Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Co2 FRAUD crowd = you, crock, Ding, Toddster +






Laughable. Like everything else about Co2 FRAUD, it is FRAUD and it is 100% WRONG according to the ACTUAL DATA



The ACTUAL DATA says Co2 does NOTHING...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling



Co2 went up, atmospheric temps did not = THEORY REJECTED

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling


Had suggested. Past tense.


Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

You're doing it again. You're supporting AGW with your idiocy.

 

[EMH]

Had suggested. Past tense.

Good little Co2 FRAUD "faux skeptic."

Data was FUDGED in 2005. Any questions....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good little Co2 FRAUD "faux skeptic."

Data was FUDGED in 2005. Any questions....

Still looking for backup for your claims?

Or is the lack of backup just more proof that the conspiracy destroyed it?

 

[skookerasbil]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

`

But the only thing that matters is....

Outside the field of science, who is caring?

 

[EMH]

Still looking for backup for your claims?

Or is the lack of backup just more proof that the conspiracy destroyed it?

There is data and there is fudge.

To believe the Co2 FRAUD requires no understanding of the difference....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is data and there is fudge.

To believe the Co2 FRAUD requires no understanding of the difference....

So far, you're spewing fudge and providing no data.

 

[EMH]

So far, you're spewing fudge and providing no data.

A laughable lie as the NBC link above proves.

DATA - no warming in the atmosphere

hence, need to FUDGE which is what happened....

 

[ding]

A laughable lie as the NBC link above proves.

DATA - no warming in the atmosphere

hence, need to FUDGE which is what happened....

So it's all a giant conspiracy theory?

Good little Co2 FRAUD "faux skeptic."

Data was FUDGED in 2005. Any questions....

Yes, are atmospheric CO2 readings a conspiracy too?

 

[EMH]

So it's all a giant conspiracy theory?

Yes, are atmospheric CO2 readings a conspiracy too?

The inability to understand the difference between DATA and FUDGE is a necessary prerequisite for being DUMB ENOUGH to believe the Co2 FRAUD.

 

[ding]

The inability to understand the difference between DATA and FUDGE is a necessary prerequisite for being DUMB ENOUGH to believe the Co2 FRAUD.

So the entire body of evidence is a conspiracy? When did this conspiracy start? Because the studies which yielded paleoclimate data are quite old.

 

[EMH]

So the entire body of evidence is a conspiracy? When did this conspiracy start? Because the studies which yielded paleoclimate data are quite old.

The Co2 FRAUD's fudge studies have always been fudged fraud.

The Co2 FRAUD officially started in 1988

 

[ding]

The Co2 FRAUD's fudge studies have always been fudged fraud.

The Co2 FRAUD officially started in 1988

This data was before that. Did they travel back in time?
It's just empirical climate evidence of the geologic record.

 

[EMH]

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union drilled a set of cores 500–952 metres (1,640–3,123 ft) deep. These have been used to study the oxygen isotope composition of the ice, which showed that ice of the last glacial period was present below about 400 metres' depth. Then three more holes were drilled: in 1984, Hole 3G reached a final depth of 2,202 m; in 1990, Hole 4G reached a final depth of 2,546 m; and in 1993 Hole 5G reached a depth of 2,755 m; after a brief closure, drilling continued during the winter of 1995. In 1996 it was stopped at depth 3,623 m, by the request of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research that expressed worries about possible contamination of Lake Vostok. This ice core, drilled collaboratively with the French, produced a record of past environmental conditions stretching back 420,000 years and covering four previous glacial periods. For a long time it was the only core to cover several glacial cycles; but in 2004 it was exceeded by the EPICA core, which, whilst shallower, covers a longer time span. In 2003 drilling was permitted to continue, but was halted at the estimated distance to the lake of only 130 m.

 

[ding]

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union drilled a set of cores 500–952 metres (1,640–3,123 ft) deep. These have been used to study the oxygen isotope composition of the ice, which showed that ice of the last glacial period was present below about 400 metres' depth. Then three more holes were drilled: in 1984, Hole 3G reached a final depth of 2,202 m; in 1990, Hole 4G reached a final depth of 2,546 m; and in 1993 Hole 5G reached a depth of 2,755 m; after a brief closure, drilling continued during the winter of 1995. In 1996 it was stopped at depth 3,623 m, by the request of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research that expressed worries about possible contamination of Lake Vostok. This ice core, drilled collaboratively with the French, produced a record of past environmental conditions stretching back 420,000 years and covering four previous glacial periods. For a long time it was the only core to cover several glacial cycles; but in 2004 it was exceeded by the EPICA core, which, whilst shallower, covers a longer time span. In 2003 drilling was permitted to continue, but was halted at the estimated distance to the lake of only 130 m.

The oxygen isotope curve, primarily used to study past climate changes, was developed and significantly refined during the 1950sby researchers like Cesare Emiliani, who utilized the relationship between oxygen isotopes in marine organisms' shells and water temperature to reconstruct past climate variations.

 

[abu afak]

Wiki​

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]


Wiki Continues

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
[sizee=5]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141] [/size]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. 75 of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

`

 

[ding]

Wiki​

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]


Wiki Continues

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
[sizee=5]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141] [/size]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. 75 of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

`

Yes, the oceans and atmosphere warm when the northern hemisphere deglaciates. Happens every interglacial period.

 

[EMH]

abu and Ding are both part of Co2 FRAUD, one is a moron who parrots "the consensus of taxpayer funded fudgebaking liars" and the other insists on pushing "interglacials" which are 100% refuted by the ice cores on Greenland and AA.

 

[ding]

abu and Ding are both part of Co2 FRAUD, one is a moron who parrots "the consensus of taxpayer funded fudgebaking liars" and the other insists on pushing "interglacials" which are 100% refuted by the ice cores on Greenland and AA.

Incorrect. You can't even get that right.

 

[abu afak]

​

	Peer-reviewed climate papers by climate skeptics​ This resource shows how many peer-reviewed papers have climate skeptics published that deny or cast doubt on human caused global warming. The database was compiled by Dr James Powell (geologist, author of The Inquisition of Climate Science). Only primary articles found via the Web of Science were included. More details are given here. 0 Habibullo Abdussamatov 1 Lamar Alexander 0 Claude Allegre 0 David Archibald 1 J. Scott Armstrong 0 Dennis Avery 9 Sallie Baliunas 2 Tim Ball 9 Robert Balling 1 Jack Barrett 0 Joe Bastardi 1 David Bellamy 0 Donna Bethell 0 Christopher Booker 0 William M. Briggs 0 Nigel Calder 1 Bob Carter 0 Paul Chesser 3 G Chilingar 1 John Christy 0 Petr Chylek 0 Piers Corbyn 0 Vincent Courtillot 1 Judith Curry 0 Tim Curtin 1 Chris de Freitas 0 David Deming 1 David Douglass 0 Freeman Dyson 1 Don Easterbrook 0 Lance Endersbee 0 Willis Eschenbach 0 Robert Essenhigh 0 Christopher Essex 0 David Evans 0 Lee Gerhard 0 Gerhard Gerlich 0 Ivar Giaever 0 Indur Goklany 0 Fred Goldberg 0 Stanley Goldenberg 0 Vincent Gray 0 William Gray 0 Kesten Green 0 William Happer 0 Martin Hertzberg 0 Heinz Hug 0 Ole Humlum 3 Craig Idso 8 Sherwood Idso 0 Zbigniew Jaworowski 0 Hans Jelbring 0 Wibjörn Karlen 0 Olavi Karner 0 Joel Kauffman 0 Aynsley Kellow 0 Madhav Khandekar 3 Leonid Khilyuk 1 William Kininmonth 0 Philip Klotzbach 6 Chip Knappenberger 1 Robert Knox 0 Kirill Kondratyev 0 Hans Labohm 0 Donna Laframboise 0 Nigel Lawson 0 Tsung-Dao Lee 2 David Legates 0 Marcel Leroux 0 Henry Linden 8 Richard Lindzen 1 Craig Loehle 0 Bjorn Lomborg 0 Oliver Manuel 1 Steve McIntyre 3 Ross McKitrick 1 John McLean 9 Patrick Michaels 0 Ferenc Miskolczi 0 Christopher Monckton 0 Andrew Montford 0 David Montgomery 0 Marc Morano 0 Nils-Axel Morner 0 Lubos Motl 0 Richard Muller 0 Jo Nova OJames O'Brien 0 Garth Paltridge 0 Benny Peiser 0 Roger Pielke Jr 3 Roger Pielke Sr 0 Ian Plimer 1 Eric Posmentier 0 Tom Quirk 0 Paul Reiter 0 Matt Ridley 0 Arthur Robinson 1 Arthur Rörsch 0 Murry Salby 2 Nicola Scafetta 0 Harrison Schmitt 0 Tom Segalstad 0 Nir Shaviv 0 Fred Singer 9 Willie Soon 1 Roy Spencer 0 Chauncey Starr 1 Henrik Svensmark 0 Dick Thoenes 0 Richard Tol 0 Ralf Tscheuschner 0 Noor Van Andel 0 Jan Veizer 0 Anthony Watts 0 Gerd-Rainer Weber 1 Bruce West 0 David Whitehouse 0 David Wojick 0 Miklos Zagony 0 Antonino Zichichi Peer-reviewed papers by climate skeptics Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says. skepticalscience.com		The Consensus Project Website THE ESCALATOR (free to republish)

 

[ding]

​

	Peer-reviewed climate papers by climate skeptics​ This resource shows how many peer-reviewed papers have climate skeptics published that deny or cast doubt on human caused global warming. The database was compiled by Dr James Powell (geologist, author of The Inquisition of Climate Science). Only primary articles found via the Web of Science were included. More details are given here. 0 Habibullo Abdussamatov 1 Lamar Alexander 0 Claude Allegre 0 David Archibald 1 J. Scott Armstrong 0 Dennis Avery 9 Sallie Baliunas 2 Tim Ball 9 Robert Balling 1 Jack Barrett 0 Joe Bastardi 1 David Bellamy 0 Donna Bethell 0 Christopher Booker 0 William M. Briggs 0 Nigel Calder 1 Bob Carter 0 Paul Chesser 3 G Chilingar 1 John Christy 0 Petr Chylek 0 Piers Corbyn 0 Vincent Courtillot 1 Judith Curry 0 Tim Curtin 1 Chris de Freitas 0 David Deming 1 David Douglass 0 Freeman Dyson 1 Don Easterbrook 0 Lance Endersbee 0 Willis Eschenbach 0 Robert Essenhigh 0 Christopher Essex 0 David Evans 0 Lee Gerhard 0 Gerhard Gerlich 0 Ivar Giaever 0 Indur Goklany 0 Fred Goldberg 0 Stanley Goldenberg 0 Vincent Gray 0 William Gray 0 Kesten Green 0 William Happer 0 Martin Hertzberg 0 Heinz Hug 0 Ole Humlum 3 Craig Idso 8 Sherwood Idso 0 Zbigniew Jaworowski 0 Hans Jelbring 0 Wibjörn Karlen 0 Olavi Karner 0 Joel Kauffman 0 Aynsley Kellow 0 Madhav Khandekar 3 Leonid Khilyuk 1 William Kininmonth 0 Philip Klotzbach 6 Chip Knappenberger 1 Robert Knox 0 Kirill Kondratyev 0 Hans Labohm 0 Donna Laframboise 0 Nigel Lawson 0 Tsung-Dao Lee 2 David Legates 0 Marcel Leroux 0 Henry Linden 8 Richard Lindzen 1 Craig Loehle 0 Bjorn Lomborg 0 Oliver Manuel 1 Steve McIntyre 3 Ross McKitrick 1 John McLean 9 Patrick Michaels 0 Ferenc Miskolczi 0 Christopher Monckton 0 Andrew Montford 0 David Montgomery 0 Marc Morano 0 Nils-Axel Morner 0 Lubos Motl 0 Richard Muller 0 Jo Nova OJames O'Brien 0 Garth Paltridge 0 Benny Peiser 0 Roger Pielke Jr 3 Roger Pielke Sr 0 Ian Plimer 1 Eric Posmentier 0 Tom Quirk 0 Paul Reiter 0 Matt Ridley 0 Arthur Robinson 1 Arthur Rörsch 0 Murry Salby 2 Nicola Scafetta 0 Harrison Schmitt 0 Tom Segalstad 0 Nir Shaviv 0 Fred Singer 9 Willie Soon 1 Roy Spencer 0 Chauncey Starr 1 Henrik Svensmark 0 Dick Thoenes 0 Richard Tol 0 Ralf Tscheuschner 0 Noor Van Andel 0 Jan Veizer 0 Anthony Watts 0 Gerd-Rainer Weber 1 Bruce West 0 David Whitehouse 0 David Wojick 0 Miklos Zagony 0 Antonino Zichichi Peer-reviewed papers by climate skeptics Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says. skepticalscience.com		The Consensus Project Website THE ESCALATOR (free to republish)

The empirical evidence from the geologic record proves that when the northern hemisphere deglaciates the oceans and the atmosphere warm like they are today.