Global warming skeptics?

Question

I need to write a paper on a global warming skeptic. Does anyone know of a known skeptic? I've been searching skeptics but have been having trouble finding one with good information.

Answer 1

There is a reason you are having trouble finding one with good information.  The overwhelming body of evidence supports the AGW theory.

"And please don't forget that anthropogenic global warming has been for a centruy the underdog theory, it is only very recently that the mountains of research have dragged a generally conservative scientific community inexorably to a very unpleasant conclusion"

from http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10...

So don't buy into the idea that the consensus proves the skeptics point of view.  First they say there is not a consensus and then when you show them the almost complete consensus, they say that proves it's a conspiracy.    

" The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact."

"One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists."

"So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

"As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus."

"But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea."

"What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

Answer 2

I am a "skeptic" as people would have.

I know that Climate Change is real. The climate has been changing since the earth first had an atmosphere. A changing climate is natural.

What I have a problem with, are people who think that we can "stop" climate change. That is like trying to stop the movement of air, or stop the flow of a river. It is not possible.

I do not believe that humans are "accelerating" climate change either. We humans are very egotistical, and arrogant. But one thing we are not, are gods.

We are, and have always been at the mercy of nature. Putting a lid on emissions will not change that fact, or stop the climate from changing.

Answer 3

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_pl...

Watch all 4 parts of the video.

Answer 4

They will be difficult to find.

Climate change skeptics are not good for business.  They find acquiring funding for studies difficult.  

Climate alarmism makes big bucks for oil companies and other large companies by encouraging new laws which put many obsticals in front of upstart competitors.

Large companies fund environmental studies which are likley to find results suggesting climate alarmism.

This is counterituative.  But consistant with what we see in the gameing industry.  Existing gambling businesses fund anti-gambling lobbyist efforts, as new and more laws penalize smaller competitors, who are less likely to be able to comply.

This is true in all industries, including oil.

Jerry

Answer 5

Probably the most famous and credible scientific global warming skeptic is Richard Lindzen.  Look him up.

Answer 6

Well, here's the guy who started the whole DENIER/skeptic business.  Back in the 1970's he wrote a book saying all the climatologists were wrong, the earth is not getting warmer, it is getting colder.  This is the guy people refer to when saying "THEY" predicted an ice age in the 1970's.  The "THEY" in question wasn't a climatologist, just one of these guys.  His book was called "The Cooling" if you want to research it.  I read it at the time.

Answer 7

Research for facts or fiction here: http://www.globalwarminghappens.com

Answer 8

Roy Spencer, his book is at:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSea...

If you read carefully, you may note that most scientists in the climate field state there is uncertainty in the estimates, modelling, etc.  That is their way of saying no one really knows what is going on, but to come out and say it would get them ostracized and their funding cut.

In the medical field, no one says a doctor is lousy.  Instead they say he is "suitable for teaching" or "research" or some such (just keep him away from patients).

Same with climate research.

Climate is a complex non-linear chaotic system, and no one claims that much progress has been made in the mathematical description of these problems.  That is why computer climate models are used ... computer "trial and error" models to be more precise.

The computer models are a simplification, incomplete, and use input data not close to being adequate.

Any reputable work in science will clearly point out the assumptions, variability, other possible explanations, strengths and weaknesses, and exhibit some healthy skepticism internally.

No theory explains all the data.  When you read about AGW and the author doesn't present the loose ends or outliers ... that is a clue they have some serious biases.

Another clue.  When you see graphs with exaggerated vertical scales that don't start with zero ... something is up.