-
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Oliver
Frauenfeld:
"Much more
progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of
climate and our abilities to model it."
-
Dr Peter Dietze:
"Using a flawed
eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated
the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."
-
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."
-
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."
-
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."
-
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 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."
-
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."
-
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."
-
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 Martin
Manning:
"Some government
delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers
misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."
-
Steven 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 Nils-Axel
Morner:
"If you go around
the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."
-
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."
-
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 Murry
"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 Tom Segalstad:
"The IPCC global
warming model is not supported by the scientific data."
-
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 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 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."
-
Dr Gerd-Rainer
Weber:
"Most of the
extremist views about climate change have little or no
scientific basis."
-
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."
-
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."
