Climate Probe is an organization of citizens who would promote public discussion by exposing aspects of the climate change issue that are rarely discussed in the print and broadcast media. The ultimate decision concerning this important issue must be a fully informed one. Contact us:

A Random Sample of One Hundred Climatologists
Who Do Not Support the Global Warming Theory

The following list clearly demonstrates that there is a genuine lack of “consensus” among climate scientists about global warming — also known as “climate change”. The scientists listed below find no support for the global warming hypothesis on either theoretical or empirical grounds. They are fully qualified to take any position to which their considerations lead them. Such qualifications typically include not only the relatively new science of climatology, but traditional sciences that lie at the foundations of climatology.

For example, because weather (short term) and climate (long term) are both strongly affected by physical and chemical processes, it is no surprise to find physicists and chemists in the list below. Hence those listed here with credentials in physics or chemistry must be counted as climate scientists. Other climate science credentials include geography and geology, both of which study weather and climate as well as other planetary phenomena. Mathematicians who study turbulence and other weather phenomena, have a valuable role to play and are also to be counted. The scientists listed below have all contributed to the literature of climate science, many being well known in the field, as it turns out.

They have been drawn more or less at random from public media simply to illustrate the widespread skepticism within the field. One may easily build an equally impressive list of another hundred skeptical climate scientist and, probably, another hundred, as well! How many genuine climate scientists can be left?

As you read through the list below, you will get a brief review of the issues these scientists have with the global warming (i.e. “climate change”) concept. Some stress the actual climate record both currently and historically, others point out bad scientific practice, while still others point out that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and unlikely to have any impact on global temperatures.

Certain acronyms appear in the list below. You may consult the short glossary at the end of this page to interpret them.

100 Climatologists Who Do Not Support the Global Warming Theory

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu (PhD geophysics, University of Alaska)

Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, was twice named one of the “1000 Most Cited Scientists”; he established and runs the International Arctic Research Center, a US/Japan cooperative research organization that focuses on both natural and man-made climate changes and their effect on the Arctic.

“CO2 began to increase exponentially in about 1940. But the temperature actually began to decrease in 1940 and continued until about 1975. So this is the opposite relation. When the CO2 [is] increasing rapidly, but the temperature is decreasing, we cannot say CO2 and the temperature go together.”

Dr. Thomas Allmendinger (PhD chemistry, ETH)

Prior to his retirement, Allmendinger conducted industrial research in A Zurich laboratory, investigating the behaviour of gases, using his background in chemistry and physics. This has taken him more recently into Climatology studies.

“Knowledge about thermal radiation of the atmosphere is rich in hypotheses and theories but poor in empirical evidence. Thereby, the Stefan-Boltzmann relation is of central importance in atmosphere physics, and holds the status of a natural law. This relation explains to a considerable part the fact that on mountains the atmospheric temperature is lower than on lowlands, in spite of the enhanced sunlight intensity. Thereto, the so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon-dioxide do not have any influence.”

Dr. Bjarne Andresen (Phd Physics, University of Copenhagen)

Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

“If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.”

Dr. August H. Auer (PhD Meteorology, Colorado State University )

Past Professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.

“Water vapour [is] responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm . . . If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 °C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 °C, all the time. The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor [to the five percent] at 3.6 per cent. It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper.”

Dr. Sallike Baliunas, Astrophysicist (PhD physics, Harvard)

Baliunas is an Astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division and formerly Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Observatory. She is an Adjunct Professor at Tennessee State University and past contributing editor to the World Climate Report.

“The science does not suggest dangerous global warming. If there is any trace at all of a greenhouse warming, it is too small to be seen in the climate record. That means that future warming due to human activities will be quite small – well under one degree C.”

Dr. Timothy Ball (PhD Climatology, U of London)

Ball is a Professor Emeritus of climatology in the Geography Dept at the University of Winnipeg.

“CO2 began to increase exponentially in about 1940. But the temperature actually began to decrease [in] 1940 and continued until about 1975 . . . so we cannot say CO2 and the temperature go together.”

Dr. Robert C. Balling (PhD geography, University of Oklahoma)

Balling is a professor at the school of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning at ASU. He was the director of ASU’s Office of Climatology from 1989 to 2004 when he became the director of the MAS-GIS program.

“The scientific evidence argues against the existence of a greenhouse crisis, against the notion that realistic policies could achieve any meaningful climatic impact, and against the claim that urgent action is necessary to reduce the greenhouse threat.”

Dr. Jack Barrett (PhD physical chemistry, University of Manchester)

Barrett is a Chemist and Spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

“The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs), which are well measured, cause a strong positive (warming) forcing. But

other, poorly measured, anthropogenic forcings, especially changes of atmospheric aerosols, clouds, and land-use patterns, cause a negative forcing that tends to offset greenhouse warming. One consequence of this partial balance is that natural forcing due to solar irradiance changes may play a larger role in long-term climate change than inferred from comparison with GHG’s alone. Current trends in GHG climate forcings are smaller than in popular business-as-usual’ (1% per year) carbon dioxide growth scenarios. The summary implication is a paradigm change . . . uncertainties in climate forcings have supplanted global climate sensitivity as the predominant issue.”

Dr John Bates (PhD Meteorology, U of Wisconsin)

Bates is a top NOAA scientist (recently retired) with an “impeccable reputation” who accused the IPCC and Science Journal of published flawed and unverified data to bolster claims of warming prior to the Paris Climate summit in 2917.

“They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did — so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”

Dr Bernard Beauzamy (PhD mathematics, École Normale Supérieure)

Beauzamy was a Professor of mathematics at the University of Lyon France, 1979-1995. Chairman, Chief Executive Officer Société du Calcul Mathématique SA, since 1995, and a Researcher at the University Paris, since 1985.

“There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.”

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (PhD geography, U. of Sussex)

Boehmer-Christiansen is a Reader Emerita at the Geography Dept, University of Hull, UK. She also served as Editor of the journal Energy and the Environment and served as an expert reviewer for the IPCC.

“I have lots of contradictory evidence but I do think, from my experience on ocean pollution and all the other pollution types, that when it goes to the political phase there are huge exaggerations. Once bureaucracies get regulatory and taxation powers, the exaggerations decline, scares may even be forgotten. So I honestly believe that there may be a problem but that this problem also has beneficial sides. We know how positive carbon dioxide is to life. So I do think there’s much exaggeration (of the man-made warming threat), of the negative aspects, for political reasons. So that’s why I’m here [at a conference]. I do think the skeptical scientists are more honest and more truthful than those funded by governments to support the IPCC.”

Dr. Donald Bogard (PhD planetary science, University of Arkansas)

Bogard is the Principal Investigator in NASA’s lunar and meteorite research programs and directed an analytical lab at JSC.

“We . . . respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

Dr. Reid Bryson (PhD meteorology, University of Chicago)

Dubbed the “Father of Meteorology”, Bryson became the founder and first chairman of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Department of Meteorology and Center for Climatic Research 1948. Bryson was made a Global Laureate by the United Nations Global Environment Program in 1990.

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, 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.”

Dr. Robert M. Carter (PhD Geology, Cambridge University)

Carter is a Paleoclimatologist and Professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University in Australia. Carter is also a former UN IPCC reviewer.

“There IS a problem with global warming. […] it stopped in 1998. […] That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth’s recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn’t seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated – ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin.”

Dr. Randall Cerveny (Phd geography, University of Nebraska)

Cerveny is a President’s Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University. He also serves as Rapporteur on Extreme Records for the United Nations/World Meteorological Organization. At ASU, he directs the meteorology program. He is contributing editor for the magazine Weatherwise.

His contribution to a book on weather was reviewed as follows: “[a] Shattered Consensus . . . convincingly demonstrates the remarkable differences between what we commonly read about global warming and what is really happening. . . . Anyone who reads this book will come away with a new appreciation of the complexity of the climate issue and will question the need for expensive policies that are likely to have little or no detectable effect on the planet’s temperature.”

Dr. JiaSheng Chen (PhD geology, University of Alberta)

Chen is a Researcher at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University.

““CO2 and temperature records at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and other observation stations show that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not significant.

These stations are located away from big cities, and in various latitudes and hemispheres. But the correlation is significant in global mean data. Over the last five decades, CO2 has grown at an accelerating rate with no corresponding rise in temperature in the stations. This discrepancy indicates that CO2 probably is not the driving force of temperature change globally but only locally(mainly in big
cities). We suggest that the Earth’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 is too low to drive global temperature change.”

Dr. John Christy (PhD Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois)

Christy is the Director of Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville AL.

“You cannot prove extra greenhouse gases have done anything to the weather,” he has said, responding to claims . . . that more greenhouse gases have caused extreme weather patterns to intensify. “We do not have an experiment that we can repeat and do,”

Dr Ian Clark (PhD paleoclimatology, Universite de Paris-Sud)

Clark is a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa.

“I am compelled to disagree that there is a consensus of scientists who agree that this [climate change] is the consequence of human activities. While the melting of permafrost, retreat of glaciers and waning of the permanent ice pack may be alarming, it is only alarming to those unfamiliar with past changes in the Birth. Paleoclimatologists recognize such events as part of natural changes wholly unrelated to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In fact, the waxing and waning of ice shelves, along with glaciers, ice caps, and pack ice are lsrgely related to changes in solar input.”

Dr. Petr Chýlek (PhD physics, University of California Riverside)

Chýlek is an Adjunct professor in the Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax. Chýlek has published over 100 scientific papers in remote sensing, atmospheric radiation, climate change, cloud and aerosol physics, applied laser physics and ice core analysis. His work has been cited more than 4000 times.

“[the climate science community has] substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view . . . Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC.” He has appealed to climate scientists to stop making what he calls “unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them.”

Paul Copper (PhD Earth Sciences, Imperial College)

Copper is a Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences Laurentian University, a specialist in Paleobiology, having studied the carbon cycle through the last half billion years with emphasis on extreme temperatures during the middle Paleozoic epoch.

“We . . . maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.

After controlling for population increase and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behaviour.”

Dr. Richard S. Courtney (DipPhil Cambridge University)

Courtney is a Climate and Atmospheric Science Consultant, and an IPCC Expert Reviewer, United Kingdom.

“The warming period from ~1970 to ~2000 was sandwiched between the cooling periods of ~1940 to ~1970 and ~2000 to the present. The changes between these warming and cooling periods coincide with phase reversals of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and, therefore, it seems that the present lack of warming is likely to continue for the next two decades.”

Dr. Judith Curry (PhD geophysical sciences, University of Chicago)

Curry is a former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. She has testified to the US House Subcommittee on the Environment that the uncertainties in forecasting climate science are much greater than the alarmists will admit. A respected climate scientist, Curry has announced her resignation from her tenured position at Georgia Tech.

“The deeper reasons [for resigning] have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists . . . I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the craziness in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.”

Dr W. Jackson Davis (PhD Biology, University of Oregon)

Davis is President & Executive Director of the Environmental Studies Institute in Santa Cruz, CA.

“Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2 emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most.”

Dr. Robert E. Davis (PhD Climatology, University of Delaware)

Davis is a Climatologist and UN IPCC contributor, a Professor at the University of Virginia and Past President of the Association of American Geographers.

“We keep hearing about historically warm years, warm decades, or warm centuries, uncharacteristically long or severe droughts, etc., for which mankind’s striving for a high quality of life is to blame . . . But in reality, in most cases, we have a tragically short record of good observations.”

Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr (PhD Mathematics, U of Louisiana)

Decell is Chief Scientist at NASAs Johnson Science Centre in the Theory & Analysis Office.

“We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.?”

Willem de Lange (PhD Environmental & Resource Economics, Stellenbosch U)

de Lange is a faculty member in the Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand.

Asked to review an IPDD report de Lange reacted to sea level rise (among other issues), writing, “I disagreed with the initial assumptions, particularly the assumed sea level rise in the stated time period. Further, there was good evidence at the time that sea level rise would not necessarily result in flooding of small island nations, because natural processes on coral atolls were likely to raise island levels.”

Dr. David Deming (PhD Geophysics, University of Utah)

Deming is an Associate Professor in the College of Arts and Sciences, at the University of Oklahoma.

“I’m a geophysicist who has conducted and published climate studies in top-rank scientific journals. My perspective on Mr. Inhofe and the issue of global warming

is informed not only by my knowledge of climate science but also by my studies of the history and philosophy of science.”

Peter Dietze (Dipl.-Ing. Postanschrift Universität)

Dietze is an independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller and an official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany.

“So IPCC scientists should in future be more circumspect in their claims to avoid the prospect of millions of people suffering from carbon taxes, lack of energy, unemployment and putting the blame back onto them. There is no doubt: Reducing IPCC’s global warming is much easier than reducing global CO2 emissions.”

Dr. Freeman Dyson (PhD physics, Cornell University)

Dyson, a physicist, replaced Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced study, Princeton NJ.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of the IPCC scientists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.” He describes global warming as a “religious movement”.

Don J. Easterbrook (PhD Geology, U of Washington)

Easterbrook is an Emeritus Professor of Geology at Western Washington University.

“I used to believe in apple pie and motherhood and NOAA and NASA. These were all the things that were pure and good. Now I just believe in apple pie and motherhood.” “There is this massive fraudulent corruption of data by NOAA and NASA.”

Dr Hugh Ellsaesser (PhD Meteorology, University of Chicago)

Ellsaesser served as senior scientist at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, CA, as atmospheric consultant

“I am one of the strong supporters of the proposition that the available records indicate climate warming over the past century or so. It’s just that I don’t believe the observed warming is due to an increase in greenhouse gases.”

Dr. Christopher Essex (PhD Applied Mathematics, York University)

Essex is a Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, ON.

“Scrapping clean power? Why, they must be in favor of dirtiness! But cleanliness has nothing to do with power in physics, which is simply energy per unit time.

There is dirty power in play, but it does not come from physics The objective is to befuddle minds into jumbling carbon dioxide together with soot and toxic gases, which are then cleansed with political virtue instead of engineering.”

Dr. John T. Everett (PhD natural resources management, Florida State University)

Everett is a Lead Author and reviewer for the IPCC, a former NOAA senior manager, and a project engineer for the UN Atlas of the Oceans, Recipient of an award for his work on assessing the impact of climate change.,

“For most life in the oceans, warming means faster growth, reduced energy requirements to stay warm, lower winter mortalities, and wider ranges of distribution,” he explained. “No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.”

Dr. Rex Fleming (PhD Meteorology, U of Michigan) Fleming is a former NOAA climate scientist.
“There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar

factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection.”

Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld (PhD Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia).

Frauenfeld is a Professor in the Department of Geography at Texas A&M University.

“Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain.”

Dr. Chris de Freitas (PhD geography, University of Queensland)

de Freitas is a faculty member in the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Aukland, serving four years as Vice Chancellor. He is a former editor of the journal Climate Research and an expert reviewer of the UN’s IPCC reports.

“It is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation,” he wrote in 2007. As far as he’s concerned the climate has always changed – naturally. And the fact that global carbon dioxide emissions last year rose by a record amount to almost 31 billion tonnes is “neither here nor there.”

Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen (PhD Physics, University of Copenhagen)

Friis-Christansen is Director of the Danish National Space Centre and a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, where he serves on the Panel on space weather. He is also a member of a NASA working group and a member of the Earth-science advisory committee of the European Space Agency.

“Solar variation seem to be a major cause of climate change, variations on centennial and millennial time scales in the pre-industrial era. there are certainly other natural sources of climate change. For the industrialized period, the L+FC (and other) results do not exclude an effect from man-made greenhouse gases.”

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard (PhD Geology, U of Kansas)

Gerhard is a senior Scientist Emeritus at the University of Kansas, a past director and state geologist for the Kansas Geological Survey.

“Can anyone out there provide me with any empirical data in support of the theory that humans control climate warming? No, don’t tell me that climate is changing – we geologists absolutely know that climate changes all the time, in both directions, and at many scales of time and intensity.

“Don’t give me results of computer modelling – those are not empirical data, they are the results of very serious attempts to place numbers on natural phenomena, but they are still based on assumptions and estimates, and have not been able to replicate past climate changes.”

Dr. Ivar Giaever (PhD physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

Giaever is a Nobel Prize winner in Physics. Although not a thought leader in climatology, his Nobel prize makes his factual statement important.

“The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide Make no mistake, the agitators are not
defending science from quackery — quite the contrary!”

Dì,,r. Vincent Gray (PhD Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University)

Gray is another Expert Reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.

“The ‘globe’ is simply not ‘warming’, for all of eight years. This year it will probably cool. Since all of the IPCC’s models ‘project’ the ‘likelihood’ of a steady warming over this period, all of them must be wrong, and we can expect similar failures for all the other ‘projections’.”

Dr. Keith D. Hage (PhD Geology, University of Chicago)

Have is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Alberta, formerly in the Dept of Geography

“’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”

Dr. Will Happer (PhD Physics, Princeton University)

Happer is the former Eugene Higgins Professor if Physics at Princeton University. He remains on the Global Warming Policy Foundation Advisory Board.

“The earth’s climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth’s temperature — on the order of one degree.

Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.”

Dr. Howard Hayden (PhD Physics, U of Denver)

Hayden is Professor Emeritus at the University of Connecticut, author of A Primer on CO2 and Climate 2nd Ed Wiley 2008

“The sun is now cooling and the past 60 years have shown the highest solar activity in the last 1400 years. So, yes the sun is now cooling, it has been warmer, and we can expect some cooling. But there’s also some change in the ocean currents that’s periodic so there is expected to be some cooling within the next decade or so. And temperature history also shows that since January, 2001, the temperature of the Earth has basically held almost flat.”

Robert Ian Holmes (PhD Astronomy and Astrophysics, Federation U)

Holmes is affiliated with the Faculty of Science & Engineering at Federation University in Ballarat, Australia.

“The change [in temperature predicted by standard formula] would in fact be extremely small and difficult to estimate exactly, but would be of the order -0.03°C. That is, a hundred times smaller than the ‘likely’ climate sensitivity of 3°C cited in the IPCC’s reports, and also probably of the opposite sign [cooling]. Even that small number would likely be a maximum change, since if fossil fuels are burned to create the emitted CO2, then atmospheric O2 will also be consumed, reducing that gas in the atmosphere – and offsetting any temperature change generated by the extra CO2. This climate sensitivity is already so low that it would be impossible to detect or measure in the real atmosphere, even before any allowance is made for the consumption of atmospheric O2.”

Douglas V. Hoyt (MS Astrophysics and Geophysics, University of Colorado)

Hoyt is a retired Senior Scientist at Raytheon and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland

“There are several problems with the theoretical underpinnings of the standard IPCC theory of global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGHG) … . the upper limit on warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide is 0.7 C and it is probably much less. The high numbers used by the IPCC are not supported by measurements.”

Kiminori Itoh (PhD Chemistry, University of Tokyo)

Itoh is an Environmental meteorologist at Yokohama University and author of Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affair. Like many others, Itoh does not reject the notion of global warming entirely, but instead claims that the causes are far more complex than the anti-carbon crowd would have you believe.”

“There are many factors that cause the climate changes, particularly in regional and local scales. Considering only greenhouse gasses is nonsense and harmful.”

“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history of science . . . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

Zbigniew Jaworowski (PhD natural science, Medical University)

Jaworowski is an atmospheric scientist, Chair of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland and past Chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; also a member of the Norwegian Polar Research Institute and the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo

“The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre- industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning.”

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen (PhD Physical Geography, Stockholm University)

Karlen is a Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University. Karlen has debunked IPCC claims that Scandinavian temperatures have increased when, in fact, they have declined.

“Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate. As far as I can see the IPCC ‘Global Temperature’ is wrong. Temperature is fluctuating but it is still in most places cooler than in the 1930s and 1940s. It will take about 800 years before the water level has increased by one” meter.”

Madhav Khandekar (PhD Meteorology, Florida State University)

Khandekar is a retired scientist formerly with Environment Canada. He is also a member of the editorial board for Climate Research and Natural Hazards.

“There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature at all. In fact if we look at temperature change over the last 100 years and link it with CO2, there is little correlation.”

Dr. Christopher W. Landsea (PhD Atmospheric Science, Colorado State U)

Landsea is a UN IPCC author and reviewer, atmospheric scientist, and expert with yjr NOAA National Hurricane Centre. Landsea resigned from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane Science.

“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

“The 1926 -1835 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years, and 1900-1905 was almost as bad.”

Dr. Alfred Laubereau (PhD Physics, Technische Universitaet Muenchen)

Laubereau is a Professor Emeritus of the Physics Dept. at the Technische Universität München.

“In conclusion we wish to say that we have performed a study of the infrared properties of carbon dioxide, methane, dinitrogen-oxide and water to estimate their contribution to the global warming in 1880 – 2015. Our results suggest that the IR properties of the CO2 are responsible for ~ 20% of the mean temperature increase of the surface [during 1880-2015] and notably less for CH4 and N2O.”

Dr Douglas Leahey (PhD Meteorology, New York University)

Leahey is an Environmental Consultant in Calgary AB and Past President of The Friends of Science, an organization of climate scientists.

“A critical mass of science shows the Kyoto Protocol is built on a faulty assumption that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. The Federal Government is prepared

to spend $10 billion on a problem that may not exist. At the same time, Canada is causing real damage every day with lead pollution — a substance that has been known for generations to be a serious health hazard,”

Dr. David R. Legates (PHD climatology, University of Delaware)

Legates is an Associate Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware and Director of the Centre for Climatic Research at the same University.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Marcel Leroux (Phd Climatology, University of Paris)

Leroux is a Professor of Climatology at Jean Moulin University in Lyon, France. He has researched paleoclimates extensively and achieved academic distinction.

“Recent happenings in the field of climatology give cause for complaint, as do the approaches of some of its practitioners, especially those who, lacking any real qualification, claim to belong to the climatological community, but give it an erroneous image. It is galling to see the media ‘hype’ which ensues every time a meeting of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is announced, every time an extra drop of rain falls here, or fails to fall there, or every time a door slams because the wind is blowing a bit more strongly than is ‘normal’. How irksome it is to hear the simplistic slogans, and sometimes barefaced lies, churned out yet again; to have to put up with the Diktat of an ‘official line’ and the parroted pronouncements of the ‘climatically correct’, numbing all reflection.”

Dr. Harold Lewis (PhD Physics, University of California)

Lewis is Emeritus Professor and former Chairman of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Former member of the Defence Science Board as Chair of its Technology panel.

“The global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, has corrupted many scientists, and has carried the American Physical Society before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.”

Richard Lindzen (PhD Applied Mathematics, Harvard University)

Lindzen has served as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. His academic interests include the topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability.

“To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science . . . there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons.”
“Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”

Dr. Gerrit van der Lingen (PhD Geology, Utrecht University)

Van der Lingen is a Geologist and Paleoclimatologist, currently acting as an independent climate consultant, and Director of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

“Incidentally, the IPCC hypothesis has now been thoroughly falsified. Moreover, the world has not been warming anymore since 1998 and has even slightly cooled since about 2002 (Fig 2). Many astrophysicists are predicting that the planet is entering a cooling phase that could last 30 to 50 years.”

Dr. A. J. Tom Van Loon (PhD Quaternary Geology, Leiden University)

Van Loon is a Professor of Geology at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poland and former President of the European Association of Science Editors.

“With revelations that critical temperature data used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change appear to have been intentionally distorted to increase warming trends, national representatives to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference must demand a thorough re-examination of the scientific evidence supporting proposed mitigation actions”

Dr. Philip Lloyd (PhD Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town)

Lloyd is a UN IPCC Co-coordinating Lead Author, South Africa Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, author of more than 150 refereed publications.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil.”

“I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”

Dr Anthony R. Lupo (PhD Climatology, Purdue University)

Lupo is an Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri – Columbia/

“The Earth goes through phases of warming and cooling, and though all the computer models we have show that we are in a warming phase, there is no way to differentiate between a natural warming and one that is human-caused.”

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg (PhD Political Science, University of Copenhagen)

“Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish-based scientist, famous for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg thinks the current approach to global warming is misguided and that the costs of drastic, short-term action are too high.

“By the United Nations’ own estimates, all of the promised cuts up to 2030 will reduce emissions by less than 1 per cent of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2C. Paris will deliver far less than politicians promise and cost more than most people are willing to pay.”

Professor Sebastian Lüning (PhD Geology & Paleontology, University of Bremen)

Luning is the founding father of Germany’s Environmental Movement and the Director of one of Europe’s largest alternative energy companies.

“Leading representatives of the IPCC tried for years to have policymakers and citizens believe the pre-industrial temperature history was more or less uneventful and was the ideal climate condition that we should all strive to maintain. The warming of the 20th century, on the other hand, was completely unusual, something dangerous. However, as we now know, the page turned a few years ago and the notorious Hockey Stick chapter ended. The flawed curve was taken off the market and the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age reappeared.”

Dr. Ross McKitrick (PhD Environmental Economics, U of British Columbia)

McKitrick is a Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph in Canada. A Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute, McKitrick specializes in Environmental Economics and Policy Analysis.

“We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.”

Dr. Fred Michel (PhD Geological Sciences, Queen’s University)

Michel is a Professor in the Earth Sciences Department at Carleton University in Ottawa Canada.

“In reality, climate is constantly changing and will continue to change no matter what we do.” “Hurricane Katrina . . . has been used by alarmists to promote their impossible goal of stopping climate change.”

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels (PhD Ecological Climatology, U of Wisconsin at Madison)

Michaels is a former Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the CATO Institute.

“Surface temperatures are indeed increasing slightly: They’ve been going up, in fits and starts, for more than 150 years, or since a miserably cold and pestilential period known as the Little Ice Age. Before carbon dioxide from economic activity could have warmed us up, temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit between 1910 and World War II. They then cooled down a bit, only to warm again from the mid-1970s to the late ’90s, about the same amount as earlier in the century.”

Patrick Moore (PhD Ecology, University of British Columbia)

Moore is included as the only non-professional climate researcher in this list because of his role as Past President of Greenpeace Canada and chair of many important committees and boards, including the Sustainable Forest Committee of the Forest Alliance. In the latter role that committee developed the Principles of Sustainable Forestry, later adopted by the Forestry industry.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years . . . Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species . . . The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner (PhD quaternary geology, Stockholm University)

Mörner, who headed of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics (P&G) Department at Stockholm University from 1991 to 2005, has studied sea level his entire career, visiting 59 countries in the process.

Over the past 200 years: “The sea level has not changed very much. Over the past 50 to 70 years it has been absolutely stable”.

“The mechanism of climate change has absolutely nothing to do with the increasing CO2, but is primarily driven by the sun […] we don’t need all this kind of mitigation […] especially putting money in fighting CO2. [..] There is climate change, but they are natural ups an downs.”

Dr Lubos Motl (PhD Physics, Rutgers University)

Motl was a Former Harvard Junior Fellow and an Assistant Professor there, before returning to Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. He has been a leading researcher in string theory, a fundamental “theory of everything” that would govern all natural phenomena.

“There are no increasing forest fires, just look at the . . . actual graphs [on Google] and there is no evidence of growing zones moving north, 100-200 km towards a pole – a negligible distance relative to the pole-equator distance, 10,000 km — is enough to compensate the underlying 1 deg C of warming. There aren’t [any] problems.”

Dr. John Nicol (PhD physics, University of Queensland )

Nicol is Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

“This Global Warming, often referred to in later times as “Climate Change”, has been accepted as a challenge by laymen, respected scientists, media moguls and politicians in a significant attempt to pursue the source of the problem and to prevent further damage being done to an increasingly fragile environment.

However, a large number of equally respected scientists and members of the public, appear to be less convinced of the need to take action and have put forward in some cases well and passionately argued reasons that the warming and other climatic changes observed since the industrial age are simply manifestations of many different natural cycles in global and regional climate.”

Dr James J. O’Brien (PhD Geology, Texas A&M University)

O’Brien is a Professor Emeritus of Meteorology and Oceanography at Florida State University

“Most agree that recent research and observations indicate significantly lower climate sensitivity, that is, significantly less global temperature rise due to increasing GHG (Green-House Gas) levels than was predicted by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in its Assessment Reports.

Many also agree that there are solar-related and other natural influences on earth’s climate, and suggest that the relative magnitudes of these influences may be comparable to or possibly even greater than those of GHG.”

Dr Garth W. Paltridge (PhD Physics, University of Melbourne)

Paltridge is an Atmospheric Physicist, Professor Emeritus, and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia.

“We have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis for society’s respect for scientific endeavour.”

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson (PhD Geology, UCLA)

Patterson is a Paleoclimatologist and Professor in the Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa Canada

“Based on the paleoclimatic data I and others have collected, it’s obvious that climate is and always has been variable. In fact, the only constant about climate is change; it changes continually. We certainly have no chance of stopping this natural phenomenon.”


Dr. Al Pekarek (PhD geology, University of Wyoming)

Pelarek is an Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept. at St. Cloud State University in Saint Cloud, MN.

“Climate is certainly cyclical; we’ve got natural drivers, and we appear to have entered another cooling phase. On a positive note . . . are there any benefits to increasing carbon dioxide? Absolutely yes. What are they? . . . Higher crop yields . . . this sometimes I think could be providential . . . because under those trying circumstances [of global cooling], with more C02, plants might actually do better.”

Dr Ian R. Plimer (PhD Geology, McQuarrie University )

Plimer is a Professor of Geology in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Plimer has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

“Okay, here’s the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just four days, negated every single single effort you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.”

Dr Brian Pratt (PhD Geology, University of Toronto)

Pratt is a Professor of Geology, conducting research in Sedimentology at the University of Saskatchewan.

“I am very concerned that Earth’s physical, chemical and biological processes are being widely misunderstood by the public, by politicians and even by many scientists. Consequently, ‘stopping’ global warming has been adopted as a mission by people with the power to cause severe economic harm and divert efforts away from more critical measures involving conservation, population growth, poverty and so forth.”

Dr. Andreas Prokoph (PhD Earth Sciences, University of Tubingen)

Prokoph is an Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences at Carleton University, as well as a consultant in statistics and geology.

“Until ~200 million years ago, CO2 may have been a driver of global temperature change … In the past ~150Myr CO2 follows global temperature.” [i.e. does not precede it.]

Dr. Gerald Ratzer (PhD Mathematics, Cambridge University)

Ratzer is a Professor Emeritus at McGill University in Montreal, QB. He specializes in computer simulation and has won many awards for academic achievement.

“Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not the primary cause or driver of Climate Change. When all the greenhouse gases are properly considered, CO2 represents only 3% of the warming potential gases. Signing a CO2 reduction treaty is not the solution to global warming as CO2 (even if double the current level) will contribute a negligible amount to global warming. Instead, curbing pollution in all forms should be a policy priority. Smog and poor air quality in large cities is literally shortening life expectancies and correcting this should be a top priority. Clean generation of electrical power is essential to raise the standard of living for those both with and without access to electricity.”

Dr. Art Robinson (PhD Biochemistry, California Institute of Technology)

Robinson is a former faculty member at the University of California San Diego and now directs the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in Cave Junction, OR.

“There are thousands of scientists in this country who, in the basis of scientific information alone, rejected the idea of human-caused global warming.”

Dr Alex Robson (PhD Economics, University of California, Irvine)

Robson is an Economist in the Dept. pf Accounting, Finance and Economics at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He has been studying the economic implications of carbon taxes.

Robson has challenged the view that the assessment of the IPCC was sufficient to decide on the need to make substantial cuts in CO2 emissions. Claiming that there was a “lack of knowledge and understanding of climate change” . . . “it is not unreasonable for policy-makers to adopt a cautious approach to policy change. It is also not unreasonable for people to discount the hysterical commentary around climate change.”

Dr. R. G. Roper (PhD, DSc, University of Adelaide)

Roper is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

“Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.” (From an open letter to the UN, Roper a signatory)

Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt (PhD Geology, Harvard University )

Schmitt is a Geologist and Apollo astronaut with the National Atmospheric and Space Administration (NASA) for 17 years.

Schmitt contends that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are not significantly correlated with global warming, attributing the “single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas” to advocates of government control of energy production.

Dr. Thomas V. Segalstad (PhD geology & geochemistry, U of Oslo)

Segalstad is an Associate Professor in the Resource and Environmental Geology at the University of Oslo in Sweden. He is also Head of the Geological Museum there.

“The argument put forward by protagonists for decarbonization that there is a scientific ‘consensus’ behind theories of a climate controlled by atmospheric carbon dioxide is clearly an attempt to silence critics, and should be treated with contempt.”

Dr Gary D. Sharp (PhD marine biology, U of California)

Sharp, formerly Adjunct Professor in the Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia now works as a consultant for Ocean Resources and Oceanographic Climate Issues in Salinas, California.

“Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral reefs] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all. CO2 is their and our friend, generally, not the enemy.”

Dr. Nir Shaviv (PhD astrophysics, Israel Institute of Technology)

Shaviv is an Astrophysicist and an Associate Professor of Physics at the Racah Institute, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

“As an astrophysicist, I see that the scope of solar effects considered by the IPCC is very limited; thus it arrives at wrong conclusions about what causes climate change. For instance, the increase in solar activity over the 20th century implies that more than half of the warming should be attributed to the sun, not to emissions from human activity.”

Dr. S. Fred Singer (PhD Physics, Princeton University)

Singer is a Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia swell as a former Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, among other posts. Singer has published several books of relevance to climate science.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has to provide proof for significant human-caused climate change; yet their climate models have never been validated and are rapidly diverging from actual observations. The real threat to humanity comes not from any (trivial) greenhouse warming but from cooling periods creating food shortages and famines.”

“Climate change has been going on for millions of years – long before humans existed on this planet. Obviously, the causes were all of natural origin and not anthropogenic. There is no reason to think that these natural causes have suddenly stopped.”

Dr. Boris M. Smirnov (PhD Physics, Leningrad State University)

Smirnov is the author of Microphysics of Atmospheric Phenomena, Springer, 2017 and many other technical works.

“Indeed, we assume the atmospheric and Earth’s albedo, as well as another interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere and Earth, to be unvaried in the course of the change of the concentration of CO2 molecules, and also the content of atmospheric water is conserved. Because anthropogenic fluxes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted from combustion of fossil fuels is about 5% [Kaufman, 2007], the contribution of the human activity to ECS (the temperature change) as a result of doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount) is ∆T = 0.02 K, i.e. injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.”

Dr. L. Graham Smith (PhD Geography, U of Waterloo)

Smith is an Associate Professor, in the Dept. of Geography at the University of Western Ontario, in London, ON Canada.

“Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the Unite Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada’s climate policies are based.” (Excerpt from a joint statement signed by Smith & others.)

Dr Willie Wei-Hock Soon (PhD Aerospace Engineering, U of Southern California)

Soon is an Astrophysicist and Geoscientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge MA USA.

“The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic . . . It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of ‘preventing catastrophic climate change’.”


Roy Warren Spencer (PhD Meteorology, U of Wisconsin)

Spencer is a Climatologist and Principal Research Scientist in the Earth Systems Science Centre at the University of Alabama in Huntsville A, USA. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center earning while there a special award from the American Meteorological Society.

“Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there’s a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it’s warmed in the last century.

They completely ignore the fact that there’s this thing called the Oregon petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don’t agree with the idea that we are causing climate change.”

Dr. Peter Stilbs (PhD Physical Chemistry, Lund University)

Stilbs is a Professor of Physical Chemistry and a Research Leader in the School of Chemical Science and Engineering at the KTH (Royal Institute of Technology) in Stockholm Sweden.

“There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. The Global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Actual claims put

forward are that an observed global temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected from natural variation. However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued global warming since 1998.”

Dr. Henrik Svensmark (PhD physics, Technical University of Denmark)

Svensmark currently heads the Sun-Climate Research Institute, National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark.

“I don’t think that we are headed for disaster because there’s nothing in the record of data that indicates that the number of storms, droughts—I mean, yea, whatever hurricanes and so on—they are not increasing as what you’d expect from all the things that you hear. So I don’t think that we are heading for a disaster, and if that climate sensitivity to CO2 is smaller than what you get from all these climate models, then the change in temperature, you know in the next fifty years, might be quite small,”

Mr. George Taylor (MSc Meteorology, University of Utah)

Taylor is a former faculty member of the Dept. of Meteorology at Oregon State University. As the Oregon State Climatologist he is also past president, American Association of State Climatologists. Taylor has served twice as President of American Association of Climatologists.

“It’s not clear that we are seeing unprecedented warming, and it’s definitely untrue that any warming trend can be assigned to human activities. Natural variations in climate are much more significant than any human activities.”

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes (PhD Technische Hogeshool, Delft) .

Tennekes was a Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at Pennsylvania State University from 1965 to 1977. Until 1990 he served as Director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and from 1990 to 1995 as Director of strategy development there.

“There is no chance at all that the physical sciences can produce a universally accepted scientific basis for policy measures concerning climate change. There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies.”

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (PhD Chemistry, Munster)

Vahrenholt was one of the founders of the environmental movement in Germany. He is Chairman of the German Wildlife Trust and has served in several public positions with environmental ministries and as a board member of several energy companies. Vahrenhold is also the author of the 2012 bestseller, The Neglected Sun.

“For years, I disseminated the hypotheses of the IPCC, and I feel duped. Renewable energy is near and dear to me, and I’ve been fighting for its expansion for more than 30 years. My concern is that if citizens discover that the people who warn of a climate disaster are only telling half the truth, they will no longer be prepared to pay higher electricity costs for wind and solar (energy). Then the conversion of our energy supply will lack the necessary acceptance.”

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen (PhD Geology, Utrecht University)

van der Lingen is a Geologist (paleoclimatology) and a Climate Change Consultant in geoscience research and investigations as a member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

“There are many scientific indications that we may be entering a period of global cooling. The most important indicator is the fact that the sun has become very quiet, not experienced for a hundred years.”

“We geologists can help to steer climate science away from the ideological hype and straight-jacket and return it to its proper functioning.”

Dr. Edward J. Wegman (PhD Mathematics, St Louis University)

Wegman is a faculty member of Dept of Computational and Data Sciences at George Mason University in Virginia. He developed a Master’s Program in

Statistical Science there and contributed to a Congressional Hearing on Climate Change:

“Through our discussion of both the National Research Council report and the Wegman report the original studies by Mann and his co-authors appeared to be flawed, and cannot support the related findings of the 2001 IPCC assessment. Dr. Wegman’s independent committee found and reported that Dr. Mann and his co- authors incorrectly applied a statistical methodology that would preferentially create hockey stick shapes.” Edward Whitfield — Chair of Congressional hearing.

Boris Winterhalter (PhD Climatology, Helsinki University)

Winterhalter is Senior Marine Researcher (retired) for the Geological Survey of Finland, former Professor of Marine Geology at the University of Helsinki, Finland He has reconstructed the sediments of the Holocene Era. These contain records of past climates.

“Why has the solar activity effect on climate to be in the “last 125 years”? This is in no way necessary, if we logically assume that the warming during the “last 125 years” is just a return to “normal” after the anomalous cold years of the Little Ice Age. Remember that the norm for Earth’s climate is even warmer than the present.”

Dr David Wojick (PhD Philosophy of Science, U of Pittsburgh)

Wojick is a former consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy.

“The widely reported global average surface temperatures, which are the basis for the global warming scare, are inaccurate, based on not on actual measurements but instead are the output of flawed complex statistical models.”

Dr. Raphael Wust (PhD Earth Sciences, U. of British Columbia)

Wust is a Lecturer in Marine Geology (Sedimentology) at James Cook University, in Australia.

“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human- produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.”

Dr. A. Zichichi (PhD Physics, University of Bologna)

President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland and Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy. Zichichi is also a member of the scientific staff at the C.E.R.N. nuclear laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland.

“[The IPCC] has led the public to believe . . . that Science has understood all about Climate. If that was true, climatologically, the destiny of our planet should be free of uncertainties and under the rigorous control of Science. But it’s not this way.”

Short glossary of acronyms appearing above:

    CERN — Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (Geneva)
    ETH — Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (Zurich)
    GISS — Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    IPCC — The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    NASA — National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    NCAR — National Center for Atmospheric Research
    NOAA — National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The website is posted as a public service by Climate Probe, an organization of concerned citizens.