“THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE……………….Suggested by Gordon.

Articles 

“THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

For those still blindly banging the 97% drum, here’s an in-no-way-comprehensive list of the SCIENTISTS who publicly disagree with the current consensus on climate change.

There are currently 85 names on the list, though it is embryonic and dynamic. Suggestions for omissions and/or additions can be added to the comment section below and, if validated, will –eventually– serve to update the list.

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES

— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWN

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

DECEASED SCIENTISTS

— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

SPEAKING OUT

A system is in place that makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for scientists to take a public stance against AGW — their funding and opportunities are shutoff, their credibility and character smeared, and their safety sometimes compromised.

Example: In 2014, Lennart Bengtsson and his colleagues submitted a paper to Environmental Research Letters which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons.

Bengtsson’s paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports.

Here is a passage from Bengtsson’s resignation letter from soon after:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Lennart Bengtsson

Any person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a denier — the classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who don’t comply with the preferred wisdom of the day.

If you still believe in the 97% consensus then by all means find the list of 2,748 scientist that have zero doubts regarding the IPCC’s catastrophic conclusions on Climate Change (given I’ve found 85 names effectively refuting the claims, that’s the minimum number required to reach the 97% consensus).

Or go write your own list — it shouldn’t be that hard to do, if the scientists are out there.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

 

Michael Crichton

Another name I have yet to add to the list:

Earth’s natural & minor warming trend (the modern Grand Solar Maximum) appears to have runs its course. The COLD TIMES are returning, the lower-latitudes are REFREEZING, in line with historically low solar activitycloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow.

Even NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with their forecast for this upcoming solar cycle (25) seeing it as “the weakest of the past 200 years,” with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.

Prepare accordingly — learn the facts, relocate if need be, and grow your own.

Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach; Twitter are purging followers, and Facebook are labeling posts as “false” — be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).

And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: patreon.com/join/electroverse

The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.

Any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.

Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift

[Featured Image — SMETEK]

RELATED POSTS

33 THOUGHTS TO ““THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE”

  1. qwerty

    Hermetic would say … as above so below. The ruling power structures are dominated by sociopaths. The same can be said about the grassroots population. They populate society and the various professions in overwhelming numbers … Bengtsson’s comments and isolation just reaffirm this reality and my lifelong observations and research. It’s why societies on earth are buried in a mountain lies and relatively few people care to acknowledge the lies at so many different levels. Most people have no problem living the lie.

    No political group will talk about it because they too have to pander to the very same sociopath populations whether elected or not. Same with people who blah blah their own political narratives especially false left right paradigms.

    The flip side to this … the cosmos will eventually transmit the truth about future climate globally so unlike other lies, the population whether power structure or grassroots will need to confront it at some point

    1. Brad Rush

      Pierre Gosselin of @NoTricksZone has been collecting links with abstracts of peer-reviewed research papers supporting a skeptical-of-the-consensus position since 2014. He has a searchable database.
      Visit>>> notrickszone.com/

      Anthony Watts of @wattsupwiththat has a popular blog that opposes the consensus on climate change. He publishes many papers from others & he also has a searchable database of papers with abstracts & full articles.
      Go to >>wattsupwiththat.com

  2. Robert V Granholm

    Here are two to add:
    @NikolovScience
    @drwaheeduddin

  3. lapogus

    comment on WUWT, Sep 21 2018: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/21/destroying-the-careers-of-those-who-defy-the-climate-diktat/
    ===================================================
    Javier
    September 21, 2018 at 10:52 am
    They will hunt you beyond the grave.

    Marcel Leroux was a French climate scientists, a world leading authority in atmospheric circulation, but highly critical with the small cadre that took over climate science to put it at the service of politicians like Maurice Strong. He published in 2005 a book exposing their folly:
    Global Warming – Myth or reality? The erring ways of climatology. Marcel Leroux. 2005. Praxis Publishing Ltd. 510 pages.The late Marcel Leroux, French atmospheric physicist. He died in 2008, months after completing the second edition to his masterpiece, published in English in 2010:

    Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate. Atmospheric Circulation, Perturbations, Climatic Evolution. Marcel Leroux. 2010. 2nd Edition. Springer-Praxis. 464 pages.

    He has an entry in the French Wikipedia and the Spanish Wikipedia. But his entry in the English Wikipedia was deleted in 2011, and when restored, it was deleted again permanently in 2012.

    The Chiefio has preserved a copy here. [https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/marcel-leroux-wikipedia/ ]

    They won’t let you rest in peace if you were a skeptic in life.
    . – https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/marcel-leroux-wikipedia/

    They won’t let you rest in peace if you were a skeptic in life.

  4. Feel free to add me to the agnostic or skeptic list. I am a Ph.D. geologist consulting privately in Calgary.
    My thoughts on climate change: https://csegrecorder.com/articles/view/knowledge-true-and-false-scientific-logic-and-climate-change
    My website: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/lyatskyh/

  5. Tyson White

    Willie Soon received $1M in funding from oil and coal firms for his “research”.
    https://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628

    Can I take a guess where the others on your list got their funding from?

    1. Richard Lock

      Where do most scientists involved in contentious research get their funding? What is seriously dangerous is the lack of integrity in science, the lack of balance in the ‘arguments’. I stick to my own views unless or until I see some proper arguments and, in the current hysterical state of the world, I’m not likely to see that happen in what little time I have left on earth.

    2. Anonymous

      Where do the climate scientist that agree with politicians and activists get there money from…hmmm, maybe big government and lobbyist that want to push their ideals?

  6. DrKeith Dawson

    I would be honoured to be considered for The List. I first published pioneering work on GGE in 1982 and have been a devout climate realist ever since working on agricultural and environmental projects on four continents for four decades. I regularly write published articles on the benefits of rising CO2 for food security and natural ecosystems Ashwell as the flawed warming models and climate.
    Dr Keith P Dawson (chairman Scottish Society of Crop Research) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dr-keith-p-dawson-cultist-dogma-of-the-green-lobby-is-exposed-by-benefit-of-more-co2-1-4600152/amp

    1. Gallopingcamel

      Great piece!
      You may like Taylor & Shlenker (2021) who show that crop yields have increased by up to a factor of six in the last 80 years. They project a further factor of five increase in the next 80 years.
      https://www.nber.org/papers/w29320

  7. Allen Horrell

    Professor Freeman Dyson publicly stated: “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”

  8. I collected 100 quotes of scientists disagreeing with the so-called climate consensus: https://greenfallacies.blogspot.com/p/climate-crisis-skeptics-quotes.html

    1. Gallopingcamel

      Thanks for that list. I have saved a copy since it has so many great quotes from respected scientists.

  9. Dean Larson

    Numerous considerations:
    —CO2 is presently in the 400-ppm range. When Mother Earth was nurturing lizards the size of buses in the Sahara Jungle CO2 was around 2,000-ppm. (no… it wasn’t 800 degrees). It’s been as high as 7,000-ppm during the Silurian ICE AGE! Conversely, if CO2 drops to around 150-ppm (not that far but probably more than any efforts by man could reach) earth enters a death spiral (you would have to explain why to a warmer/Leftist/Demmunist. [“Why would plants breathe CO2??”])
    —where was man 50 centuries ago? Stone ages. We have not intelligently observed climate for any length of time.. “Glaciers are melting!!”: yuh… probably has happened 100’s of times.
    What do they find under glaciers? Trees. Grass. Sometimes people or evidence of people. It’s all happened many times before.
    —97%: 14,944 climate papers by 29,083 authors//8,547 were cherry-picked–asked to sign a petition [“Rebutting Global Warming Misinformation”] claiming CO2 caused warming //1,189 responded [4% of the 29,083] //97% agreed. So it’s actually “97% of the 4% agree!!”.
    —Greenhouses raise their CO2 levels to 1500-ppm. Growth accelerates 25-140%.
    Temperature rises: 0.
    —Warning level…CO2 on submarines: 8,000-ppm (but by then it would be 10,000 degrees so…) So humans can handle very high levels that are extremely beneficial for plants.
    —Leftists always advance poverty: suppose CO2 was considered “dangerous” and so every business was given, say, 200 carbon emission units per year. Co. A only emitted 140 units but Co. B used 260 and was facing huge government fines…or he could buy Co. A’s unused 60 units… if he knew how to contact Co. A. Billions could be realized every year for the sale of useless Carbon Certificates… and companies of all kinds could be controlled. All that would be needed is some kind of invented sky-is-falling panic over carbon… and government force. Oh… and some kind of exchange. (guess who opened a Carbon Exchange in Chicago with his partner Blood? [Blood isn’t a published climatologist… he’s from Goldman-Sachs]) (that’s right: Blood & Gore)

  10. Dean Larson

    Mea culpa!! Forgot one!
    —Why do all their graphs show warming? Around 1,000AD earth had entered the Medieval Warming period. (Vikings went to Greenland and it was “green”. Remember? So they moved in…) Around 1300AD things reversed and we entered the Little Ice Age (Vikings packed their bags and left… ). We know this ended around 1875 because now we had accurate equipment. NOW: look at one of the “warmist”s temperature line graphs. Baseline is 1880 isn’t it?… always… which is about the coldest year in the past 1,000. So, yeah… things are warming slightly. (or were)

    1. Anonymous

      I thought it was called Greenland as a trick. Same thing with Iceland

  11. Linda Schultz

    Thank you so much for your scientific proof that there is no such thing in climate warming which is portrayed by the socialist elites who think they are god. I commend you for your information on scientific beliefs in proving the political world are wrong.

  12. Susan neves

    I evidently read the similar info as Dean Larsen when I researched where the 97% of scientists believe climate change is human caused back in 2008. I found an article that said it was a survey conducted by a University that sent out a number of questions to scientists with pertinent backgrounds asking if they felt climate change was real, if global warming was happening and if humans were causing it. First and foremost only 32% (as I recall) responded. Of those that responded, 97% thought climate change was real and humans were causing it. That surveys results were what was delivered to President Obama and he immediately reported that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans and we need to fix it fast. I must also tell everyone that that article is no longer on the internet. It was written by the New York Times and disappeared about a year ago.

  13. Linda Palson

    This needs to be exposed and talked about, they have started with CO2 certified and they are not cheap. This is the same scam that was regulations DMV and smog emissions. California has resently ended these regulations now it is going to start all over.

  14. Unfortunately need to move Fred Singer to the deceased category , and include Freeman Dyson .

  15. Dr Freeman Dyson is deceased.

  16. Karl Zeller

    Please add my name Karl F Zeller, PhD micrometeorology. I am a colleague with Ned Nikolov – we discovered that Earth was within a thermodynamic continuum with other Solar system rocky planets implying CO2 was not any different than other gases when it comes to warming or cooling a celestial atmosphere. https://web.archive.org/web/20180131013940/https:/tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.pdf

  17. David Hilderman

    Scientists need to be moved to the deceased list- Freeman Dyson, there may be more.

  18. Monty T

    In New Zealand over 53years we have had a cold snap come through around the 12th of October. That is a birthdate of a friend.

  19. Brad

    Any scientist who claims that sun spot cycle has any effect on Earth’s atmospheric temp is not a scientist at all.

  20. My understanding is as far back as the nineteenth century physical chemist Svante Arrhenius predicted that man-made greenhouse gases could cause significant global warming. Has any of these scientists on this list attempted to show that man-made greenhouse gases could not be the cause of global warming?

    1. Dan Spinks

      Grow up and dont be so ignorant. Since time began there have been floods, earthquakes, heat waves etc.
      Dont fall for the WEF propaganda
      More cows, more oil, more cars the better.

    2. Barrie Duncan-Smith

      Surely its up to the scientists who claim anthropogenic warming to give evidence of this claim. So far , no evidence only opinions and computer modelling. It is impossible a trace gas of about 0.04% in the atmosphere could change temperature or climate. However if you want a name try looking up Dr Robert Holmes who has proved every theory put forward by the IPCC, UN and NOAA could not be the cause of warming or cooling.

  21. Julio Andrés Jiménez Tobon

    Great work

  22. Bazzer Smith

    Can you add Dr Robert Holmes to you list of climate scientists . He has written and released many YouTube videos refuting IPCC reports with real science and evidence

  23. Margaret Davis

    Brave people to go against the flow but the earth is a living thing with its own agenda. Humans don’t have a lot of influence over what it does. This has all happened before, probably hundreds of times. The truth will out, eventually

  24. Barrie Duncan-Smith

    Totally agree, the idea that we can somehow manipulate or change the climate or temperature is just absurd nonsense. We are still in an ice age albeit in a brief warm period and sometime soon in t he next 2000 years the earth will return to a fully fledged return of the ice sheets in the northern hemisphere.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail