“It is of course, the global
warming scam, with the
(literally) trillions of
dollars driving it, that has corrupted
so many scientists, and has carried
APS before it like a rogue wave. It
is the greatest and most successful
pseudoscientific fraud I have seen
in my long life as a physicist.”
— Prof Hal Lewis
113 quotes, by 100 scientists with doctorates
| Dr. John F. Clauser, a joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics: | “there is no climate crisis and ... increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world.” |
| Dr Arun Ahluwalia: | “Man indeed may be a pygmy before nature and incapable of causing or reversing a global warming or climate change. To err on the side of caution let us presume man may be contributing a minor fraction towards warming of the earth. The planet has a great resilience we must not however forget.” |
| Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu: | “… climate change, or temperature, has been rising. Somehow the IPCC decided that the increase in the last 100 years is due to the greenhouse effect; however, a significant part of that would be just due to natural change. So, even if we spend lots of money on suppressing CO2 release, it wouldn’t do any good, because it’s a natural change.” |
| Dr Ralph B. Alexander: | “Global warming may be real, but there’s hardly a shred of good scientific evidence that it has very much to do with the amount of CO2 we’re producing, or even that temperatures have risen as much as warmists say.” |
| Dr William JR Alexander: | “The assertion that the recent rapid rise of CO2 is unique and dangerous is both deceptive and irrelevant because CO2 does not drive the world’s climate, ... there is clearly no evidence for the CO2-based theory of global warming. Indeed, there is only evidence against it.” |
| Dr Tim Ball: | Climate change has happened, is happening and will always happen. Contrary to the message of the last thirty years, current rate of climate change is well within the bounds of natural variability. Thus, a perfectly natural phenomenon became the biggest deception in history. |
| Dr Robert Balling: | The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. |
| Dr Jack Barrett: | ... any increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere will not affect the average temperature of the troposphere |
| Dr Lucka Bogataj: | “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.” |
| Dr Reid Bryson: | “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd… Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.” |
| Dr John Christy: | “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.” |
| Dr Ian Clark: | “The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide.” |
| Dr Rosa Compagnucci: | “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.” |
| Dr Michael Connolly: | “The data from the weather balloons has shown quite categorically there is no greenhouse effect. Increasing greenhouse gases will increase the rate of adsorption but because the atmosphere is in internal dynamic equilibrium it also increases the rate of emission. The net effect is none.” |
| Dr Ronan Connolly: | “Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion, ... In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative,” |
| Dr Vincent Courtillot: | “Together with Jean-Louis Le Mouël and some Russian colleagues, we have shown that some specific features of the magnetic field were remarkably well correlated with some variations in the sun’s activity – which in itself was not surprising – but the fact that it also correlated with the mean global temperature of the lower atmosphere came to us as a real surprise. This is how I started to get interested in climatology at the decadal to centennial time scale, an area which is not my specialty, though I had already encountered climatologists at the million year time scale with the Indian volcanism.” |
| Dr Richard Courtney: | “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.” |
| Dr Judith Curry: | “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.” |
| Dr Robert Davis: | “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.” |
| Dr Chris de Freitas: | “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.” |
| Dr Willem de Lange: | “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.” |
| Dr David Deming: | “Projections of sea-level rise are based on projections of future warming, fifty or a hundred years hence. And these projections are based on speculative computer models that have numerous uncertainties, ... These models cannot even be tested; their validity is completely unknown. In short, predictions of future sea-level rise are nothing but sheer speculation” |
| Dr Peter Dietze: | “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.” |
| Dr David Douglass: | “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.” |
| “Have the models been successful in predicting anything? They, of course, predict substantial global warming. This is not surprising given the expressed belief of some of the model builders in the global warming Hypothesis and the many parameters in the model that need to be introduced. However, the models also predict unambiguously that the atmosphere is warming faster than the surface of the earth; but all the available observational data unambiguously shows the opposite!” | |
| Professor emeritus Freeman Dyson: | “The PhD system is the real root of the evil of academic snobbery. People who have PhDs consider themselves a priesthood, and inventors generally don't have PhDs” |
| “My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.” [13] | |
| Professor Emeritus Don Easterbrook: | “Fluctuations of the solar magnetic field provide the answer to the long contentious issue of the basic cause of climate changes and the origin of the Ice Ages” [DE] |
| Dr Hugh W. Ellsaesser: | “Time variations of global mean temperature and concentrations of carbon dioxide over the last century are very poorly correlated even though both had been rising. In fact, the mean global surface temperature actually declined from 1942 to 1975 while carbon dioxide in the atmosphere steadily increased due to man’s emissions. In addition though no one is bothered to tell you, the main global surface of 1998 has not been reached or exceeded since 1998. Now, doesn’t that mean the earth has been cooling since 1998?” |
| Dr Christopher Essex: | “Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad.” [CE] |
| Dr David Evans: | There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts: 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it... 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. [DE2] |
| Dr John Everett: | “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.” |
| Emeritus professor Friedrich-Karl Ewert: | “Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950…. A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA–GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII, a clear warming appears – although it never existed.” [FKE1], [FKE2] |
| Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi: | “the CO2 greenhouse effect as used in the current global warming hypothesis is impossible. The greenhouse effect itself and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is a politically motivated dangerous artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing.” |
| Dr. Rex J. Fleming: | “there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect (as defined in the introduction)” |
| Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: | “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.” |
| Dr Stewart Franks: | “I do not believe we are talking about science here today; we are talking about the speculation of scientists, and that is very different. I am concerned that the global public, certainly in the western world, is being railroaded into this notion of disastrous climate change for which there is no empirical evidence. Actually, there are very real consequences to many climate policies being put forward. We have seen this recently with the increase in biofuels and the use of good, productive agricultural land in producing biofuels for the decadent west, which it has been estimated has lead to a 50 per cent 70 per cent increase in food prices over the past year or two” [SF] |
| Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: | “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.” |
| Dr Lee Gerhard: | “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.” |
| “Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.” [LCG] | |
| Dr Gerhard Gerlich: | “The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training.” [GG] |
| Professor emeritus Ivar Giaever: | I would say that, basically, global warming is a non-problem. Is climate change pseudoscience? If I'm going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely. |
| Emeritus professor Robert Giegengack: | “Global Warming/Climate Change began as a scientific discussion. It has evolved into a polarizing political argument (whenever a scientific understanding depends on a ‘consensus’, we know it has become political), and from there to a semi-religious campaign advanced by well-intended people who feel, deep in their hearts, that they are ‘saving the planet’. Many of those people have chosen to allow their good intentions to override their scientific objectivity. As soon as people who disagree about scientific conclusions start calling each other pejorative names, we know that the discussion has become primarily political, not scientific.” [RG] |
| Dr Indur Goklany: | “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.” |
| Dr Vincent Gray: | “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.” |
| “At first I was trapped by the authority of those publicizing the Global Warming theory. It was only by slow degrees that I became convinced that one aspect of its claims after another was without scientific foundation. I reached my current assessment that everything about it is a scam, a fraud, and a conspiracy, which violates every possible principal of physics, mathematics, elementary logic and ordinary honesty.” | |
| Professor William Gray: | The society has officially taken a position many of us AMS members do not agree with. We believe that humans are having little or no significant influence on the global climate and that the many Global Circulation Climate Model (GCMs) results and the four IPCC reports do not realistically give accurate future projections. To take this position which so many of its members do not necessarily agree with shows that the AMS is following more of a political than a scientific agenda,” [WG] |
| Dr William Happer: | “I, and many other scientists, think the warming will be small compared [with] the natural fluctuations in the earth’s temperature, and that the warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind.” |
| Dr Mike Hulme: | “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.” |
| Dr Kiminori Itoh: | “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.” |
| Dr Yuri Izrael: | “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.” |
| Dr Steven Japar: | “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.” |
| Dr. Andreas Karl: | ... available temperature data (foundation) are subject to error. The magnitude of error is in a range where referencing this data makes no scientific sense. ..., climate science, which focuses solely on the effect of anthropogenic CO2, remains a pseudo-science. |
| Dr Georg Kaser: | “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.” |
| Professor Martin Keeley: | “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science. It provides the media with a new scare story, which has been picked up by the focus groups and turned into the new religion, offering us hell if we don't all change our ways.” |
| Dr Aynsley Kellow: | “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.” |
| Dr Madhav Khandekar: | “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.” |
| Dr Hans Labohm: | “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.” |
| Dr Andrew Lacis: | “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.” |
| Dr Chris Landsea: | “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.” |
| Prof Hal Lewis: | “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” |
| Dr Richard Lindzen: | “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.” |
| “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.” | |
| Dr Harry Lins: | “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.” |
| Dr Philip Lloyd: | “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.” |
| Dr Alan Longhurst: | “I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale. The research of H.H. Lamb and others on the natural changes of regional and global climate of the Holocene appeared to be no longer of interest, and the evidence for anthropogenic climate change was being discussed as if it was reducible to change in a single value that represented global surface temperature.” |
| Prof Horst-Joachim Lüdecke: | The current state of the scientific literature gives no reason to fear dangerous global warming due to increasing CO2. Evidence of anthropogenic global warming is still pending. This claim of warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 is based on mere model calculations, which are based on questionable assumptions and the accuracy of which has not yet been confirmed. |
| Dr. Sebastian Lüning: | The industrial signal started only in 1850. Geology does back millions of years. I looked at the geological evidence ... There are natural cycles ... Climate cycles are in synchronicity with solar activity ... How can that be ignored? |
| Dr Martin Manning: | “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.” |
| Dr Jennifer Marohasy: | “Many of us know that there is little to no quality assurance of much of the environmental science that comes out of universities across the Western world. Yet academics are the new demigods, revered by so many while often just making stuff-up to fit the zeitgeist. So many within the university system that have tried to speak-up have been silenced, and then sacked.” |
| Dr Stephen McIntyre: | “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.” |
| Dr Patrick Michaels: | “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.” |
| Dr Ziggy Modrzejewski: | “The reason why anybody would want to perpetrate the Global Warming Hoax is that it is the perfect reason for insisting on ZERO carbon emissions. The zero carbon emissions implementation will destroy the global economy.” |
| Dr Lubos Motl: | “The climate modeling hasn't led to any new yet reliable insights. In those 50 years, while the short-term weather models have made some progress, the long-term models have made virtually none and it is especially the case of the question about the magnitude of the influence of CO2 on the climate. All the relevant quantities (like the climate sensitivity) remained about as uncertain as when these modelling efforts were launched and the claim about the "reliable prediction of global warming" is a pure lie.” |
| “I think that the typical people inclined to accept this climate faith no longer even pretend that they care about science much.” | |
| “These activists are parasitic pests that are devouring everything they can even though they haven't built any of these things.” | |
| Dr Nils-Axel Morner: | “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.” |
| Dr. Mototaka Nakamura (climate modeler): | “Our models are Mickey-Mouse mockeries of the real world” |
| Dr Ned Nikolov: | “The climate science was as wrong 45 years ago (when many thought that a global Ice Age is immanent within 30 years) as it's now, when most academics naively believe that human trace-gas emissions can warm the planet based on a conjectural unphysical concept from the 19th Century!” |
| Dr Johannes Oerlemans: | “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.” |
| Dr Roger Pielke: | “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.” |
| Professor emeritus Ian Plimer: | “The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archeology and geology.” |
| “To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science.” | |
| Dr Mika Rantanen: | “September 2021 is on its way to perhaps the coldest of the 21st century in Finland.” |
| Dr Paul Reiter: | “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.” |
| Dr Pascal Richet: | “an epistemological examination of the geochemical analyses performed on the Vostok ice cores invalidates the marked greenhouse effect on past climate usually assigned to CO2 and CH4” [citation] |
| Dr G Dedrick Robinson: | “... How then, can someone claim to predict something such as warming, if the error involved in the procedure is more than 15 times greater than the effect one is trying to predict?” |
| Dr Murray Salby: | “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.” |
| Dr Nicola Scafetta: | “Earth’s climate is not changing in an unusual or anomalous fashion. The EPA relied on instrumental data that were adjusted to exaggerate the increase in global temperatures.” |
| Prof. Stephen H. Schneider: | “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. … To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest..” - Discover Magazine, October 1989 |
| Dr Harrison Schmitt: | “the ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” - 2009 |
| Dr Tom Segalstad: | “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.” |
| Dr Frederick Seitz: | “I have never before witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.” – regarding the 1995 IPCC WG1 report. |
| Dr Gary D. Sharp: | “Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral reefs] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all. It is their and our friend, generally, not the enemy.” |
| Dr Nir Shaviv: | “There is no fingerprint attesting that CO2 emission causes a rise in temperature” |
| “I had no idea that this would lead me to get involved in the greenhouse effect, ... All I set out to do was to seriously answer a colleague's question. When I wanted to publish the article I ran into closed doors. I sent the article to Nature and was told - It's nice, but you need to find a stronger basis. After a while, I came to feel like people were always looking for another excuse not to publish the article.” | |
| Dr Joanne Simpson: | “As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” |
| Dr Fred Singer: | “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?” |
| Dr Hajo Smit: | “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.” |
| Dr L. Graham Smith: | “Environmentalism is no longer the ideology of reform, of rebellion, of revolution: it is fully co-opted as the dominant dogma of stasist conformity and control.” |
| Dr Willie Soon: | “Errors in Total Solar Irradiance, ... The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps using the wrong numbers! It’s making me feel sick to keep seeing this error. I keep telling them – but they keep ignoring their mistake.” |
| Dr Roy W. Spencer: | “I have never been convinced that there is any fingerprint of anthropogenic warming.” |
| Dr Henrik Svensmark: | “In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable.” |
| Dr Hendrik Tennekes: | “There is no chance at all that the physical sciences can produce a universally accepted scientific basis for policy measures concerning climate change. There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies.” |
| Dr Tom Tripp: | “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.” |
| Prof Fritz Vahrenholt: | “It's now obvious that the IPCC models are not correctly reflecting the development of atmospheric temperatures.” |
| “The main cause of the warming of the last 20 years is the change in clouds” | |
| Prof. emeritus Jan Veizer: | “MANY people think the science of climate change is settled. It isn’t. And the issue is not whether there has been an overall warming during the past century. There has, although it was not uniform and none was observed during the past decade. The geologic record provides us with abundant evidence for such perpetual natural climate variability, from icecaps reaching almost to the equator to none at all, even at the poles.” |
| Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: | “In a Democratic Society, Published opinion and public perceptions are the main drivers for political action, not indisputable scientific facts. Cases and point are the European Union’s Climate Change Strategy of 10 January 2007 and the Green Package of 23 January, 2008, but also some regional activities in the US and proposed action by US legislative bodies. Those Policies and proposals have been justified by the extremist view on climate change.” [GRW] |
| Dr David Wojick: | “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.” |
| Dr Miklos Zagoni: | “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.” |
| Prof. emeritus Antonino Zichichi: | “Pollution is one thing, but the greenhouse effect is something different, and man has little to do with it. I challenge climatologists to demonstrate that in a hundred years the Earth will be overheated. Climate change history is an opinion; a mathematical model which claims to demonstrate the indemonstrable.” |
| Dr Eduardo Zorita: | “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.” |
Six more quotes
| Michael Crichton: | “In my view, our approach to global warming exemplifies everything that is wrong with our approach to the environment. We are basing our decisions on speculation, not evidence. Societies are morally unjustified in spending vast sums on a speculative issue when people around the world are dying of starvation and disease.” |
| Dr Vaclav Klaus: | “Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.” |
| Joanne Nova: | “Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.)” |
| Roger Tattersall: | “We think that the variation of the sun, and the variation of the orbital parameters of the planets in the solar system has a much bigger effect on changes in Earth’s surface temperature than the changing concentration of a minor trace gas such as carbon dioxide.” |
| Dr Richard Tol: | “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.” |
| Dr Brian G Valentine: | There are no redeeming features of "climate modeling" at all. Explanations of fundamental periodic phenomena such as ENSO are completely lacking. Forget about "warming." I defy anyone to provide an example of accurate prediction of some "climate" related phenomenon by modeling that is observable and repeatable over decade periods.” |
Thanks for assembling these quotes about climate alarmism. A great service. John Shanahan, Founder - Editor of website: allaboutenergy.net.
ReplyDelete