Thursday, 28 November 2013

Climate consensus list

As the crooks claim there is a 97% consensus among scientists man is causing global warming, there must be an awful lot qualified to judge as over the years I've come across at least a hundred at the highest levels, equal to all the others you hear regularly in the media, who disagree. If they represent 3% then there must be tens of thousands who agree. But technically if a theory not yet demonstrated (the 2C rise is not officially expected till around 2100 when none of us will be here to know either way) has even a few peers who disagree there is too much doubt to act on it (which most of the developed world had been doing for decades already). But this is more than a few. And how can you be trying to destroy the science when their own peers listed below disagree with them as actual scientists? If there is that much disagreement how on earth can they or anyone be so sure they are already right despite absolutely no amplification of the bare minimum temperature rise from added CO2 so far?

This is not written for any technical knowledge, just a handy reference list of known dissenters, all qualified to do so, most with PhDs. Just search any of the names and see their work directly.

Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Jr and Snr, Ferenc Miskolczi, Richard Lindzen, Stanton Friedman, Philip Stott, Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, Lucka Kajfesz-Bogotaj, Michael Beenstock, Piers Corbyn, Nils-Axel Morner, Vincent Gray, Hal Lewis, John Christy, Tim Ball, Richard Courtney,  Willem de Lange, Chris de Freitas,  Lee Gerhard, Kenneth Green, Yuri Izrael, Steven Japar, Madhav Khandekar, Chris Landsea, Harry Lins, Patrick Michaels, Murray Salby, Jan Pretel, Paul Reiter, Tom Segalstad, Fred Singer, Hajo Smit, Tom Tripp, David Wojick, Miklos Zagoni, Eduardo Zorita, William Gray, David Bellamy, Johnny Ball, Leonard Weinstein, Robert B Laughlin, Christopher J Kobus, Anatoly Levitin, Geraldo Luís Lino,  Mary Mumper, William C. Gilbert,  Hans Jelbring, Burt Rutan, Patrick Moore (ex-Greenpeace), John Reid, Antonis Christofides, Nikos Mamassis, Pavel Makarevich, Hilton Ratcliffe, James Lovelock (Gaia theory, recanted), Peter Taylor, Denis Rancourt, Don Easterbrook, Robert Austin, Freeman Dyson, Garth Paltridge, Hendrik Tennekes, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Khabibullo Abdusamatov,  David Douglass, Ian Clark, William Kininmonth, William Happer, David Legates, Tad Murty, Tim Patterson, Ian Plimer, Henrik Svensmark, Jan Veizer, Claude Allegre, Robert C Balling, Petr Chylek, David Deming, Ivar Giaever, Antonio Zichichi, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Indur Goklany, Tom Nelson, Steven Goddard, Lubos Motl, Bob Carter, Sherwood Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Hugh Ellsaesser, David Deming, Richard Tol,Joe D'Aleo, Joe Bastardi, Joseph Postma, Noor van Andel.

That amounts to about a hundred, if that's 3% then there must be at least three thousand peers who disagree with them. Are there that many in the world?

I will add some more when I get the chance.

If I'd believed in global warming, just as I did in the 90s before the political fallout, and had read the quotes attached to these names I just have for the second time or more, I'd have given up there and then. Each one time after time, repeats they know it is absolute nonsense as it goes against every scientific principle they were taught and they want nothing to do with it. As the entire foundation of global warming is still set in a distant future of decades to a century or more it is nothing more than a supposition, contradicted by the known present facts the temperature is rising nowhere near fast enough to complete the potential claimed result, in fact nowhere near it. Put those two elements together and my own conclusion is were if the media gave equal publicity to the quotes and studies I have just looked through as the usual suspects we only hear over and over again (far fewer than named above) most people would have the same 'You've been had' moment as I did some years after the story first surfaced when nothing they said would happen did have, so I decided to do my own research.

All those names mean either one or the other side is wrong, or if not neither knows enough to be certain, meaning by not beating the null hypothesis of presenting a new theory with sufficient evidence, the theory is not yet ready, or technically, void. There is no other logical or scientific conclusion possible.

One of the emperors of warning himself, Mike Hulme, admitted this himself in June 2010 about the alleged consensus: “That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.”

That is direct from the horse's mouth, why listen to John Cook on Skeptical Science who is paid to spread manure and barely qualified?

For more details and quotes start here.
And continue here.

No comments:

Post a Comment