Klimakonsensus i fritt fall - oversikt for sentrale kritiske forskere

[Telehiv]

Et sentralt poeng som IPCC m/sine nasjonale klakkører bruker mot kritiske røster mot AGW/CO2-hypotesen er at dette er bare FAGLIG ISOLERTE UBETYDELIGHETER - som er i brudd med den etablerte vitenskap.

Javel?

Jeg har tidligere lagt inn en artikkel om "Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007", med en lang liste med sentrale forskningsbidrag som IPCC ikke har tatt seriøst hensyn til i sine rapporter.

For oversiktens skyld kan det også være nyttig å se på en rekke tunge forskere som er sentrale i den økende motstanden mot å bli påtvunget IPCCs AGW/CO2-hypotese. Vanskelig å finne kritiske røster blant de tunge forskerne? Neida, der er faktisk så mange kritiske forskere å velge i at det holder lenge med bare bruk av vanlige kilder på nettet.

Tunge forskeres motstand mot IPCCs hamring på AGW/CO2-hypotesen har fra starten hatt mange uttrykk; noen (ikke minst de som regelrett ble dyttet ut av det gode selskap og ikke ble hørt da IPCC begynte å skrive inn sin beryktede «klimakonsensus») har vært svært opphetede og fortørnede, mens andre tålmodig forsøker å vinne fram med debatter på IPCCs egen banehalvdel ved å prøve å unngå å bli utdefinert pga. for tydelig opposisjon allerede på startstreken (et typisk eksempel: Spencer i NASA, som åpenbart må balansere/moderere sine synspunkter hele tiden for å kunne fortsette å sitte i sin stilling der).
   
Jeg har personlig ofte følt mest sympati for de mer stormende kritikere, som de siste tiårene har ofret både karriere og helse for å prøve å stoppe den mest utagerende klimaalarmismen. Dette fordi jeg er av den personlige overbevisning – basert på en økende strøm av nye vitenskapelige funn - at hele CO2-hypotesen er en fullstendig feilkopling av fysiske misforståelser og ikke er relevant som varig temperaturdrivende faktor i det hele tatt, jfr. nylig diskuterte arbeider her på klimaforskning.com som indikerer at CO2 også kan ha kjølende effekt i visse strata (van Andel o.a.).

Dette var en hovedkonklusjon i den forskningen jeg listet opp i artikkelen "Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007". Men den videre kritiske, uavhengige forskning fram til idag sier fremdeles at:
Man har ikke vitenskapelig grunnlag for å summere total klimaeffekt av drivhusgasser versus naturlige sykluser knyttet til sol- og havstrømmer, osv. i det hele tatt.

Derfor er det ikke med mitt letteste sinn at jeg her vil legge ut en oversikt med sentrale "holdningssitater" for de mest "saklige" forskerne, fordi det er åpenbart at enkelte av disse i gitte tilfeller må spise temmelig store fluer og tilkjenner IPCCs AGW/CO2-hypotesen mer verdi enn de innerst inne egentlig har lyst til – men de føler de må for i det hele tatt å få være med i debatten og/eller fortsette å publisere i de mest kjente tidssskriftene.

Men OK, la oss i den saklige tjenestes navn kjøre også disse fram (fordi de ellers er så viktige i grunnforskningen) sammen med dem som tar hardere i når de uttaler seg. For oversikts skyld kan vi organisere dem i definerte, formålstjenlige kategorier:

1. Forskere som hevder manglende presisjon i IPCCs  klimaprojeksjoner
2. Forskere som hevder at global oppvarming primært skyldes naturlige prosesser
3. Forskere som hevder at årsaken til global oppvarming er ukjent
4. Forskere som hevder at global oppvarming vil ha få negative konsekvenser


1. Forskere som har påvist manglende presisjon i IPCCs  klimaprojeksjoner

En rekke forskere har publisert materiale som viser at det ikke er mulig å foreta tilstrekkelig presise projiseringer av globalt klima for dette hundreåret til å forsvare påstandene om temperatur- og havstigning, jeg nevner i fleng:

Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus ved School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society skrev f.eks. i 2011 i en email-utveksling med en journalist:
"First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly.
Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer.
Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past.
Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs.
Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects.
Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science ved Massachusetts Institute of Technology og medlem National Academy of Sciences har uttalt seg om det samme i en rekke avisartikler, siterer i fleng:
"We are quite confident
(1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago;
(2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and
(3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).
But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."
"There has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."

Nils-Axel Mörner, pensjonert sjef for Paleogeofysikk og Geodynamikk ved Stockholm University og tidligere styreleder for INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003) sa i et vitneprov gitt i 2005 til en såkalt "select committee":
"In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future".

Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU og pensjonert Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research og pensjonert Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre sa i sin 2009-bok:
"There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question".

Philip Stott, professor emeritus i biogeography ved University of London sa i 2007:
"It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 – 6.4 C warming. What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans."


Hendrik Tennekes, pensjonert direktør ved Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute sa i et essay i 2009:
"The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic".

Vel, her ble det vel litt futt i argumentasjonen, likevel? 


2. Forskere som hevder at global oppvarming primært skyldes naturlige prosesser

Meehl et al. (2004) representerer typisk IPCCs konsensussyn, der man bl.a. hevder at i perioden 1979–2009 så har ikke temperaturen korrelert med solflekktrendene. I perioden 1860–1980 mener man derimot at det var "apparent similarity between trends in terrestrial sea surface temperatures and sunspots" (da relatert til to solar magnetisk aktivitet: TSI varierer litt mens UV og indirekte kosmisk stråling varierer noe mer).
Både konsensus og ikke-konsensus syn aksepterer "multiple climate change influences including solar variability and internal forcings, plus human influences such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use change."

Uenigheten er som kjent særlig kritisk mht. sensistivitetsgraden for drivhusgasser.

Her er noen tunge forskere som sier at den observerte oppvarming mest sannsynlig skyldes naturlige årsaker og ikke er menneskeskapt:

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, matematiker og astronom ved Pulkovo Observatoriet ved det russiske vitenskapsakademiet sa i 2007 i et intervju:
"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity."

Sallie Baliunas, astronom, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics sa i en forelesning i 2002 for The Heritage Foundation:
"Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities—over 80 percent—occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."
"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."
"The recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."

Ian Clark, hydrogeolog, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa sa i 2004 I et avisintervju:
"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland sa i 2006 i en avisartikkel:
"There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester sa i 2007 paper i the International Journal of Climatology:
"The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University sa i 2006 i en presentasjon i Geological Society of America:
"Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5 °C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus og head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University said in a 2006 newspaper interview:
"I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."

William Happer, fysiker med spaialisering i optikk og spektroskopi ved Princeton University sa i et avisintervju i 2006:
"All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"

William Kininmonth, meteorolog og tidligere "Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology" skrev i 2004 i en artikkel og i en bok:
"There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."

David Legates, associate professor of geography og director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware skrev i 2006 i en artikkel for National Center for Policy Analysis:
"About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."

Tad Murty; oseanograf og adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa sa i 2005:
"Global warming is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn't changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"

Tim Patterson, paleoklimatolog og Professor of Geology ved Carleton University i Canada sa i 2007 I en avisartikkel:
"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide sa i en TV-debatt i 2002:
"Natural climate changes occur unrelated to carbon dioxide contents. We've had many, many times in the recent past where we've rapidly gone into a greenhouse and the carbon dioxide content has been far, far lower than the current carbon dioxide content... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".

Nicola Scafetta, forsker ved Duke University sa i 2010 i en artikkel skrevet for det italienske magasinet La Chimica e l'Industria (Chemistry and Industry):
"At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."

Tom Segalstad, leder ved geologisk museum ved UiO ble mer kjent ute i den kritiske verden da han sa i en presentasjon i 2007 til det 9th International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic, vedlagt en rekke referanser:
"The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error, because the Medieval warm period (the "Climate Optimum") and the Little Ice Age both are absent from their curve, on which the IPCC bases its future projections and recommended mitigation. All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate (Willson, R.C & Hudson, H.S. 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42–44; and Coffey, H.E., Erwin, E.H. & Hanchett, C.D.: Solar databases for global change models. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html). Warmer climate was previously perceived as an optimum climate and not catastrophic. ... On a wet basis the Earth's atmosphere consists by mass of ~73.5% nitrogen, ~22.5% oxygen, ~2.7% water, and ~1.25% argon. CO2 in air is in minimal amount, ~0.05% by mass, and with minimal capacity (~2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor".

Nir Shaviv, astrofysiker ved Hebrew University of Jerusalem sa i et essay i 2006:
"The truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia sa i 2005 i en takketale for en forskerpris han ble tildelt:
"The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."
I et TV-program i 2006 sa han dette:
"It's not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists."

Willie Soon, astrofysiker, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics skrev i 2003 i  Energy & Environment:
"There's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville sa i sitt vitnemål i 2008 til en US Senate committee:
"I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind's role is relatively minor".

Velkjente Henrik Svensmark, det Danske Nasjonale  Romsenter sa i et paper i 2007 for Astronomy & Geophysics:
"The case for anthropogenic climate change during the 20th century rests primarily on the fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increased and so did global temperatures. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001) have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule."

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus ved University of Ottawa, paper i  Geoscience Candada i 2005:
"At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. The two scenarios are likely not even mutually exclusive, but a prioritization may result in different relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."


3. Forskere som hevder at årsaken til global oppvarming er ukjent

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, pensjonert professor of geophysics og Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks sa i 2007 i en blog post:
"The method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."

Claude Allègre, geokjemiker (Paris) sa i en avisartikkel i 2006:
"The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content.

Robert C. Balling, Jr., professor of geography ved Arizona State University sa i et essay i 2003 til George C. Marshall Institute:
"It is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science og director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, bidragsyter til flere IPCC-rapporter sa i 2009 i et paper i Energy and Environment skrevet sammen med David Douglass:
"...the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. ... The global warming hypothesis states that there are positive feedback processes leading to gains g that are larger than 1, perhaps as large as 3 or 4. However, recent studies suggest that the values of g is much smaller."
I 2009 skrev han dette i en "opinion piece":
"...I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."

Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory, sa i en artikkel i 2002:
"Carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"

David Deming, geologiprofessor ved University of Oklahoma sa i sitt vitnemål i 2006 til en US Senate committee:
"The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor i kjernefysikk ved Universitet i Bologna og president for the World Federation of Scientists, sa i 2007 under det såkalte Vatican Seminar on Climate Change:
"it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes".


4. Forskere som hevder at global oppvarming vil ha få negative konsekvenser

Ivar Giæver, Nobelpris-vinner i fysikk og professor emeritus ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, forklarte i 2011 hvorfor han ikke ville fornye sitt medlemsskap i American Physical Society:
"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University og grunnlegger av The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, sa i 2007 i et paper som respons på Al Gores senatvitnemål:
"The rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."

Sherwood Idso, tidligere research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, og adjunct professor, Arizona State University, sa i en rapport i 2003 (co-authored med Craig og Keith Idso) for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change :
"Warming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... We have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."

Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow ved the Cato Institute og pensjonert research professor of environmental science ved University of Virginia, sa i en artikkel i for Washington Times:
"Scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter."

NÅR MAN SER HVILKE TUNGVEKTERE SOM HAR SAGT DISSE TINGENE, SÅ SER MAN AT DE KRITISKE RØSTER MOT IPCC SOM LØFTER SEG OGSÅ HER PÅ BERGET NEPPE SÅ VELDIG ENKELT KAN KALLES FAGLIG ISOLERTE UBETYDELIGHETER, SLIK SOM IPCC-KLAKKØRENE I BL.A. CICERO OG BJERKNESINSTITUTTET PRØVER Å FRAMSTILLE DET SOM. 

Referanser
1.   ^ Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". PNAS. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html. Retrieved August 22, 2011.
2.   ^ Doran consensus article 2009
3.   ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis p.5 – IPCC
4.   ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis p.7 – IPCC
5.   ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis p.8 – IPCC
6.   ^ Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability p.958 – IPCC
7.   ^ "Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF). http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf. Retrieved 9 August 2010.
8.   ^ Freeman Dyson, in correspondence with editor Steve Connor (February 25, 2011), "Letters to a heretic: An email conversation with climate change sceptic Professor Freeman Dyson", The Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html
9.   ^ The Press Gets It Wrong Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty.[dead link] Lindzen, Richard Opinion Journal (The Wall Street Journal) June 2001
10.   ^ There is no consensus on Global Warming[dead link] appeared in The San Francisco Examiner July 2006 and in The Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14
11.   ^ The Climate Science Isn't Settled in The Wall Street Journal online, November 30, 2009.
12.   ^ Nils-Axel Mörner (Mar 30, 2005), Economics of Climate Change: 12-ii Session 2005–06 Evidence to Select Committee on Economic Affairs, II, The Stationery Office, p. 269, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=exvuVXd14M0C
13.   ^ Paltridge, Garth (2009). the Climate Caper. Connor Court Publishing. ISBN 978-1-921421-25-9. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=FXNzPgAACAAJ&dq=climate+caper&ei=DCDQSuylA5-qkASewLz1DQ.
14.   ^ Global Warming Is Not A Crisis
15.   ^ A Skeptical View of Climate ModelsTennekes, Hendrik from Science & Environmental Policy Project www.his.com/~sepp
16.   ^ a b Dr. Roy W., Spencer (2010). The Great Global Warming Blunder. Encounter Books. ISBN 1594033730.
17.   ^ Roy Spencer. Global Warming 101
18.   ^ Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming Russian News & Information Agency, January 2007
19.   ^ a b Sallie Baliunas. Warming Up to the Truth
20.   ^ Global Warming Science vs. Computer Model Speculation: Just Ask the Experts Capitalism Magazine, August 2002
21.   ^ Ian Clark (March 22, 2004). "Letter to the editor of The Hill Times". National Resources Stewardship Project. Archived from the original on February 10, 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20090210070155/http://www.nrsp.com/clark_letter_22-03-04.html. Retrieved August 26, 2011.
22.   ^ Chris de Freitas (May 9, 2006). "Chris de Freitas: Evidence must prevail". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on May 23, 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20060523043056/http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2006510223000.CSC_News_3.PDF. Retrieved August 26, 2011.
23.   ^ Phillip V Brennan (December 10, 2007). "New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story". Newsmax.com. Archived from the original on May 11, 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080511202654/http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html. Retrieved August 26, 2011.
24.   ^ The Cause of Global Warming and Predictions for the Coming Century Easterbrook, Don
25.   ^ The Tempest Achenbach, Joel The Washington Post May 2006
26.   ^ Raymond Brusca (January 12, 2009). "Professor denies global warming theory". http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/.
27.   ^ William Kininmonth, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard, archived from the original on August 28, 2007, http://web.archive.org/web/20070828232605/http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/climatechange.pdf, retrieved August 26, 2011
28.   ^ Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts National Center for Policy Analysis May 2006
29.   ^ Global warning? Controversy heats up in the scientific community[dead link] Robinson, Cindy Carleton University Spring 2005
30.   ^ Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe Harris, Tom Canada Free Press June 2006
31.   ^ Read the Sunspots Patterson, Timothy Financial Post June 2007
32.   ^ Wild weather ignites climate change debate
33.   ^ Scafetta webpage
34.   ^ "Climate Change and Its Causes, A Discussion About Some Key Issues"
35.   ^ Segalstad, Tom. "What is CO2 – friend or foe?". http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_ISMA_CO2.pdf. Retrieved July 4, 2009.
36.   ^ Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? ScienceBits
37.   ^ Singer, S. Fred (April 22, 2005). "'Flat Earth Award' nominee's challenge to Chicken Littles". Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0422/p08s01-coop.html.
38.   ^ The Denial Machine CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 – Google Video Link
39.   ^ William J Cromie (April 24, 2003). "Global warming is not so hot: 1003 was worse, researchers find". Harvard University Gazette. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-weather.html. Retrieved August 26, 2011.
40.   ^ [1] Testimony of Roy W. Spencer before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on July 22, 2008
41.   ^ Svensmark, Henrik (2007). "Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges" (PDF). Astronomy & Geophysics 48 (1): 18–24. http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf. Retrieved December 19, 2011.
42.   ^ Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle J. Veizer, Geoscience Canada, March 2005
43.   ^ On the Fundamental Defect in the IPCC's Approach to Global Warming Research Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog, June 15, 2007
44.   ^ "Climat: la prévention, oui, la peur, non" (in French). L'Express. May 10, 2006. Archived from the original on November 17, 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20061117230538/http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=452950. Retrieved August 26, 2011.
45.   ^ The Increase in Global Temperature: What it Does and Does Not Tell Us Balling, Robert George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook September 2003
46.   ^ Christy, John R.; Douglass, David H. (2009). "Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth" (PDF). Energy & Environment 20: 177–189. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/E&E%20douglass_christy-color.pdf. Retrieved June 17, 2011.
47.   ^ Christy, John (November 1, 2007). "My Nobel Moment". Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries. Retrieved November 2, 2007.
48.   ^ Petr Chylek (April 2002). "A Long Term Perspective on Climate Change". Heartland.org. Archived from the original on September 29, 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070929090808/http://downloads.heartland.org/2329bo.pdf. Retrieved August 26, 2011.
49.   ^ Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works December 2006
50.   ^ Global Warming Natural, Says Expert Zenit April 2007
51.   ^ "Nobel Prize-Winning Physist Resigns Over Global Warming". Fox News. September 14, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/. Retrieved September 15, 2011.
52.   ^ "Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever Quits Physics Group over Stand on Global Warming". International Business Times. September 15, 2011. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214181/20110915/ivar-giaever-global-warming-climate-change-al-gore-ipcc-hoax-dissent-nobel-prize-winner-physicist-re.htm. Retrieved September 24, 2011.
53.   ^ A Science—Based Rebuttal to the Testimony of Al Gore before the United States Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
54.   ^ Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World. CO2 Science. November 2003, p. 30
55.   ^ Michaels, Patrick (October 16, 2003). "Posturing and Reality on Warming". CATO Institute. http://www.cato.org/research/articles/michaels-031016.html. Retrieved June 10, 2009.
56.   ^ AUER EXPLAINS WHY HE BACKS CLIMATE SCIENCE COALITION New Zealand Press Association April 30, 2006.
57.   ^ Wisconsin's Energy Cooperative May 2007
58.   ^ M. Leroux, Global Warming – Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120
59.   ^ Do people cause global warming? Heartland Institute Environment News December 2001
60.   ^ WG1. "Chap 10, Executive Summary". IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es-1-mean-temperature.html.

Annen litteratur
•   Maxwell Boykoff (2009), "Contemporary Media Courtesans: Climate Contrarians", Climate change science and policy, Island Press, p. 401, ISBN 9781597265676
•   Historical Perspectives on Climate Change, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 9780195189735
•   Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway (2010), "The Denial of Global Warming", Merchants of Doubt, Bloomsbury Publishing USA, pp. 169–215, ISBN 9781596916104
•   Laurence Solomon (2010), The deniers, Richard Vigilante Books, ISBN 9780980076370
•   "The Scientist Deniers", The Inquisition of Climate Science, Columbia University Press, 2011, ISBN 9780231157186
•   "Contrarian Scientists", The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 151, ISBN 9780199566600

[Jostemikk]

Takker, Tele!

Enten går verden under i det totale moralske forfall, eller så nevnes disse personene du linker til her med ære og respekt i tiårene som kommer.

[Telehiv]

Takk for det, Joste.
Og takk til deg for den flotte isoversikten du la inn i kveld! 

[Jostemikk]

Ja hadde jeg bare gjort såpass i dag, Tele. Æres den som æres bør, det var Josik!

Har brukt kvelden på å sende e-poster til Heartland Institute.

[Telehiv]

Javisst var det Josik! Kjempebra!
Syns det generelt er mange med gode bidrag på ulike områder nå.
Bra at noen (inkludert du og flere andre ser jeg) engasjerer seg i Heartland, jeg har ikke rukket det ennå, og håper den store avklaringen kommer før jeg trenger å gjøre det 

[Josik]

Jo takk, Telehiv. Du er jo et unikum og skriver utrolig mye interessant.

Forumet holder en høy standard og jeg vil gjerne benytte anledningen nok en gang til å fremme min hyllest, først fremført her:

http://klimaforskning.com/forum/index.php/topic,452.msg6379.html#msg6379

[seoto]

Igjen takk for en viktig artikkel, Tele

Hyggelig å se deg skrive litt igjen, Josik! Har savnet deg i det siste  men har jo sett deg aktiv på VGD.
Det var veldig snilt av deg å bruke de første timene av det nye året til å skrive en en så flott ode til vårt forum 

[Telehiv]

Takk for hyggelige ord fra dere alle!

Min listing av først en rekke blytunge artikler og nå en rekke blytunge "konsensus-opposisjonelle" er ment å demonstrere at The Teams  selvpåberopte "etablerte klimavitenskap" ("the settled science")  har et omfattende seriøsitetsproblem:

Det synes stadig tydeligere at de svakeste forskerne (de med svakest dømmekraft, svakest etikk, svakeste statistikkunnskaper, de mest uforstandige  modelleringsprinsipper, osv.) befinner seg i IPCC-kretsen og ikke blant de opposisjonelle!

PS: Jeg redigerte derfor nå litt på introduksjonen til denne siste artikkelen, for å få fram akkurat dette poenget tydeligere; hvor uakseptable de arrogante latterliggjøringene er fra IPCC-makten om at all kritikk mot IPCC og AGW/CO2 foretas av amatører og/eller faglig isolerte tullinger.

Her hjemme kjenner vi dette mest typisk igjen i Cicero- og Bjerknes-miljøene og de mest ihuga frittgående klakkørene rundt disse, som sikler på nye bein i de milde offentlige gaveutpøsingene.

[seoto]

Sånn, da har vi Klimakonsensus i villrede og Klimakonsensus i fritt fall på plass! 
Aner jeg en serie? (Det skulle vært en egen avatar for håp!)

[Jostemikk]

Sånn, da har vi Klimakonsensus i villrede og Klimakonsensus i fritt fall på plass! 
Aner jeg en serie? (Det skulle vært en egen avatar for håp!)

[seoto]

Takk - den skal jeg ta vare på 

[ebye]

Sånn, da har vi Klimakonsensus i villrede og Klimakonsensus i fritt fall på plass! 
Aner jeg en serie? (Det skulle vært en egen avatar for håp!)

Flott ekspedert, seoto.  Og selvfølgelig, takk til Telehiv, som står for bakearbeidet.  Jeg er imponert over hvordan Telehiv serverer kakene ferdig til fordøyelse på sølvfat. Det er ikke alle forunt. Noen må begrense seg til å tenke på nye oppskrifter, mulig litt i tråd med spørsmålet ditt seoto:

Aner jeg en serie

Jeg har fundert en del på hvorfor de vitenskapsfolkene som trekker seg fra "skrive-/leseoppgaver" hos IPCC, ikke tillegges større vekt i oponionen?  Frafalne "authors" og "reviewers" burde mane til spørsmål, gransking og analyse, og en veritabel klimaalarm. Flere spørsmål burde vært reist:

Hvorfor trekker disse tunge fagfolkene seg? Hva kan gjøres for å rette på eventuelle svakheter?

Er det aktuelt å lage en liste over frafalne IPCC-bidragsytere? En norsk representant her er Tom V. Segalstad, dere andre på forumet kjenner nok til mange andre.

Mitt tankekors: Det at en vitenskapsperson trekker seg her, blir knapt omtalt i MSM. Nylig var det "årets" tale fra Sentalbanksefen i Norges bank. Hans viktigste oppgave er å "passe" på norsk økonomi. I årets tale manet han til en justering av handlingsregelen - vi bør bruke bare 3 % av avkastningen. Resultat: tvert nei fra alle politikerne! Med så liten forståelse for sitt råd, bl. a. fra Regjeringen - hvorfor tok han ikke sin hatt og glkk? Det ville skapt rabalder!! 

[Telehiv]

Takk til admin v/seoto og Joste (flere som skal takkes der?) og ebyes vennlige ord,
for at dere stiller dere så positivt bak mine ringe anstrengelser med å samle oversikter for den faktiske kunnskapsbalansen i klimadebatten.

Ja, det burde også vært listet en oversikt over de tunge, utstøtte forskerne som har forlatt den trygge maktbasen (jeg skrev feil først; "matbasen", som kanskje er like bra formulert?) for å forsvare vitenskapens alter i stedet.....kanskje en gang, jeg har masse stoff på det også   

Det jeg håper mange kan se bedre ut av dette, er også hvor lite media forstår av hvordan de blir manipulert til å kolportere uetisk og vitenskapelig ufundert alarmisme, særlig når slikt markedsføres fra høyt offisielt nivå som også kan være troende til å betale for utenlandsreisene deres (jfr. Solheim-modellen her hjemme).

Eller: Kanskje de ikke er så uvitende, men at man forholder seg opprtunistisk til at det er dette som lønner seg, dette som selger!?

Medieverdenen er jo kjent for en kynisk 3 x 3-trinnsprosess i sin optimalisering av "salgsintenst stoff":

1. Pumpe opp en gitt sak og fremme den med alle midler for å sikre økte opplag
2. Holde en debatt gående så lenge det er blest om saken, ut fra samme opplagsmotiv
3. Når saken falmer og/eller er bevislig feil: Drep den som løftet saken fram opprinnelig

Det gjør man ved å begynne flg. nye prosess:

1. Pumpe opp en MOTSATS til første sak og fremme den med alle midler for å sikre økte opplag
2. Holde en debatt gående om DENNE SAKSVINKLINGEN så lenge det er blest om saken, ut fra samme opplagsmotiv
3. Når også denne saken falmer og/eller er bevislig feil: Drep den som løftet saken fram opprinnelig, og

1. Start på nytt med tredje versjon, der man bringer inn den kloke analytiker - nå fra egen (!) stab (Stanghelle/Takvam-syndromet) - for å fortelle hvordan ALLE har tatt feil, men "her er den autoritative oppsummering"
2. Osv.
3. Osv.

Da har jeg også lært fra meg det råeste trikset for å se ut som en vellykket redaktør med økende oppslagstall.... 

[seoto]

ebye

Personlig integritet har ikke lengre noe å si - vi skal alle tilpasse oss, og ingen skal prøve seg på å lage bulker i A4-systemet!
Selvstendighet er på vei ut, ingen tør å ta en avgjørelse uten gjennom et felles-/gruppemøte. I dag er det skummelt, ja sannsynligvis skadelig, å vise selvstendighet utenfor det "gruppen" har satt opp som standard. På den måten kan man også spare de små grå for mye arbeid, og bruke de sparte kreftene på korrekt politisk og sosial tilpasning

[Telehiv]

Forumet er meget aktivt i kveld med mange sterkt IPCC-avslørende innlegg. Jeg tror dette er en god indikator på at det samlede arbeidet på forumet er på riktig kurs, og jeg vil takke deg seoto for at du følger raskt og effektivt administrativt opp når noe skjer!

Det gir tilknytning og forpliktelser overfor forumet, og det må til: Vi kjemper en viktig kamp, la det ikke herske tvil om det!