A list [still under construction] of actual climate scientists who are publishing papers, who have not retired and whose expertise is in current climate science and closely related subjects. There is the inclusion of astrophysicists who are well represented and who point to either solar or cosmic ray activity as the source of warming. No weathermen are featured but those meteorologists working in specialist fields are, although most of their peer-reviewed papers do not reject AGW they do take a personal sceptic stance. Authors [and co-authors] of peer-reviewed papers on climate change but with an associated credential with climate science are also included.
The 25 peer reviewed papers that refute AGW are listed here and contain names not featured in this list.
Climate Scientists
Richard Lindzen his wikipedia entry as a prolific contributor to AGW scepticism most information is freely available. The no 1 sceptical scientist. rationalwiki entry
Robert. E. Davis– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
Petr Chylek–wiki entry– Desmogblog entry
Chris Landsea– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
Roy Spencer –rationalwiki entry– wiki entry, Desmogblog entry
John R. Christy–wiki entry– Desmogblog entry
David Legates– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry Although claims of being a climatologist rather than just a geographer has been debated.
Astrophysicists
Willie Soon– wiki entry-Desmogblog entry
Sallie Baliunas– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
Physicists
Fred Singer– his wiki entry and sceptic from the start. Desmogblog entry- Carbon Brief entry – rationalwiki entry
Henrik Svensmark– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
Nicola Scafetta– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
Nir Shaviv– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
David H Douglass– wiki entry –
Earth Sciences [geochemistry – geophysics etc]
Ján Veizer- wiki entry– Desmogblog entry –
Syun Akasofu–wiki entry– Desmogblog entry
Don Easterbrook– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
Tom Segalstad– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
Geographers
Craig D. Idso–wiki entry– Desmogblog entry
Robert C. Balling Jr. – wiki entry – Desmogblog entry – Exxonsecrets
Meteorologist [atmospheric scientists ]
Stanley Goldenberg– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
William Gray– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
Anthony Lupo– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
Paleoclimatologist
Augusto Mangini– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
Biologist
Tad Murty– wiki entry – Desmogblog entry
-
1
Pingback on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:30 pm
[…] Just another piece of misinformation from the same source…Judith Curry, and another denialist weather man, Anastasios Tsonis. Actual Climate Scientists Who Are Sceptical of AGW | the Climate Denier List […]
the Climate Denier List 
June 7, 2013 at 6:48 pm
Should this list include Judith Curry and/or Roger A. Pielke Sr. (the latter a meteorologist, not climate scientist)?
ED NOTE- both are complex ‘sceptics’ with Curry sitting on fences and Pielke accepting AGW but placing a greater cause on land use change and deforestation. Neither deny the overwhelming scientific evidence of AGW but do contest many aspects of the science.
December 19, 2013 at 7:59 pm
Curry is not “sitting on fences”. She’s only insisting on some scientific rigour.
July 10, 2014 at 10:00 pm
As long as its not hers.
January 8, 2016 at 3:15 am
Dr. Pielke most definitely is a climate scientist.
He was the President of the American Association of State Climatologists from 2002 to 2003 and the Colorado State Climatologist from 2000 to 2006.
June 29, 2013 at 1:47 pm
You should add :-
William KININMONTH, – Meteorologist –
Formerly :-
Head of Australian National Climate Centre (1996-1668)
Australian delegate to the WMO Commission on Climatology
Australiann delegate to the Second World Climate Conference (1991-1992)
Garth PALTRIDGE – Retired Australian Atmospheric Physicist
Formerly :-
Research Scientist CSIRO (1968-1991)
Consultant to the World Meteorological Association
Senior visiting Scientist to NOAA.
ED NOTE – both are retired and have not contributed to peer-reviewed science on climate change hence their absence.
October 20, 2013 at 10:35 pm
Landsea seems to have moderated his position. For example, he broke with the Heartland Foundation after the billboard fiasco
October 20, 2013 at 10:36 pm
Also “refute” is the wrong word. You want something like “dispute the mainstream view”
February 7, 2014 at 2:36 pm
WOW the total number of people that are willing to oppose the mass hysteria in public forums, along with the certain facts that are indisputable (such as that violent swings in Earths climate are not new) Should alarm us all that it is not 97% agreed upon that the IPCC has climate change correctly nailed down.
Add into that, the fact that the Climate Models have been proven to be severely inaccurate, and the hatchet job you are trying to do on here to anyone who would dare oppose the IPCC’s findings, and I can tell you I am saddened that more scientists are not keeping true to pure scientific principals.
This hatchet job going on in here, make me believe that this is way more political than truth.
Instead of showing why all of these scientists are wrong, this website seems to use subtle slander.
True scientists would want every aspect researched and proven wrong or proven right. When the models are failing true scientists would want to know why. .In witnessing many of the arguments form the so called “Deniers”, and seeing how they literately show why the IPCC is not correct, by using empirical data supplied by NOAA and NASA and The IPCC, The compelling argument has been made, The IPCC is not infallible. Yet I have not seen one example, where anyone who takes the “denier” information and explain why they are wrong. Just labeled with misinformation etc.
Sad truly sad.
May 10, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Steve, you won’t read this, but it’s not for you.
Here we ago again with yet another non-scientist telling us professionals how things are supposed to work, as if science is like the local football team.
One of the crazy things that happens is that amateurs like Steve here take the word “model” and decide that they know without any study what models are supposed to do. No work required, the mere layman’s imperious declaration is all that is needed.
So Steve and his fellows (or more likely the people he is copycatting), decide that the models are supposed to match the the global mean surface temperature for any given numbers of from some starting point, because, well that’s what models are supposed to do. And when he eyeballs the averaged output of around 100 model runs it doesn’t line up as well (note Steve and his fellow travelers never, ever provide a criteria of how good is good enough- how very amateurish of them), as I was saying doesn’t line up the way his imaginary models are supposed to with Global Mean Surface Temperature, he feels justified in saying that climate science is all wrong and not applying pure scientific principles. (and they should have traded smith for that shortstop for St. louis).
Climate Modelers have never claimed to be able to model short term processes. Now a layman might ask, how can you get the long term right if you can’t do the short term. There’s a simple analogy for this- walking the dog on a leash Given your average size human and a small dog, if the human sets a course, the dog follows it overall. But the dog will of course be wandering around the owner’s course, sniffing here, stopping and marking territory, trying to chase a squirrel. Climate models tell us what the human is doing, while observed weather shows us what the dog is doing.
Given a windup world and all things being constant , climate models can be cranked up and they’ll produce temperatures that vary around some average. They won’t “go” anywhere unless you put in some driving force, like changing solar radiation, or adding or taking out greenhouse gases. And if you don’t add greenhouse gases climate models just noodle around and produce no trends. Despite years of work, that’s what we’ve learned: Natural variations still do not produce the kinds of temperature increases we’ve been seeing to various degrees since 1750. I’ve done this kind of modeling myself in deterministic systems….one of the checks for the model/simulation working is that that until you turn on the feeds temperatures are flat. If they aren’t,you’d better look at your code.
Climate modes don’t do 3 things that are needed for short term scenario anaysis:
1) They can’t predict the el nino/la nina cycle (ENSO)….something we know affects the balance of hat being absorbed into the ocean or being sensed to determine GMST.
2) They can’t predict particulates, volcanoes and recessions make a difference.
3) They can’t predict the detailed solar output reaching the earth.
These are the “walking dog” factors. Individual climate models and runs will generate hypothetical dog paths, and given those three variables dog paths that match the GMST. But if you average all the runs together you get the human path, the underlying global warming trend. The various different dog paths get averaged out. And that’s what Steve is eyeballing.
It’s also why models work long term, but aren’t reliable short term. Over time ENSO, particulates and the sun average out all on their own….over periods of 30-100 years,
So the next time you run into a Steve, remember the part about walking the dog.
June 15, 2014 at 9:36 pm
Dave, can you provide your scientific credentials? I thought Mr. Steven’s points were articulate and well made, whether he is a scientist or not. On the other hand, you appear to be countering his concerns as if you are a subject matter expert in climate science yourself. Is that the case?
June 16, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Sure- Ph.D Chemistry MIT. I’ve done chemical reactor modeling with great success which gives me some of the same tools (wrote the code, not just used it). Anyhow, the points the Steves make are all glittering generalities, whereas I’ve represented specific topics about climate modeling. Because I’ve done modeling myself, when a climate modeler makes a claim about how climate models work, I can compare that with my experience and see if it rings true. So far the claims are all reasonable. When a lay person makes a claim about climate models it’s also easy to see that they don’t have the first clue about the realities of modeling and have some made up version of things in their head.
So if someone is going to say climate models don’t match reality, them’s fighting words, especially when they act like it’s a generally acknowledged truth.
“Steves” also poison the well, for example dismissing the IPCC without even citing a specific error.
So I’m not quite a subject matter expert in climate modeling, but I’m head and shoulders above the man in the street.
The material I’ve represented is not original to me, it’s a summary of points I’ve found convincing and compelling based on the information and my prior experience.
July 4, 2014 at 10:49 pm
While researching effective means of reducing power of transmission to geostatic satellites in the 1990’s while simultaneously reducing data corruptions due to atmospheric conditions. The team encountered a small problem, none of our models worked even when our numbers indicated they should. Our NOAA contact provided us with “raw” data to use on our models and we noticed an error which could not be explained. We of course inquired as to the cause of the data differance from the information they had provided earlier and the explanation was that we received initially was for public use. That the latter data transfer was the actual numbers and measurements. Applying the accurate data our models worked 9982 out of 10000 runs. The number we needed to begin field testing. Since then I have been sceptical of any atmospheric data publicly released by NOAA.
On a personal note I know climate change is occurring, I also believe that carbon emissions are impacting it. Personally I have not seen any evidence that would support the claims that it is something that natural process will not rectify eventually. Most likely to our mutual dissatisfaction.
July 5, 2014 at 3:17 am
One of the factors that entered into my chemical modeling work was the poor quality of data from the operating plant. One of the things that laypeople and many scientists don’t recognize is that the interaction of theory and data sometimes leads to the recognition that there are problems with the data as you found out. Did NOAA revise its handling of its data products based on your work?
There are two well known cases with this in climate science. First, in the 1990s the UAH satellite temperature data turned out to be wrong because the two scientists Spencer and Christy had not properly compensated for changes in satellite orbits, thus leading to a false cold-bias in the temperatures calculated from the microwave measurements. Once the satellite errors were fixed the data showed warming. (Given both Spencer’s and Christie’s known anti-AGW biases I wonder that they kept their jobs!). The other is an ongoing problem with Christy citing upper troposphere data that is known to be contaminated with lower stratosphere influence, thus “cooling” the supposed information.
There were claims made (and now goldfishing) about urban heat islands and adjustments to the ground station data that the Koch funded Berkeley Earth project should have put to rest. It did, temporarily, but now I’m seeing the same old nonsense recycled as if Berkeley Earth never happened.
I don’t understand your second paragraph. Could you be specific about natural processes that might put things to rights?
July 5, 2014 at 2:09 pm
Dave, as a chemist who is a climate change proponent, perhaps you have an explanation for the missing 2 million ocean pH data points that have been left out of the narrative of ocean acidification. It turns out that the oceans have NOT been acidifying, In fact NOAA produces two data sets. One for public consumption (similar to Preston’s experience above) and one for real use.
I had some interactions with the primary architects of the ocean pH data omissions, where this was finally admitted last year.. with no consequence to them it seems. They simply replaced that inconvenient data (from hundreds of ocean cruises over 80 years) with their own uncalibrated model hindcast. They then changed the name from hindcast to history. (search for Feel2899.pdf.. it was the source used by scientists to assert to Congress in 2011 that oceans were unequivocally acidfiying.
My guess is that you don’t know much about this scandal. Chemists who embrace AGW typically go into a deep and long silent mode when I’ve attempted to bring this up to them.
In case you want some confirmation, you might start by satisfying yourself about the status quo. Try to find a time series of data which supports acidification, which covers history back to ~1910, and which has a clear traceable data path.
July 5, 2014 at 2:46 pm
Now I know who you are… you have a blog on this and have been shown you’re incompetent at measuring pH. Your scandal exists only in your head.
July 5, 2014 at 9:35 pm
pH measurement of ocean water is a trivial matter. Unfortunately your representations as someone who can pass judgement on all things climate science (and somehow trump an actual climate scientist who is here now trying to reason with you) are not trivial.
I hope you will seriously reconsider the wisdom of endorsing the omission of millions of data points covering the missing 80 years of ocean pH records. I just cannot get behind that myself. It it were in the medical field, the researchers would likely be in jail now.
August 1, 2017 at 9:19 am
Question
How reliable are the “80 years of missing pH data”?
Glass electrodes used to measure oceanic pH can be affected by local temperatures and salinity.
Consequently the lack of reliable and repeatable measurements has led to the data being considered with caution.
Only in the last 20 to 30 years have colourmetric methods been developed and used that appear to be unaffected by temperature and salinity variations in oceanic samples.
Colourmetric methods appear to be capable of much higher resolution and repeatebility than glass electrodes.
August 1, 2017 at 1:26 pm
Col, this format is getting tight, please copy and paste elsewhere to read if necessary. Visit http://www.abeqas.com/ocean-ph-and-gyres-challenge-the-amoc-and-thc-circulation/.
I killed two birds with one stone in that recent post. For the pH bird I showed that the glass electrode pH data is consistent with ocean temperature and circulation patterns as well as past published papers. The AMOC was also critiqued there. Other recent posts at my site address the ozone hole, hurricanes, the greenhouse gas non-theory, and more of my accurate forecasts, including one for the AMO,
Col I recommend you study your concern more deeply. Unfortunately, contemporary ocean science information cannot be trusted. I actually received a comment from a major ocean science journal, vetted by their Editor in Chiev, claiming that the seas were not buffered solutions. Accordingly I don’t see how they can be trusted to get anything right.
Also, salinity doesn’t have much of an impact on pH measurements but temperature ALWAYS does, and well it should or the meter will be defective.
Ocean scientists actually use very expensive spectrometers as colorimeters. It’s yet another part of problem. Likely all of them secretly keep a glass electrode pH meter handy in their back pocket to double check the accuracy of those extraordinarily pricey Rube Goldberg pH devices.
So yes, the 80 years of missing ocean pH data seems fine. The omission, not so much.
November 16, 2014 at 10:25 pm
It is sad because the line has been crossed in atmospheric science between science and gangsterism.
The idea that there is stand alone “climate science”, so that the gangsters and their henchmen can discount meteorologists, who know more about how weather works and geologists who understand Earth’s history, is a big laugh. The biggest laugh of all is they are being done in by Mother Nature, as it gets colder and colder.
September 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm
it is the ipcc summery that is saying that the ,benign ,trace gas
that preforms functions that keep us all alive. it has be remembered that scientist are of upright primate type have to bye food and keep there families. even if they are part off ??? per cent. if you reply please say you are more offended by grammatical problems or the other nonsense.
June 18, 2014 at 2:48 pm
It seems you don’t have any climate experience Dave. For my part as a hydroclimatologist and multiphase H2O modeler I wonder how you can possibly endorse any uncalibrated and unvalidated model (those which fail at history – matching). I hope you don’t promote uncalibrated and unvalidated nuke models to your clients.
June 18, 2014 at 6:26 pm
Again with unsupported remarks. You’ve now made a claim that climate models can’t hindcast. I think you need to support that claim.
And chemical reactors are not nukes. Please read more carefully.
July 5, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Dave it is the anthro-blamer’s job to address the null hypothesis. In other words, for the climate models to even get a seat at the table, they must produce hindcasts which capture past climate (calibration and/or validation) better than natural based models and/or explanations can.
For you as a self identified scientist to ask me to provide evidence that these models have not produced adequate hindcasts is out of line. Every scientist with integrity knows they must produce some proof of their claims.. not just make things up and demand that others prove them wrong. The metaphor is not that AGW is ‘right’ and will continue to be ‘right’ until proven otherwise. The proper comparison is that AGW is wrong, and will continue to be wrong until it can be proven right.
The fact that these models all fail miserably is rather common knowledge, and in any case there are so many reasons to dismiss AGW, that those embrace it must produce contentious sites like this one.
July 5, 2014 at 2:44 pm
You’ve claimed to a scientist, and a modeler at that, and then make remarks about real scientists and null hypotheses that echo ignorant denialist blog sites. At this point your claims of identity are suspect.
At any rate, real scientists investigating a subject master the literature. You don’t seem to have done so, dodging behind phony claims. Common knowledge doesn’t cut it with real scientists.
AGW is incontestable. The question is how bad and when. As for hindcasting- I refer you to figure 9.8 of Chapter Nine WG1AR5 for a comparison of surface temperatures to the hindcast.
I then refer you to table 9.3 of the same source for a list of all the CMIP5 model outputs..and the measurements they are compared to. They don’t just look at surface temperature by any means. There are about 50 some, not that I’ve counted.
Most people would say that the models do well prior to the last decade, getting the general trend right, but not doing weather (short term bumps and wiggles).
So far, general claims and no evidence of any specific subject matter knowledge. It took me 30 seconds to pull figure 9.8 from my files. I have several hundred climate paper archived.
I by no means claim to have mastered this subject…but I do know what work has been done and where to find it. You’ve thus far demonstrated no competence in anything.
How about telling us about your modeling experience, whether it is time domain based, whether it’s a boundary or initial value problem, what kinds of forecasts you have made and their accuracy.
November 16, 2014 at 10:42 pm
sorry so late, didn’t see this until now. I recently produced a forecast of stream flow in my state and documented that at
http://www.abeqas.com/mwa-rio-grande-may-2014-comparsion-snotel-forecast/
I compared my forecast to the ghg emission – based forecast and mine was significantly more accurate.
I have had many other successful model predictions, but this one featured above is perhaps the most telling.
How’s your record in the area of climate modeling forecasts or anything else hydrological Dave123?
August 7, 2015 at 1:32 pm
Dave123 has left the building to hide behind his lack of knowledge. Most assuredly because he is a fraud….
October 31, 2016 at 7:54 pm
“AGW is incontestable.”
I stopped reading here.
November 1, 2016 at 1:30 am
But of course AGW is incontestable. Even skeptics like Richard Lindzen don’t dispute that mankind’s activities are warming the planet. What they dispute is how much. And that’s a legitimate question. Perhaps the warming will only be very small, eg 0.001 degrees Celcius over 1,000 years. Indeed perhaps it’ll be so small that it’ll be more than compensated for by other factors, so that the temperature will actually go down (just not by as much as it would have without man’s activity). But that there is at least SOME degree of warming is incontestable. To say otherwise is like saying that if you pull on a sweater you won’t be any warmer than you would if you were stark naked. It’s absurd. Unless you’re dead, the sweater will make you warmer. How much warmer? Hard to say. Will it make you so warm you’ll die of dyhydration? Depends on other factors, but that it will make you at least slightly warmer is incontestable. Similarly, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will increase the temperature of the planet. How much we don’t know. I certainly don’t, I doubt you do either. But that the planet will be warmer with increased greenhouse gasses than without them is incontestable. Just as it’s incontestable that, if there were no greenhouse gasses at all, the planet would be colder. It’s basic physics.
October 20, 2015 at 7:08 pm
Hats off for your great work. One minor point. You link to the 25 papers that “refute” AGW. Although “refute” is often used in the sense in which I think you mean it, ie to dispute or deny (and some dictionaries even now accept this usage), the word actually means to disprove. As far as I can tell, none of the papers disproves AGW (actually, it seems that some don’t even dispute it, just aspects of the theory). So for the avoidance of doubt can I suggest a different word, eg dispute or challenge.
September 22, 2017 at 2:46 pm
know how the deniers are. CO2 is a benign trace. gas have look at the gas giants and are position in the galaxy