Your side is worse

I’m 100% sure there’s asshats on both sides of the aisle, blaming the other side for doing less than they are is a normal form of bias. But as a society we should not tolerate that. So I’m not making excuses more…

Climate: Consensus and Skeptics

Science is skepticism. Consensus/popularity is politics. Appeals to consensus is called either the bandwagon fallacy or the appeal to authority fallacy. Anyone that uses these techniques is more likely a propagandists or politician than a scientist -- or worse, if they are repeating bad numbers, that makes them bad at doing their jobs. But let's pretend consensus matters and look at the topic. 

There are a few "surveys" styles: 

  • DSP: Direct scientific polls
    • The ones ask scientists whether they agree with the IPCC (man is responsible for most of the warming, and we should worry and do something about it), get around 50% consensus or less -- which means there's virtually no agreement (randomness is 50%).
      • 2016 AMS Survey on Climate Science w/George Mason = 67% think warming is mostly due to man, 33% think it’s natural
      • 2015 Strengers, Verheggen and Vringer Survey = 43% agreed with the IPCC claims
      • 2012 APEGGA = 36% agreed with the IPCC, 51% think there's little or no danger from anthropogenic climate change
      • 2008 APEGGA = 25.7% think it's manmade, 27.4% think it's completely natural, 45.2% think it's both
      • 2011 AMS = 59% man was major cause (loose agreement with IPCC), 39% agreed that it was a big deal (most did not)
      • 2009 AMS = 76% disagreed with IPCC
      • 2010 George Mason STATS  = 31% consensus, 56% think IPCC is untrustworthy 
      • 2007 George Mason STATS = 84% thought AGW “existed", 73% thought it's proven
      • 2009 Doran & Zimmerman  = 56% consensus on "contributed by man"
      • 2008 Sietz = 31,487 scientists that petitioned they disagreed with UN/IPCC, that means you'd need a petition w/1,049,566 who agreed, before you hit 97% consenus. Been waiting for that list for decades now. 
      • 2007 Harris = 52% thought human induced
      • 2003, 1996 Bray and Von Starch = bell curve distribution based on how strongly scientists agreed/disagreed with the IPCC. 
    • The ones that ask whether they agree the earth is warming, and CO2 (or man's CO2) might be contributing to that, get near unanimity.
      • The Heartland Institute Conference for Climate Skeptics, polled 600 attendee whether "the climate is changing", or "man might be contribution towards warming", and not one of the skeptics denied either of those statements. That we're warming isn't controversial (no one is denying that). But it started warming 100+ years before we had cars and put out any significant amounts of CO2, makes whether man is the cause (or that it'll be bad) is the debate points. 
    • Flim-flamming the numbers:
      • BAS: Bait-and-switch scientific polls of scientists, or changing the conclusion. They ask scientists one thing (like if they believe Carbon Dioxide is contributing to natural warming), then they conclude something else (like most scientists agreed that CO2 is the major driver of warming, or that most scientists agree we need to do something to stop CO2). These are often reported in the media. This is what you do if you don't have the math/facts are on your side.
      • Distortions: even when the studies themselves don't do this, the media and propagandists, often report it this way. Study concludes X, then the media or paper concludes Y: misleading those that don't know better, or don't look at the source. (Many of the studies/polls above conclude the opposite of what they're reported). 
      • FP : Filtered Polls: this is where they only ask a subset of scientists, that already belong to the AGW clique (and have published pro-climate alarmism papers), what they think. And you'll be shocked that this subset of scientists agree with what they've already been filtered to agree on. Or they do the opposite, they filter out critics (like Judith Curry) before sampling the rest. Either is known as cherry picking fallacy. 
  • Proxy surveys: since polls and surveys don't always give the consensus proponents what they wanted, they moved to proxy surveys.
    • Aggregate surveys, where they survey other surveys - in these cases, the output is only as good as the input, so when they knowingly include discredited or refuted data, you know that what you're getting out will also be discredited/refuted as well. 
      • 2017 Kenneth Richards Survey
      • 2016 Consensus on Consensus -- Synthesis Study - Cook, et al - Cook added all the bad studies together, including his own, to conclude what he'd already concluded, and had already been refuted by studied like Legates. 
      • 2012 Lefsrud & Meyer = 36% consensus in IPCC claims, 64% are more skeptical, 24% disagree completely
      • 2010 Lewandowsky = Oreskes, Anderegg and Doran combined - all the sources had been discredited, so this one is too. 
    • Filtered Proxy Surveys: which try to look at papers and what they implied, and extrapolate whether those papers agree or not (and then assume the Scientists behind them also agreed). Virtually all of those get these high 97-100% consensus numbers to prove the authors point of view. Those get reported in news as "consensus".
      • 2014 Popular - was an outlier. It did a search for papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism and found  1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers. That means the other side to find 45,000 papers to achieve 97% consensus. They've never been able to provide that list
      • 2013 Cook - showed 63 papers of 64 papers (out of 12K sampled) agreed = .28% consensus "most warming" was cause by man. Then legates showed a high error rate on a small sample size. 
      • 2010 Anderegg  - 97% didn't disagree with AGW, so the author concluded they must have agreed. So bad, no one pays attention to this one. 
      • 2004 Oreskes - 100%, totally discredited History Professor essay - Peiser, Pielke, Mockton, Shulte, Khandekar, all shredded this essay. 
    • Refutations: Then we have had counter-studies or rebuts that explain how they filtered out all opposition in how they filtered their samples, and the subset they sampled turns out to be a handful of cherry picked studies that fit the agenda of the study authors. Then when you ask the authors of those papers what they thought, it turns out many of those authors complaining/disagreeing with the conclusion of the study. The media reports then ignores the dispute/refutations. 
      • Legates 2013 - showed that 23 of those 64 papers/authors didn't agree with Cooks opinion on them. Cook had a 35% error rate, on a sample size of 64, leaving only 40 out of 11,980 papers that agreed with him. 
      • Peiser, Pielke, Mockton, Shulte, Khandekar - all shredded 2004 Oreskes

The point is there is no "97% consensus" that is often quoted, which even if correct, is still a fallacy. Those that are trying to say there is, are suspect -- instead of asking the Scientists what they think, they're posting meta-studies of only a few scientists (or their papers) and then guessing (often wrong) about what they think. When the scientists often disagree with their conclusions. There's more disagreement than consensus, and a healthy spectrum of views. Which is called "Science". Unless you cherry-pick the data, and only look at a few people or papers that disagree with you. That's called propaganda or politics. 

List of Studies and findings:

American Meteorological Society

2017 Kenneth Richards Survey

2016 Survey about climate change

2011 Study of a CICCC position (Committee to Improve Climate Change Communications)

7,062 voting members were sent a detailed survey, 1,862 responded (>26%). 52% (968) had Ph.D’s. (the rest Masters), 41% had published in peer-reviewed journals in the last 5 years (over half on Climate Change specifically), Liberal respondents significantly outnumbered conservative respondents (48% vs. 21%). To compare AMS to the NAS (National Academy of Sciences), the NAS position of “definitive indication of global warming consensus” was based on the opinion of 23 people, only 5 of which had Ph.D.’s, 5 were staffer for Environmental Activist Organizations. That one got press for it’s credibility. The AMS has 200x the Ph.D., and as many Masters Degreed Scientists (with far more publication credits). The press prefers to quote from the NAS position than AMS.

2009 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society survey

This survey found that:

2016 Consensus on Consensus -- Synthesis Study - Cook, et al

This tries to prove the discredited older studies (Cook, Oreskes, Doran, Anderegg), by ignoring the garbage-in = garbage out theorem, and combining enough of disproven studies together somehow results in a better conclusion. It basically takes a lot of their observations (which had methodological flaws),  and says that if you add them together, you get the same result. On top of that, if you weight the atoms based on consensus (how much an expert the people were considered, by other people that believed in the consensus), then the aggregate showed consensus.  Worst of all is evidence that they intentionally omitted evidence (between draft and release), then tried to have evidence of that omission removed from Internet archives (to hide what they were doing) -- proves they knowingly distorted the results. It's statistical nonsense to show popularity, and not validity -- and will be ignored by anyone with a clue, but it'll get repeated by the media or the participants as proof of something.

2015 Strengers, Verheggen and Vringer Survey

Unlike the clumsy versions by John Cook, William Anderegg, or Naomi Oreskes that do keyword surveys and guess. This was a direct survey of 1,800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation). Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period.

  • Only 43% (797) of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty

It asked specifically how many agreed with the IPCC AR5 Statement that;

> “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”

2014 Popular

1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism 

The point is that any study of papers that doesn't include these in the against-count, is cherry picking data (or not very good at data collection). Also, if they claim 97% consensus by paper count, just ask for their list of 45,000 papers, which would be required to make 1,350 only 3% of the total published.

## List of Papers

2013 Cook paper

"Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”, published in a peer reviewed journal, "Environmental Research Letters”.

This is the most commonly quoted source of the 97% myth today, because that’s the most “reputable” citation they have, before Cook, there was even shoddier “science” to get the 97%. Which is pretty embarassing, since Cook 2013 isn’t really science at all.

> John Cook is a climate activist who claims to be a "post-doctoral student", but lacks a degree in Climate Science (he has a B.S. in Cognitive Psychology). He is behind the oft-criticized and fraudulently named Skeptical Science blog, which is dedicated to the opposite of skepticism and driving home the consensus, and obfuscating any factual problems or questions the Church of Climatology, to the point where has a known history of deleting posts of real Climate Scientists who refuted many of his claims. It’s a propaganda site, not a science site, but he tries to throw enough science in (in fragments), while dodging the key arguments, to flim-flam the gullible.  While creating this study, he was caught in forums talking about how he was going to “porno” the numbers (his words) to make the study sensational for the Press. And his“study” did that. So we know where his biases are.

Methodology: Cook decided to “prove" the consensus by self selecting 11,944 abstracts of papers, from Journals that were filtering for pro-AGW bias to begin with (from Climate Journals known in the Climate Gate controversy), then he filtered that subset down to 4,014 papers which used terms like “Global Warming” (using sensational terms), which he further filtered to 64 papers (.3%) that explicitly concluded that “most of the warming (>50%) was caused by man”. Of those 64, 63 agreed with his view, and hence the 97% number. 23 of the paper’s authors came forward later and disagreed with Cook’s conclusions (saying he misrepresented their work), so he actually only had 41 papers that fit his criteria, while 10x as many (3% of all papers) claimed there was no human factor in the warming, but they had been filtered out.


  • >10x as many directly disagree with warming consensus as agree with it
  • 99.7% of Climate Papers sampled had no position or a negative positions on AGW theory, and definitely did not achieve the IPCC standards of “most” or “>90%"
  • Only .3% of Climate Papers agree with the IPCC that “most of the warming” was caused by man
  • But by the Press/Cook’s reasoning, “97% of the 64 papers we cherry picked to agree with us, agree with us”, if you ignore 35% of those authors disagree with his assessment, and the other 11,880 papers we filtered out

Legates did a peer reviewed rebuttal paper of Cook

"Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation"  a rejoiner to Agnotoloy, Scientific Consensus and the Learning of Climate Change” by David. R. Legates, and many others. Published in Springer Scientific.

This explained all these falsehoods, and is generally accepted as disproving Cook’s paper. But the media and climate advocates quote freely from Cook, and ignore Legates rebuttal. Hence the "97%” myth.

2012 Lefsrud & Meyer

Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change, published in peer reviews journal, “Organization Studies".

This uses a few other studies (including APEGGA), to do a compound aggregate study of studies:

  • 36% have a "strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause." (agree with IPCC)
  • 64% fall into one of the 4 categories that are skeptical of alarmist global warming claims
  • 24 percent fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model
  • Explicit endorsement of anthropogenic climate change (in Science Journals) had fallen from 75% between 1993-2003 to 45% from 2004-2008.

Asso­ci­a­tion of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geo­phys­icists of Alberta (APEGGA / APEGA)

2012 in a followup to APEGA 2009 survey found that:

  • only 36% agreed with the IPCC’s claims on climate change
  • 51% think there's little or no danger from anthropogenic climate change
  • There’s more consensus against the IPCC and against any big concern, than there is for it’s statements

2008 APEGGA found that:

  • 27.4% believe it [climate change] is caused by primarily natural factors
  • 25.7% believe it is caused by primarily human factors
  • 45.2% believe that climate change is caused by both human and natural factors
  • Again, with the bell curve distribution of views when you look at scientists not paid by politicians to find a manmade problem.

George Mason University studies

2010 George Mason University - STATS

After their 2007 Survey, they decided to do a follow up of with their meteorologists and found:

  • "63% believe global warming is caused mostly by natural causes, and only 31% believe humans are primarily responsible”
  • "56% find IPCC untrustworthy”
  • Only 24% "see any evidence of climate change in their local weather patterns"
  • "61% say there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening”.
  • All of which completely refutes the whole scientific consensus.


2007 George Mason University - STATS

This found that:

  • 84% of Climatologists thought AGW “existed"
  • Only 73% thought there was proof of that point
  • And as we’ve discussed, “existed" is a far lower bar than, “man’s CO2 is causing 90% of the warming".

2010 Lewandowsky 

This just re-used the other studies datasets (Oreskes, Anderegg and Doran), then tried to use an aggregate study to re-prove the same things. But in computers and statistics we say GIGO (Garbage-in, Garbage-out): you’re only as good as your source data. Since all the other sources data had been discredited (and they did the root research), so was this study. In fact, since many of the papers would be overlapped in the studies, it was multiple counting and thus less credible than any of the individual studies. Thus everyone pretty much ignored this regurgitation.

2010 Anderegg

This was similar to Doran. But it’s less quoted as it was even less valid. It was a “study" of 1,372 researchers (defined as top publishers to place that were later demonstrated to be excluding dissenters in Climate-Gate). Then filtered down to 908 people by qualifying only people that authored 20 climate publications or more. Then they concluded that 97% didn’t disagree that man was "a major contributor" to the warming in the 20th century. Not disagreeing isn’t necessarily agreeing (since it includes no opinion or people that skip the question), and this is well below IPCC AR4 "very likely" (90% certainty), "most warming" (70-90%) claims. And it was such a filtered subset as to be statistically useless.

Many parts of the “study” were pilloried as too subjective to be useful. So it isn’t often used. People went from citing Doran to citing Cook, so this is a non-player.

2009 Doran & Zimmerman

This is the next most popular poll. (Not really a study, but still a valid opinion sampling). This was the most common source for 97% myth, up until the Cook paper, and it was pretty misleading claim.

Prof. Doran's had his graduate student (Margaret R. K. Zimmerman), poll 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions, asking two questions, and they got 3,146 that responded. Her paper on it, "The consensus on the consensus”, is less often cited, since Doran invented the more sensational conclusions, and has the bigger pedigree.

Methodology: Doran then threw out 3,069 of the responses because they were in adjoining sciences (and weren’t published in a Climatology Journal), and focused on the remaining 77. And shockingly, 75 of the 77 that they decided to count, agreed with both questions. And that’s where Doran got the public claim that 97% of scientists agreed that global warming was man made (by ignoring 10,182 responses).

More than that, if you look at the 3,069 people disqualified, we find that 50% of Geologists, 38% of Meteorologists and 20% of all Climatologists don’t believe man was a significant contributing factor to Global Warming. (Remember Doran threw everyone out but Climatologists that published in a few pro-AGW Climatology Journals, if they were published elsewhere, they didn’t count). Geologists and Meteorologists also study climate (in fact, Climatologists get most of their data FROM the geologists and meteorologists who do the ice core, sediment and temperature observations), but since Geologists/Meteorologists grants don't come from providing politicians with political fodder, only 50-62% of them think global warming is "significantly contributed" by man, or this warming is unusual. So ironically, the Doran study is used by both sides, depending on if you look at the entire data-set, or the doctored subset that shows what the Climate-scarists want.

The two qualifying question in the poll were:

  1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
  2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Of course saying that man might be a "significant contributing factor" to warming is not close to the  IPCC AR4 "very likely" (90% certainty), "most warming" (70-90%) claims, let along the IPCC AR5 stronger claims. Almost everyone agreed that man’s 14-21B tons of CO2 to the 22,056,773B tons in the system (773B cycling yearly) is probably contributing a little to that warming, but that’s well below most or >90%. And it’s certainly not agreeing with any policy decisions about how we should respond. With 44% of the total agreeing man is even a significant contributor, that  hints strongly that with the U.S. only being responsible for 12% of all CO2 contributions by man, that Kyoto or other radical responses would not be the right solutions.


  • ≈56% of all scientists we sampled (assuming even distribution of Geologists/Meteorologists) agree with a soft statement like “was Global Warming contributed by man”. With Geologists and Meteorologists much more skeptical than folks who get their paycheck from Climate-Scarist funding
  • But by the Press/Doran reasoning, “97% of the (75 of the 77 people we cherry picked to agree with us), agreed with us”, if you ignore the 3,069 that responded that we ignored.

2008 Sietz, Robinson, and Soon - Global Warming Petition Project 

Physicist Frederick Seitz was President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University (winner of National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world). This was a project started in 1997, and ran until 2008, allowing prominent Scientists to sign that they disagreed with Kyoto/UN on CO2 and Global Warming Alarmism. 


2007 Harris polled 500 leading American Meteorological and Geophysical scientists

The results were:

2004 Oreskes 

Naomi Oreskes (2004) -  "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”

This wasn’t a paper, but an essay (not scientific paper) by a History Professor that claimed based on a search of other papers with the term “global warming” found 928 papers, and claimed 75% agreed with her view on global warming and 25% had no opinion, and since none of them disagree with global warming there must be 100% consensus. When asked, she never provided her data. A few papers and media started quoting her around this time. But they moved to Doran and 97%, because as shoddy as Doran was, this embarrassed even credible propagandists to cite from. (Sites like Skeptical Science used to cite it freely).

Benny Peiser, Roger Pielke, Jr. (2005)

Both challenged Oreskes on the stupidity of his claims, and showed that only 13 papers in her set actually agreed with IPCC declaration (which was a far cry from consensus). So Oreskes refuted that by changing the topic and claiming they should have a philosophical debate on what inaction could mean instead, and refusing to address the points made. (Point, set, match went to Pielke).

  • Peiser went on to show that her search term as written would have shown 12,000 papers (or 1,117 filtered), so Oreskes corrected the terms she used in her paper to get down to 928.
  • Peiser showed that "more than twice as many appeared to have explicitly rejected or doubted the ‘consensus’ as had explicitly endorsed it”. Examples of ones she had counted supporting “most of the warming” included:
    • (a) AMMANN et al. (2003) detected evidence for close ties between solar variations and surface climate
    • (b) REID (1997) found that “the importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies”
    • (c) KONDRATYEV and Varotsos (1996) criticize “the undoubtedly overemphasized contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change”. And so on, their points directly contradicting IPCC’s AGW theory.
  • Science refused to allow the corrections, papers, polls or other things that refuted Orsekes paper, to be published; which destroyed Science’s credibility as an objective Science Journal. (Quality refutations are always allowed in real science journals).
  • Later Peiser pulled back on his dissent a little (when he was corrected): he still claimed Oreskes was wrong, and he could only find 13 of the 928 she claimed actually supported climate change, but not all of his 34 corrections were in pure dissent either (though at least 4 clearly were, and that definitively showed Oreskes as wrong, just the degree of wrong was being debated).

Mockton (2007)

Lord Mockton separately rebutted Oreskes by offering many examples where Oreskes claims of supporting AGW were not good ones.

Peter Norvig also did a review of this, and made excuses for why the clearly non-consesus papers might not have been counted. But since Oreskes never presented her data (just the conclusion), it’s impossible to know: it was never a scientific paper to begin with.

Shulte also did a copy study of Oreskes and found claims not credible.

Madhav L. Khandekar

Maghav also found at least 60 studies that contradicted consensus doing the same search.

Bray and Von Starch in 2003 and 1996

This actually mapped a nice curve of how many disagreed or agreed with Global Warming consensus (on a 1-7 scale) and got a nice bell curve distribution, weighted in the middle, based on severity of agreement: which refuted a strong consensus (people were all over the board), but it was becoming too political, so they stopped doing their poll

List of Scientists that are skeptics

Remember, I’m not saying that that because they’re scientists they’re automatically right. I’m saying those that are assuming THEIR scientists are right because, “Science” are ignoring the many more people, who know far than them, that are vocally against their view, and they’re ignoring. That’s cherry picking data to support your biases.

  • Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
  • Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University
  • Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
  • David Bellamy, botanist.
  • Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
  • Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)
  • Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University
  • Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science
  • Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
  • Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
  • Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
  • Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
  • Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry
  • Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
  • Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg
  • Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
  • Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
  • Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
  • David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
  • Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
  • William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
  • William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
  • Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
  • Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
  • William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
  • David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
  • Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
  • Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
  • Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
  • Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.
  • Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
  • Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University
  • Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
  • Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo
  • Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science 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
  • Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
  • Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
  • George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
  • Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa
  • Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
  • These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.
  • Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
  • Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
  • Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
  • Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.
  • John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.
  • Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
  • David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
  • Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
  • Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
  • Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.
  • Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
  • These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
  • Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
  • Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
  • Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia
  • August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming
  • Reid Bryson (1920–2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a 2007 magazine interview that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes:
  • Robert Jastrow (1925–2008) was an American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist. Together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg he established the George C. Marshall Institute
  • Marcel Leroux (1938–2008) former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
  • Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.
  • 31,487 American Scientists (9,029 Ph.D's), signed up as skeptics at
  • A hit list of the enemies of the Church of Climatology is here:
  • Wikipedia List:
  • NASA -


Frauds / Misrepresentations

Famous Supporters:

  •  - Ted Kaczynski

Nate Silver

Nate Silver, hero of the left, is trying to prove P.T. Barnum (or Abe Lincoln) quote correct, "You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, or more…

Movie: Arrival (2016)

A good but slow “first contact” sci-fi thriller, written about a cunning linguist who slowly discovers how to communicate with aliens. 

It’s traditional harder core sci fi, in that it’s very cerebral, more…

Show: Embrace the shake

Earlier this year, I saw Phil Hansen speak in person (at Adobe MAX). His speech hit me profoundly. It’s a fantastic speech/story about how limitations can expand us. If you have 10 minutes to watch this, more…