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
Pingback on Aug 23rd, 2014 at 6:00 am
[…] https://denierlist.wordpress.com/the-consensus-of-the-3/ […]
October 21, 2014 at 2:48 pm
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..
December 24, 2014 at 2:57 am
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.
April 16, 2015 at 12:52 pm
I guess maths is not one of yoiur strengths, then
July 14, 2019 at 12:32 am
AR5 had 831 coordinating lead authors, selected from 3,000 or so nominations. And that’s just a fraction of the research community.
Think you can handle the percentage calculations?
September 2, 2016 at 11:12 pm
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.
May 3, 2017 at 9:01 pm
To call Fred Singer “scientist for hire” is an impertinence and only shows the level of propaganda on this page.
July 14, 2019 at 12:37 am
Well, it may not do full justice to his career achievements in shilling for industry, which have been notable. But it nevertheless would seem to be objectively true:
“Coming in at $5,000 a month is Idso’s principal partner in the regular IPCC attack, Fred Singer, who for the last 20 years has denied pretty much any health threat with a corporate sponsor: the health impacts of second-hand smoke; coal’s role in creating acid rain; the danger of asbestos; or DDT; the role of CFCs in creating the ozone hole; and, of course, the human cause and potential consequences of climate change. (See Naomi Oreskes excellent book, Merchants of Doubt for the full, devastating story ot Singer’s lucrative denial business.)”
https://www.desmogblog.com/what-passes-brain-trust-heartland
That he once did real science, long, long ago, does not change this reality.
December 27, 2018 at 6:32 pm
I am very dissapointed on this blog. You have to keep it updated!!! Valentina Zhakova is a main denier threat. She is deniging the SUN itself, or at least that it is very stable and has no effect othe climat of our tiny little planet.
February 13, 2019 at 5:06 pm
Ken Pollock is missing: See his comment @ #ThisIsACrisis: 7 harsh realities of the global climate crisis