to me. If you're getting so many of the points wrong, how can the overall picture be correct.

[7 Wishes]

Can anyone answer this question?

Why doesn't Al Gore accept the debates when he's challenged to them by scientists or scholars that disagree with him?

That's complete bullshit. You people just can't accept the truth - agreed upon by 98% of the scientists in the world who study this theory in any capacity - and it's no use arguing with you.

Just because Al Gore helped bring this issue to the forefront does NOT make it a "Liberal" issue. With a couple of notorious exceptions - the liar Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter - even the Republican Presidential candidates have all either agreed with FACTUAL SCIENCE or at the very least mandated further research into the theory or possible solutions to this devastating trend we have embarked upon.

RaiderFan, your ignorant Avatar quote speaks volumes about your inability to NOT make EVERY issue a "partisan" one. By the way - when Rice and Bush met with Clinton's team in late 2000, the outgoing Administration spent 30 MINUTES discussing, specifically, al-Qa'idah and Osama bin Laden. The Clinton team informed the Bush team this would be their #1 FOREIGN POLICY CONCERN. It's an indisputable fact that this happened, not subject to debate.

The U.S. should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the motherfucker off. Instead, they called off the search and invaded a country that had NOTHING...repeat, N O T H I N G, to do with 9/11. 9/11 had EVERYTHING to do with Bush's pro-Israeli and staunchly anti-Arab foreign policy. Yes, the plan took years to implement, but the Clinton administration had respect for the Arab culture and Islam and almost forged a peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Incidentally, don't patronize me or label me a "liberal". As a citizen of both the U.S. and the U.K., I have participated in numerous elections in my time on this earth, and I've voted for conservative, middle-of-the-road, and left-leaning candidates. My votes have been cast entirely based upon the individual for whom I voted, and his or her perceptions of how to make this world a better place...because that's what it's about, in the end...and not predicated upon party affiliation.

RaiderFan, your affrontary attitude and confrontational banter should not go unchallenged, especially when your aspersions contradict known fact. You should do more research before making opaque references that are not supported by factual data. Go ahead and tear me to shreds, as I expect you will - I would expect nothing less. Whereas I have made a fully valid counterpoint, I'm sure you'll just make vague references to "scientists" and "politicians" without actually naming names or developing a sound retort.

[Marc S]

Naughtius Maximus

hat's complete bullshit. You people just can't accept the truth - agreed upon by 98% of the scientists in the world who study this theory in any capacity - and it's no use arguing with you.

Just because Al Gore helped bring this issue to the forefront does NOT make it a "Liberal" issue. With a couple of notorious exceptions - the liar Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter - even the Republican Presidential candidates have all either agreed with FACTUAL SCIENCE or at the very least mandated further research into the theory or possible solutions to this devastating trend we have embarked upon.

RaiderFan, your ignorant Avatar quote speaks volumes about your inability to NOT make EVERY issue a "partisan" one. By the way - when Rice and Bush met with Clinton's team in late 2000, the outgoing Administration spent 30 MINUTES discussing, specifically, al-Qa'idah and Osama bin Laden. The Clinton team informed the Bush team this would be their #1 FOREIGN POLICY CONCERN. It's an indisputable fact that this happened, not subject to debate.

The U.S. should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the motherfucker off. Instead, they called off the search and invaded a country that had NOTHING...repeat, N O T H I N G, to do with 9/11. 9/11 had EVERYTHING to do with Bush's pro-Israeli and staunchly anti-Arab foreign policy. Yes, the plan took years to implement, but the Clinton administration had respect for the Arab culture and Islam and almost forged a peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Incidentally, don't patronize me or label me a "liberal". As a citizen of both the U.S. and the U.K., I have participated in numerous elections in my time on this earth, and I've voted for conservative, middle-of-the-road, and left-leaning candidates. My votes have been cast entirely based upon the individual for whom I voted, and his or her perceptions of how to make this world a better place...because that's what it's about, in the end...and not predicated upon party affiliation.

RaiderFan, your affrontary attitude and confrontational banter should not go unchallenged, especially when your aspersions contradict known fact. You should do more research before making opaque references that are not supported by factual data. Go ahead and tear me to shreds, as I expect you will - I would expect nothing less. Whereas I have made a fully valid counterpoint, I'm sure you'll just make vague references to "scientists" and "politicians" without actually naming names or developing a sound retort.

Absolutely spot on

[Marc S]

conversationpc

Because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Heck, even the New York Times printed an article saying how inaccurate his film was, though some of the same critics say he is correct on the big picture. Doesn't make sense to me. If you're getting so many of the points wrong, how can the overall picture be correct. Question

As I say, just stick your head as far up your rear as possible and repeat 'I can't hear you' ad finitum

[Rick]

conversationpc

Because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Heck, even the New York Times printed an article saying how inaccurate his film was, though some of the same critics say he is correct on the big picture. Doesn't make sense to me. If you're getting so many of the points wrong, how can the overall picture be correct. Question

As I say, just stick your head as far up your rear as possible and repeat 'I can't hear you' ad finitum

Wow, I listened to some of your samples on your Burn myspace page. You guys are great!

[Marc S]

Thanks Rick, appreciate that! Andrew has put a few more minibytes on the site from the album. Its had some good feed back so far...

[conversationpc]

As I say, just stick your head as far up your rear as possible and repeat 'I can't hear you' ad finitum

So far, you're the only one resorting to rhetoric, name-calling, and obfuscation. Who's the one with their head up their rear? You might want to look for some toilet paper.

By the way, it's "ad infinitum".

That's complete bullshit. You people just can't accept the truth - agreed upon by 98% of the scientists in the world who study this theory in any capacity - and it's no use arguing with you.

The 98% figure is just factually incorrect. It's one of those bogus numbers drawn out of the air by the nutso environmentalist crowd. There are literally thousands of scientists that don't believe global warming is largely a result of mankind. Thousands, not the scant few that those like Al Gore would have you believe.

...I'm sure you'll just make vague references to "scientists" and "politicians" without actually naming names or developing a sound retort.

I've made specific references to scientists disagreeing with your position and you haven't answered those yet. How about "developing a sound retort"?

Following is only a short list of internationally recognized scientists who believe that global warming is largely attributable to natural phenomenon:

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station.
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist
• Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
• George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
• William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
• George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
• Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Tim Patterson [33], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada
• Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide
• Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences
• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa

There is also a long list of scientists who believe the cause of global warming is simply unknown.

Here are just a few comments from these scientists on the subject:

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.

It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown.

I am of the opinion that global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.

So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.

What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural.

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.

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?

The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect.

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.

So much for vague references.