User:C-randles

Image:Satellite Temperatures.png

• Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=864 Dr. Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist On the real danger for Canada, global cooling] Frontier Centre for Public Policy "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO₂ being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=4cc39711-79fc-43ad-a2c0-73a1b4fe88a2&k=70079 Climate of controversy] Ottawa Citizen May 2006 "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html Mr.Cool] Nurturing doubt about climate change is big business August 2006 "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?] Ball, Timothy Canada Free Press February 2007

• Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."{{cite web |url=http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html |title=High price for load of hot air | The Courier-Mail |accessdate=2007-12-18 |work=}}

• Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."[http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1 New Zealand Climate Science Coalition - CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC]

Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[http://www.his.com/~sepp/Archive/NewSEPP/Climate%20models-Tennekes.htm A Skeptical View of Climate Models] Tennekes, Hendrik from Science & Environmental Policy Project www.his.com/~sepp
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=106708 Global Warming Natural, Says Expert] Zenit April 2007

Image:Climate Change Attribution.png

Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming] Russian News & Information Agency, January 2007[http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html Russian scientist issues global cooling warning] Russian News & Information Agency August 2006http://www.ogoniok.com/4933/24/ Page in Russian, Go [http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ogoniok.com%2F4933%2F24%2F&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8 here] for a translation.
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1816 Global Warming Science vs. Computer Model Speculation: Just Ask the Experts] Capitalism Magazine, August 2002
• George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/ On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?] L. F. Khilyuk1 and G. V. Chilingar Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO₂ relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO₂, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[http://www.nrsp.com/clark_letter_22-03-04.html Letter to the editor] The Hill Times, March 2004
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "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."[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html Newsmax.com - New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_108164.htm The Cause of Global Warming and Predictions for the Coming Century] Easterbrook, Don
• William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm Viewpoint: Get off warming bandwagon] Gray, William BBC November 2000 "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html The Tempest] Achenbach, Joel The Washington Post May 2006 "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/departments/discover-dialogue Discover Dialogue: Meteorologist William Gray] Discover September 2005
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/climatechange.pdf Climate Change: A Natural Hazard]
• George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/an_unrepentant_prognosticator.php An Unrepentant Prognosticator] Krueger, Mari Gelf Magazine, April 2007
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/ Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts] National Center for Policy Analysis May 2006
• William Happer, physicist Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"{{cite web |url=http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/ |title=Professor denies global warming theory |author=Raymond Brusca |date=January 12, 2009 }}
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[http://magazine.carleton.ca/2005_Spring/1535.htm Global warning? Controversy heats up in the scientific community] Robinson, Cindy Carleton University Spring 2005
• Tim Patterson[http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/index.html Dr. Patterson] Page at Carleton University, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO₂ levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO₂ levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO₂ levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe] Harris, Tom Canada Free Press June 2006[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4 Read the Sunspots] Patterson, Timothy Financial Post June 2007
• Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s650126.htm Wild weather ignites climate change debate]
• Harrison Schmitt, former Astronaut, chair of the NASA Advisory Council, Adjunct Professor of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison:"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect".http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,493624,00.html
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic {{co2}} amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03°C of the total ~33°C)."{{cite web |url=http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_ISMA_CO2.pdf |title=What is CO2 - friend or foe? |accessdate=2009-07-04 |last=Segalstad |first=Tom |coauthors= |date= |work= |publisher=}}
• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?] ScienceBits
• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0422/p08s01-coop.html The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it] Christian Science Monitor April 2005[http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle] Singer, Fred et al NCPA Study No. 279, September 2005 “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html The Denial Machine] CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en Google Video Link]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-weather.html Global warming is not so hot: 1003 was worse, researchers find] Harvard University Gazette April 2003
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3] Testimony of Roy W. Spencer before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 22 July 2008
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[http://parliamentofthings.info/climate.html Essay 1: 'Global Warming' as Myth] A Parliament of Things
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf Influence of Cosmic Rays on the Earth's Climate] Svensmark, Henry Danish National Space Center, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QQS/is_1_32/ai_n13670777/pg_11 Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle] and [http://www.esd.mun.ca/~gac/JOURNALS/TOC/GACgcV32No1Web.pdf here] In J. Veizer, , Geoscience Canada, March 2005

Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[http://climatesci.org/2007/06/15/on-the-fundamental-defect-in-the-ipcc’s-approach-to-global-warming-research-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/ On the Fundamental Defect in the IPCC’s Approach to Global Warming Research] Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog, June 15 2007

• Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO₂ content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO₂. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO₂ content."[http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=452950 Climat: la prévention, oui, la peur, non], Translation from the original French version in L'Express, May 2006
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf The Increase in Global Temperature: What it Does and Does Not Tell Us] Balling, Robert George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook September 2003
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."{{cite web | url=http://mobile2.wsj.com/beta2/htmlsite/html_article.php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries | publisher=Wall Street Journal | date=2007-11-01 | accessdate=2007-11-02 | title=My Nobel Moment | first=John | last=Christy | authorlink=John Christy }}
• Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO₂, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[http://downloads.heartland.org/2329bo.pdf A Long Term Perspective on Climate Change] - Heartland.org
• William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system."[http://climatesci.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/cotton-climate.pdf Global Climate Change: A Global Climate Change: A Skeptics Perspective] Presentation by William R. Cotton
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."[http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543 Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works] December 2006
• Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2006510223000.CSC_News_3.PDF {{Dead link|date=February 2008}} The New Zealand Herald, May 2006
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO₂ have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO₂ or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606 The Press Gets It Wrong Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty.] Lindzen, Richard Opinion Journal (The Wall Street Journal) June 2001 "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO₂ is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO₂ should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[http://www.examiner.com/a-173632~There_is_no__consensus__on_global_warming.html There is no consensus on Global Warming] appeared in The San Francisco Examiner July 2006 and in The Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14

Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment.

• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO₂ content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO₂-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."[http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/21345.pdf A Science--Based Rebuttal to the Testimony of Al Gore before the United States Senate Environment & Public Works Committee]
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO₂ enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO₂ and global warming."[http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/0_CO2ScienceB2C/pdf/health2pps.pdf Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World]. CO2 Science. November 2003, p. 30
• Patrick Michaels, part-time research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter."{{cite web|first=Patrick|last=Michaels|url=http://www.cato.org/research/articles/michaels-031016.html|title=Posturing and Reality on Warming|publisher=CATO Institute|accessdate=June 10, 2009|date=October 16, 2003}}

• Global warming
• Global warming conspiracy theory
• Global warming controversy
• List of authors from the IPCC AR4 WGI report
• List of climate scientists
• Oregon petition
• Scientific opinion on climate change
• Scientific consensus

{{reflist|2}}

Note that the persons listed on the following web pages may not satisfy the conditions outlined at the beginning of this article.

• [http://www.petitionproject.org Global Warming Petition Project]
• [http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 ICSC, International Climate Science Coalition]
• [http://icecap.us/index.php ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project]
• [http://www.nrsp.com/people.html NRSP's list of advisors and experts]
• [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71 Climate Change : The Deniers] The National Post's February 2007 series on "scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science"
• [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.] Wall Street Journal article by Richard Lindzen (April 12, 2006)
• [http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html Sixty scientists call on (Canadian Prime Minister) Harper to revisit the science of global warming]. A critical review of the list members is at [http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272 Who are the sixty?]. An open letter in response from 91 Canadian climate scientists: [http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf Response].
• [http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf Annotated bibliography] by Madhav L Khandekar of recent peer-reviewed papers which, he claims, question aspects of the current state of global warming science
• [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_sceptics Sourcewatch] profiles of global warming skeptics
• Washington Post article [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html The tempest: As evidence mounts that humans are causing dangerous changes in Earth's climate, a handful of skeptics are providing some serious blowback, May 28, 2006]
• [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=E1BEFFF7-802A-23AD-4794-179EB41CF348 Global Warming "Consensus" Continues To Melt Away (Op-Ed, Senator Inhofe, Power Magazine)]
• [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400789.html Science a la Joe Camel]
• [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ Science & Public Policy Institute]
• [http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm Global Warming, humans, Carbon Dioxide-Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?]
• [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming]

{{global warming}}