Who or what are the most reputable persons or organizations that oppose the popular theory of Global Warming?

Question

I know there are many people who don't but it.

But are there any truly reputable scientists who oppose the current, new, and very popular theory which is most often represented by Al Gore?

Answer 1

The above responses is very typical.  Their aim is to discredit any scientist that does not support their view, and therefore claim that since only reputable scientist support AGW, you should to, and there is no need to question the science..

A very reputable scientist that apposes the view of catastrophic warming is Christy.  You can hear his lecture here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmc...

At the end of his lecture he took questions from the audience.   One of them accused him of being the darling of the oil industry. Christy  then asked him what part of his lecture he had problems with.  He had none.  Typical strategy. When the warmers cannot dispute the science they attack the person, like the people above have.  This way they move the debate away from the science.

Answer 2

Its very difficult to find reputable scientists who oppose the global warming theory.  part of this is due to the fact that big oil companies, along w other big businesses pay scientists to come up with facts that will help those companies.  Exxon Mobile doesn't want people knowing that gasoline is hurting the environment in an irreversible way because then people might start investing in hybrids and need less of what they're selling.  When you do find a scientist who says global warming isn't happening make sure you check out who they're backed by because that makes a BIG difference in their results.

Answer 3

Sort of.  Most of the scientists who oppose the scientific consensus on global warming are not experts on the subject.  The one who I had considered most reputable was Richard Lindzen (physicist at MIT), but I recently discovered that Lindzen is completely intellectually dishonest.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

There's Roy Spencer, but I don't have much respect for him for 2 reasons.

1) He and John Christy analyzed satellite temperature data and claimed for years that it showed the atmosphere cooling, until other scientists showed they had screwed up the analysis and it was actually warming.  That's pretty bad.

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

2) Spencer is a big proponent of intelligent design.  I don't think that's acceptable for a reputable scientist.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=...

There are a number of 'scientists' who work for right-wing think tanks and/or are funded by oil companies.  In all honestly there are very few reputable scientists who reject the scientific consensus on man-made global warming.

Answer 4

A very few scientists disagree.  Mostly they admit that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.  They just don't think it will be that bad.

Richard Lindzen of MIT is perhaps the most reputable skeptical scientist.  There are no reputable organizations of "skeptics".

Because the scientific evidence has become overwhelming.  EVERY major scientific organization says global warming is real and mostly caused by us.

A minority in the Senate blocked a global warming bill.  But even there:

"Just about every Senator who spoke last week, Democrat and Republican alike, wanted to be on record saying that climate change is real and must be dealt with. "

Answer 5

I've asked this question before, and got almost no responses. Go figure why.

Answer 6

There are over 31,000 scientists that have signed a petition that do not believe in the theory of Global Warming.

Answer 7

Nightwing : rehashing tired deniers rubbish

"like Nasa" - rubbish

"Like the main weather stations that monitor the globe"

more rubbish groups like NOAA agree with AGW

The only ones who seem to fixate about Polar bears are deniers they love to quote how the numbers have increased since 1974 (but always seem to forget that was when unrestricted hunting was stopped, because their numbers had dropped so low)

"how about how temps went down 1/2 a degree in 2007"

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

This both states the above statement is incorrect and is from NASA, go figure.

And of course no denier comment would be complete with out mentioning the 70's mini iceage myth. I was just starting in science then and there was no such theory, there was a paper "discussion paper" which talked about both warming (by Co2) and cooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cool...

Answer 8

nightwin - you might want to actually read what NASA says about global warming before you recommend them as an organization that opposes the theory of global warming.  Here's a link to their Q&A on the subject:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/G...

What I notice about most of the answers is that they make wild assertions about how many 1000's of scientists oppose global warming, yet they seem unable to list more than a couple names. They have boughten into the lie they've heard about how many oppose it, yet they've failed to do any research on their own to confirm that claim.  

Here's a list (anyone with google can easily collaborate the claims) of respectable scientific organizations that agree with the theory of global warming:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Answer 9

In Australia, the most outspoken critic in the science vs faith debate is Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University.

AGW requires no proof, just belief.  It is like a religion in this respect.  

There are no scientific groups that are apposed to the various religious faiths.  

There are no groups who are opposed to alternative medicines that don't have scientific proofs like accupuncture, homeopathy, yoga.  There are no groups claiming that there is no life on Mars (even though there almost certainly isn't).  

If you want to believe in AGW, you need to have faith, either in a theory that is incomplete, or in the people who selling it.

Answer 10

is this not another edition of an old game to distract people.Why not Al-Gore come to some TV and face the scientists ?( Al Gore may be accompanied by his own scientists too-for a fair play)

Answer 11

Try most of the reputable one's out there that don't have an agenda

Like Nasa

Like the main weather stations that monitor the globe

Like common sense....

Ever wonder why GW agenda people are saying that polar bears are drowning and put them on the endagered species list when the truth is their population has more than doubled since 1974 ?

how about how temps went down 1/2 a degree in 2007 due to less sun spot activity. IF Co2 was such the evil culprit that GW proponents have touted, shouldn't temperature have gone up no matter what sun spots did ?

What about that mini ice age we were suppose to have in the 70's that the supposed "experts" said we were going to experience ?

Why were we running pollution awareness campaigns and commercials all the way back to the 70's at least that I recall seeing....what did we do ? we conserved, we brought down water and air pollution, we started recycling. And pollution was dramatically reduced. But with this fake carbon credits program, we aren't reducing carbon, we are just "swapping" one persons credits for another persons over production. So i'm begged to ask, who thinks they are so smart that they know the limit and what it should be set at. Its a made up number, and why...if carbon is so bad aren't they demanding the over producters to reduce their output ? Just goes to show that Al Gore and his cronies are fakes. They are making tons of money off the people dumb enough to believe in their hoax.

I could go on and on, but why ? let the dumb lose or give away their money. maybe it will be a hard lesson for them but hopefully gets them back into the practice of using their brains.

I haven't met a GW supporter yet that has Proof Positive that this is either happening, or that its even a problem. They site web sites that ask you to accept and believe what they say, but no real proof.

Answer 12

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. UAH

Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute and the University of Virginia, S. Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas, Christopher Monckton, a former policy advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher; Willie Soon of the Science and Public Policy Institute and Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Dr. George Taylor, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists;

There are litterally thousands of others.

All of the scientists either pro or con have backing, and said backing will influence their results on either side.

Answer 13

William Gray, the hurricane meteorologist does not believe it.  I would say that he is the biggest name.  Unfortunately he has been treated as something of a pariah at scientific meetings, even though he's made quite a few nice contributions over the years.

Another big name that is reluctant about the IPCC findings is Roger Pielke, author of Mesoscale Meteorological Modeling and other books.  I think he believes that there are other human contributions that are just as important to climate change as carbon dioxide, such as changes in land use.

It's too bad that the people in this group that don't believe in AGW don't look to people like that for some of their ideas.  Instead they keep bringing up various illogical and erroneous arguments.