Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans,

“Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate

So what is the consensus amongst sceptical scientists  of AGW?

CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

The most extreme view is CO2 is not a GHG with Joseph Postma leading this idea.

CO2 is a GHG but it has reached saturation levels and stops being a GHG

Q B Lu has come up with an almost unique explanation that it is a combination of CFCs and cosmic rays but also falls into the camp of CO2 reaching saturation levels when the greenhouse effect ceases. Others who believe in the atmospheric saturation of CO2 include Tim Ball [and those who subscribe to his pal reviewed ‘science journal’ Principia Scientific], and other contributors of Slaying the Sky Dragon–  the political scientist Marc Moran [blogger of Climate Depot]

Those who deny that CO2 continues to be a GHG at higher levels merge with allies who believe:-

Temperature variations are natural/it has been hotter in the past/CO2 is plant food

Physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA Moonwalker & Geologist Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt wrote a article on this. The leading scientist with this view is Roy Spencer a meteorologist. This belief is perhaps the consensus amongst skeptics  yet  vague and  wooly. But hey: climate is complex!

CO2 is warming the planet but it is natural- Volcanoes!

Ian Plimer a geologist reminding us that there must be lots of under water volcanoes just pumping out natural CO2.

It’s the sun- cosmic rays- it’s cooling

Unsurprisingly it is the few astrophysicists and physicists such as  Henrik Svensmark who has not only published papers but done extensive research, who take this view. W Soon is another leading sceptic who says recent warming is caused by the sun. Despite evidence that cosmic rays produce almost no additional warming it is still a popular idea. Nicola Scafetta is specific that 60% of warming is the Sun- the other 40%? Geologists also seem to favour the extra-terrestrial view and promise cooling is just a few years away.

AGW is happening but it is not all CO2 but land use

this niche view is held by Roger A. Pielke who holds “that humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!”

AGW is happening but sensitivity is low.

the- ‘it’s not bad’ and warming will stop around 2c or less so no need to do anything is the view taken by most sceptic climatologist including Lindzen , Robert E. Davis, John R. Christy

There are variations with Chris Landsea who doesn’t dispute AGW but questions if hurricanes will get worse and the c in cAGW. Roy Spencer on the other hand is confusing or confused accepting CO2 as a GHG in the past but questioning it now. David Legates view varies between there is no connection between temperature and human produced CO2 and the science is uncertain.

Undecided but it is a sham or scam or dodgy science

Fred Singer the scientist for hire is not clear on what he believes- he writes for thinktanks so CFCs, tobacco and CO2 are otherwise harmless and the science have been hijacked by lefty-do-gooders. One might include ‘Lord’ Monckton who accepts that CO2 has caused a small amount of warming but believes the science is a plot to bring about a New World Order.

and finally.. [no commitment on CO2 as a greenhouse gas but ] it is natural cycles

the capacity for oceans to absorb heat and release it in cycles is well known – in recent years more papers have analysed how this affects atmospheric temperatures:- the ‘it is natural cycles’ [and even it is natural terrestrial and cosmic cycles] is a growing cottage industry of science papers, pal-reviewed papers, and articles.

  1. keith bryer

    This a very long list. It seems to me to bang a hole in the idea of a scientific consensus on the issues. using words like ;Deniers” is cheap, propaganda. It doesn’t do the cause any good and makes the objectivity of this approach questionable and weaker than it sets out to be..

    • Sen.Dimoaf

      A very long list?! You could fit all of them in a school bus. And if you set that bus off southbound on the Golden Gate bridge, they would be found a week later, having run out of gas in the wilds of Idaho without ever having been in San Francisco.

  2. The “consensus” of the 11,000 abstracts observed in the Australian study: of the THIRD of the scientists who took a position on “climate change” in their abstracts, 97% were in favor of human-induced climate change. 66% of the abstracts did not take ANY position, for or against, human-induced climate change. Not all of the abstracts observed had something to do with climatology. This “97% consensus” is a lie of global proportions.

  1. 1 DenierList, who the climate change deniers are, what they say, and why they’re full of shit | ipka

    […] […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: