• Here is a selection of alternative scientists to the IPCC. 
• Largely taken from a long-running important series in the Canada Financial Post 
• There are also some reputable polls of scientists showing majority disagreement
• the argument that all these guys are funded by the oil industry doesn't hold water. They are all experts in their field and are speaking freely. 

CO2 is a very natural gas. The total human annual CO2 production (top right) is 5.5 Gigatonnes. It is a fraction of total production (flux) The oceans are huge reservoirs of CO2. Warner seas give off CO2, cooler seas absorb CO2. There have been times when the Earth has been warmer. There have been times when there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Revelle

Jaworowski

Solanki

Abdussamatov

Shariv

Tol

Reiter

Wingham

Svensmark

Weiss

Nordhaus

Tennekes

Allegre

Kirkby

Akasofu

Lindzen

Segalstad

Dyson

Friis-Christensen

Kukla

Bromwich

Zichichi

Tsonis

Bryson

Carter

Trenberth

Gray

Salter

Griffin

Schwartz

Landsea

Gray

Ollier

Patterson

Fairbridge

Potential drivers

Dr Roger Revelle

Harvard University, Professor of Population Policy (1909-1991)

(link)

• Dr. Roger Revelle inspired the young Al Gore at Harvard in the 1960s.
• Gore calls him "a wonderful, visionary professor... one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming."
• Gore thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently.
• But it's not all bad news. Dr Revelle says: But there are likely positive effects too: increased CO2 in the air acts like a fertilizer... so you get more plant growth.
• Increasing CO2 levels also affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. This means plants will be able to grow in drier climates.
• Does the increase in CO2 have anything to do with people saying the weather is getting worse? Revelle: People are always saying the weather's getting worse! Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes...

Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski

Professor, Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw

(link)

• "The ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless. The IPCC has based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false." 
• "Liquid water is common in polar snow and ice, even at temperatures as low as -72C." !!!
• “We also know that in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen, and 30 times more soluble than oxygen, guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change.
• “Moreover, under the extreme pressure that deep ice is subjected to, 320 bars, or more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure, high levels of CO2 get squeezed out of ancient air..."
• "Ice core data from the Taylor Dome in Antarctica shows almost no change in the level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 7,000 to 8,000 years - it varied between 260 parts per million and 264 parts per million.
• "Yet other indicators of past CO2 levels, such as fossil leaf stomata, show that CO2 levels over the past 7,000 to 8,000 years varied by more than 50 parts per million: between 270 and 326 parts per million.
• “… there have been great fluctuations in temperature over that time period - the Little Age just 500 years ago, for example. If the ice core record was reliable, and CO2 levels reflected temperatures, why wouldn't the ice-core data have shown CO2 levels to fall during the Little Ice Age? "

Dr Sami Solanki

Director, Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research

(link)

Many potential solar drivers of our climate exist:

• It could be the sun's total irradiance. It could be the solar spectral irradiance, in particular ultraviolet radiation in the stratosphere.
• It could be the sun's open magnetic flux, which modulates the galactic cosmic-ray flux.
• "The sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
• He reconstructed the sun's activity since the last Ice Age, some 11,400 years ago.
• Earth is at hottest now than for 8,000 years... the hot spell will carry on for a few more decades before the sun turns down the heat.
• Almost perfect correlation between solar cycles and air temperatures over land masses in the Northern hemisphere, going back to the mid 19th century.
• Length of solar cycle increased dramatically from 1910 to 1940, as did temperature on Earth. When it decreased, as it did from the 1940s to the 1960s, so too did Earth temperatures.
• Solanki discredits the role of man-made GHGs, such as CO2. These have probably played a large role in Earth's climate, he believes, but only since 1980 or so, when the sun's almost perfect correlation with Earth temperatures ended.
• Evidence that GHGs play a larger role in climate change may some day turn up, because his near-perfect correlation does not constitute proof. But nothing compelling so far undermines his own findings, he asserts.

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov

Head of the Space Research Laboratory,

Russian Academies of Sciences Pulkovo Observatory

(link)

• "Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians.
• "These parallel global warmings - observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth - can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance.
• "It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
• “So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
• "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated.“
• "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
• Cooling that is occurring in the upper layers of the world's oceans means that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling.
• Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015.
• Solar irradiance reaching Earth will hit a low around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years.
• After which temperatures will go up again.

Prof. Nir Shariv

Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem

(link)

• "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
• All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases is "incriminating circumstantial evidence."
• Evidence accumulating over the past decade has been of the strong relationship that cosmic-ray flux has on our atmosphere.
• So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
• "I am in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue."
• "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

• Tol was involved as an author in all three of the IPCC’s Working Groups.
• The Stern Report [2006] relied on Tol's work in coming to its conclusions. But …
• Sir Nicholas Stern plucked a figure ($29 per ton of CO2) from a range that Tol prepared describing the possible costs of CO2 emissions.
• Stern failed to divulge that in the same study Tol concludes that the actual costs "are likely to be substantially smaller" than $14 per ton of CO2.
• This underpins Sir Nicholas's claim that "the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever.“
• Tol views Sir Nicholas's conclusions as "preposterous."
• Tol's conclusion: "The Stern review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent."

• The IPCC created the scare - repeated by scientists with a popular following such as David Suzuki - that global warming could lead to 80 million additional cases of malaria per year worldwide.
• The IPCC claim that malarial mosquitoes cannot ordinarily survive temperatures below 16C to 18C, but many tropical species do and many temperate species survive temperatures of -25C.
• IPCC scientists didn't know at what altitudes mosquitoes can be found.
• “No major scientist with any long record in this field agrees with the pronouncements of the alarmists at the IPCC."
• “…all of us who work in the field are repeatedly stunned by the IPCC pronouncements. We protest, but are rarely quoted, and if so, usually as a codicil to the scary stuff."
• Reiter testified to a U.K. Parliamentary Committee in 2005, "The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject!
• He wrote to the IPCC with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: "The brief answer to your question below is 'governments.'"
• It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction.
• Reiter: the IPCC is a creature of government that meets governmental needs and abides by governmental strictures, and does so without public scrutiny.

• Much of the ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade….
• This reflects long-term losses of ice mass.
• Data shows that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall.
• “…over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models"
• Dr. Wingham revealed that data from a European Space Agency satellite showed Antarctic thinning was no more common than thickening.
• Spectacular collapse of the ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula was much more likely to have followed natural current fluctuations than global warming.
• The evidence is not "favourable to the notion we are seeing the results of [anthropogenic] global warming".

Dr. Henrik Svensmark

Director Center for Sun-Climate Research Danish National Space Center

(link)

• Something changed in the 20th century: The sun's magnetic field more than doubled in strength, deflecting an extraordinary number of rays.
• Could the diminution of cosmic rays this century have limited the formation of clouds, making the Earth warmer?
• The sun and the stars could explain most if not all of the warming this century, and Svensmark has laboratory results to demonstrate it.
• Changes in the sun's magnetic field - quite apart from greenhouse gases - could be related to the recent rise in global temperatures.
• Data shows a surprisingly strong correlation between cosmic rays - highspeed atomic particles originating in exploded stars in the Milky Way - and low-altitude clouds.
• RealClimate.org 2/07, comments on the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues put into their press releases …

Professor Nigel Weiss

Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Astrophysics, Fellow of Clare College, FRS. Cambridge  (link)

• “The IPCC dismissed any significant link between solar variability and climate on the grounds that changes in irradiance were too small. Such an attitude can no longer be sustained”.
• "Variable behaviour of the sun is an obvious explanation," says Dr. Weiss.
• “…there is increasing evidence that Earth's climate responds to changing patterns of solar magnetic activity."
• However, 11.4.07 the National Post published an apology and withdrew its allegation that Weiss was a “denier”.
• Then Prof Weiss: “Any temperature changes caused by variations in solar activity — while interesting in themselves — are not significant compared to the global warming that we are already experiencing, and very small compared to what will happen if we continue to burn fossil fuel at the present rate.

Dr William Nordhaus

Sterling Professor of Economics, Yale

(link)

• UK Stern Review "Completely absurd" in demanding drastic measures now to avert climate change calamity later.
• Stern piles one worst-case scenario upon another to arrive at fantastic costs.
• But Nordhaus was his source for global-warming costs that could present themselves well after the year 2100.
• Nordhaus himself characterized that data as particularly unreliable.
• Stern estimates the potential costs of climate change to be so great as to force on us a "20% cut in per-capita consumption, now and forever."
• But his data showed low damages from climate change in the next two centuries.
• To overcome his data, he applied to his model what economists call a "near-zero social discount rate."
• “Suppose that scientists discover that a wrinkle in the climatic system will cause damages equal to 0.01% of output starting in 2200 and continuing at that rate thereafter... How large a onetime investment would be justified today to remove the wrinkle starting after two centuries...?
• A payment of 15% of world consumption today (approximately US$ 7trillion) would be in order! This seems completely absurd. The bizarre result arises because the value of the future consumption stream is so high with near-zero discounting that we would trade off a large fraction of today's income to increase a far-future income stream by a very tiny fraction."
• "We are in effect forced to make current decisions about highly uncertain events in the distant future, even though these estimates are highly speculative and are almost sure to be refined over the coming decades."

Prof Henk Tennekes

(retd) Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. Prof of Aeronautical Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University. (link)

• “No Forecast Is Complete Without A Forecast of Forecast Skill”
• Tennekes, more than any other individual, challenged the models that climate scientists were constructing, saying models could never replicate the complexity of the real world.
• “One goal of science is to control nature, but we know we cannot control the weather!
• “The goal of science is prediction, but we stand in front of the limits of predictability."
• "There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies."
• "We only understand 10% of the climate issue... That is not enough to wreck the world economy with Kyoto-like measures."

Forecast Skill

Dr Claude Allegre

Director, Paris Institut de Physique du Globe

(link)

• Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.
• The many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a manmade cause of catastrophic global warming.
• His "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" article in l'Express, cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly.
• Those who see catastrophe in climate change are "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," and "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it... 
• We need the debate to be less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02.
• We need to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

Dr Jasper Kirkby

CERN, Head, dream team of world physicists.

(CFP link)

• The sun and cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature.
• The CLOUD project will use a high-energy particle beam from an accelerator to closely duplicate cosmic rays found in the atmosphere.
• This will be the first time this technology will be brought to bear on global warming.
• "Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth's energy balance, and changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate."
• The IPCC draft report ranks the sun as an all-but-irrelevant factor in climate change...
• Dr. Kirkby was also stunned because his institute is CERN, and science performed at CERN had never before seemed so vulnerable to whims of government funders.

Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu

(retd) director of both UAF's (University of Alaska at Fairbanks) Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center (founder)

(link)

• "There is clearly a linear increase of temperature from about 1800 based on last year's ice-core data."
• "The Earth may still be recovering from the Little Ice Age," he says, pointing to the consistent rate of warming over the centuries.
• Because the pre-1940 increase in temperature happened without much CO2, and the 1940-75 temperature decline happened after CO2 emissions began in earnest, "the large fluctuation between 1910 and 1975 can be considered to be a natural change.
• “Contrary to the statement by the UN's IPCC in its 2007 Report, it is not possible to say with any confidence that the rise after 1975 is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect."

Prof. Richard Lindzen

Professor of Meteorology, MIT

(link)

• "Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGOs and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored,"
• The actual report by the scientists indicate just the opposite. Dr. Lindzen testified that the scientists had "found numerous problems with model treatments - including those of clouds and water vapor."
• CO2 will be a trivial effect, no one knows anything about aerosols, sensitivity from the 20th Century is tiny, and by the way global warming stopped in 1998.
• “Throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults.
• “Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements."
• RealClimate.org,2007, IPCC, AR4 report declared that the recent warming trends are "unequivocal", and even Richard Lindzen has accepted that the globe has in fact warmed over the last century.

Prof. Tom Segalstad

Head of the Geological Museum, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo

(link)

• "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.“
• Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless ability to absorb CO2.
• "This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing. It has been established by radon-222 measurements. It has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans. It has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance. It has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines,"
• In IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable.
• In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reaches a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad.
• "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon - it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world...”

Prof. Freeman Dyson

Professor of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. (link)

• "I have studied their climate models and know what they can do."
• "The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans.
• “They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests.
• “They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."
• His mentor Fermi: 'I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann [ co-creator of game theory] used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.'

Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen

Danish Space Research Institute

Chair, Danish Space Consortium. Head, European Space Agency mission advisory. VP, International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomics.

(link)

• In 1991 he showed a startling correlation between global warming and the activities of the sun
• Despite his Science article, the IPCC (1992) refused to consider the sun's influence on Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation!
• IPCC scientists had decided that man-made causes alone deserve their attention.
• How much of Monbiot’s litany in the Guardian demonstrates actual errors by Dr. Friis-Christensen? In truth, none.
• Virtually all of the criticisms of Dr. Friis- Christensen, published and republished willy-nilly, stem from a lone advisor to the Danish government's Ministry of the Energy. He has scant research credentials; he even admits that the government hired him largely for his communications skill.
• Dr. Friis-Christensen has won a citation from the Journal of Geophysical Research of the American Geophysical Union for "Excellence in refereeing" and he is sought after by the world's leading agencies, who have elevated him to the top ranks of his profession.

Dr George Kukla

Colombia University, New York

(link)

• The lead author of the scientific paper that first supported Milutin Milankovic's theory of glacial cycles by investigating the stratigraphy in deep-sea sediment cores from the southern Indian Ocean.
• In the cores were clear imprints of Milankovic's proposed cycles.
• "We are certain now that changes in the Earth's orbital geometry caused the ice ages.
• “The evidence is so strong that other explanations must now be discarded or modified."
• New evidence that Dr. Kukla only recently published means we now know that global warming always precedes an ice age.
• That makes the current period of global warming is a blip that constitutes additional indication of an ice age to come.

Global warming always precedes an ice age

Dr David Bromwich

Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University. (link)

• "It's hard to see a global-warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now." (2007)
• Bromwich found that the global models that the IPCC relies on are at odds with his own findings.
• Antarctica's temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as global climate models predicted.
• "The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica."
• "We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment."

GCMs - no predictive value 

Prof. John Christy

•  ft. in the GGWS saying that data showed that the atmosphere wasn't showing signs of warming compared to land based surveys.

Monbiot: Christy himself admitted last year (2006) that he was mistaken. He was one of the authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."

Island of Tuvalu not sinking but rising!