97% of actual climate scientists or 97% of all scientists. That is the rub. A nice little hand book on the subject is the "Politically incorrect guiede to global warming." The author dug through some of the "scientists" who believe in manmade global warming and they aren't exactly climate scientists. The authors of "unstoppable global warming: every 1500 years would also disagree, as would the founder of the weather channel who described man made global warming as one of the biggest scientific hoaxes in history. I saw the climate gate scandal where climate scientists who were unconvinced of the cause of climate changes were denied access to the global warming data, and how the scientists leading the charge conducted campaigns to fire editors of scientific journals who gave doubters space in their journals. So, Please. It is far from fact and the myth of consensus is just that a myth.
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-G...1245/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306380810&sr=8-1
From the book:
In this New York Times bestseller, authors Singer and Avery present the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with natural physical records, the authors argue that the 1,500 year solar-driven cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the driving force in the current warming trend.
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-I...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306380871&sr=1-1
From the book:
Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left's manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes--and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It's the ideal scare campaign for those who hate capitalism and love big government. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could "solve" it. According to the logic of the greens' own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of big government.
A readers review of the book:
Despite these stunning indictments of some of the more popular claims for global warming, this book is not primarily a review of the scientific evidence. Horner is far more concerned with motives and the psychology of those who embrace global warming than he is with the arguments used to advance it. In some cases, these motives are fairly obvious. Despite the mantra that "Big Energy" opposes the "scientific consensus" about global warming, the fact is that some companies, like Enron (formerly) and Dupont (at present), lobby for the passage of legislation similar to the Kyoto treaty because they stand to profit from it. Cap-and-trade policies for limiting carbon dioxide emisions can substantially increase the bottom line for many companies, even as they increase costs for customers with no discernable benefit for the environment or the economy. Similarly, journalists and major news outlets sell more by reporting sensationalist headlines than by carefully examining the evidence for such claims. This is one reason Mann's "hockey stick" went unchallenged for as long as it did. It was a nice visual for news consumers. But the bulk of this book is an analysis of ideologues and true believers: people who are so passionate about their cause that they will brook no dissent; people like history teacher Naomi Oreskes. Ms. Oreskes claimed she did an analysis of all 928 articles on climate change and found none that disputed the claim of manmade global warming. The fact that she cherry picked her 928 articles from a total of over 11,000 did (eventually) receive some coverage. Readers of this book will further learn how she intentionally distorted the findings of the limited articles she bothered to peruse. For the record, only 13 of those articles actually defended manmade climate change. This says much about the so called consensus, but even more about the tactics and mentality of those who believe in environmental Armageddon. This is the actual focus of Horner's book.
Let me start the criticism...These guys are just corporate stooges, and shills for big oil...there, that is out of the way.
A list of global warming heretics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
A few heretics (a.k.a. shills for big oil...) speak:
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist,
University of Alabama in Huntsville: "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 mankindÂ’s role is relatively minor".
[39]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of
biogeography at the
University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The
Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."
[40]
Henrik Svensmark,
Pubs Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the EarthÂ’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."
[41]
More heretics ( shills for big oil...):
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22529/Scientists_Doubt_Climate_Change.html
By S.A. Miller -- More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.
The scientists -- many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis -- cast doubt on the "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming imperils the planet.
"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting -- a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number -- entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
"I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached," Mr. Tennekes said in the report.
Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over."
"The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day," he said.
And the scandal that rocked the man made global warming world:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
from the article:
The reason why even the
Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician
Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see
McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and
Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
