Evaluation Report - University Of Alaska Fairbanks: Fill & Download for Free

This is a “preliminary report”.I see no mention of it being peer-reviewed or any intention to publish it in an engineering or scientific journal that would open it up for criticism by other structural engineers.University of Alaska - Fairbanks Forensic Eng. WTC7 preliminary report completeMy “preliminary concerns” are:The study was paid for by AE 9/11 for Truth and like-minded contributors. Their biased views on the subject are well known.The study failed to find a reason for the collapse of WTC 7. Obviously it missed something.The way the study was done through computer modeling. As an IT professional, I can guarantee that computer models show what the person doing the programming want them to show. See concern #1.I viewed a video of the kick-off of the study and the professor heading it admitted he had not read the NIST material but then criticized it. You would think that he’d at least be familiar with the material he was criticizing. Seen #1 again for where he may have gotten his information on the NIST study from.The Alaska study confirmed a lot of what NIST said, including critical points about the expansion of the steel supporting structures during the 7 hour fire preceding the collapse. You then get into assumptions of details to either support or refute the NIST findings.Also worthy of note is that AE 9/11 for Truth soundly criticized NIST’s use of computer modeling in part of their study of the WTC 7 collapse. It’s interesting that they then commissioned a study using the same method that did not have access to all of the data that NIST had.I’ll wait for the “final report” before I bother looking into it more to give my “final concerns”.

I don’t know of anyone who denies that the climate changes. But I personally know over 100 very high-IQ individuals who are skeptical of the unproven hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 are leading to apocalyptic global warming, including many who write on Quora. I have references listing tens of 1000s of others. Here are some of them:One of the first scientists to expose the fraudulent methods of the IPCC climate alarmist politicos was the internationally acclaimed physicist and former IPCC science contributor Dr. Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1934), Proctor Fellow, Princeton University (1934–1935), Instructor in Physics, University of Rochester (1935–1936), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1936–1937), Research Physicist, General Electric Company (1937–1939), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1939–1941), Associate Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1941-1942), Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology (1942-1949), Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois (1949-1965), Chairman, American Institute of Physics (1954-1960), President, American Physical Society (1961), President, National Academy of Sciences (1962-1969), Graduate College Dean, University of Illinois (1964-1965), President, Rockefeller University (1968-1978), Franklin Medal (1965), American Institute of Physics Compton Medal (1970), National Medal of Science (1973). He became an early enemy and target of the alarmist cabal when he exposed the 1996 IPCC Report for using selective data and doctored graphs, and making changes in reports after the reviewing scientists had approved it. This duplicity compelled him to write in the Wall Street Journal: “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than events that led to this IPCC report”. A Major Deception on Global Warming, Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996Dr. Vincent Gray, previously one of the reviewers of IPCC reports states that he is convinced the theory of CAGW promoted by the IPCC “is a comprehensive international-based fraud, and an attack on genuine climate science.” The IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report-comment by Dr Vincent Gray 2013. He has also written a treatise about the AGW scam: https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/GlobalWarmingScam_Gray.pdfJames Matkin's answer to Are there any prominent and well-respected scientists who do not believe in climate change?Group of French mathematicians and computer modelers debunk the CAGW hoax: http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history…When people come toknow what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCCJapanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, author“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe ofscientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S. GovernmentAtmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.Leading sea level expert Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner (Chairman of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University from 1991 to 2005) has studied sea level his entire career, visiting 59 countries in the process. He calls the claim that 97% of all climate scientists believe global warming is man-made “nonsense” and that the number comes from “unserious surveys. “In truth the majority of scientists reject the IPCC claims. Depending on the field, it’s between 50 and 80 percent.” World Leading Authority: Sea Level “Absolutely Stable”… Poor Quality Data From “Office Perps”…IPCC “False”What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certaintyNew Study: Majority of Climate Scientists Don't Agree with 'Consensus' | Climate Dispatchhttps://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdfThe 97% ‘consensus’Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now SkepticsIn 2009, over 100 scientists, with the courage to speak out, allowed their names to be added as signatories to newspaper advertisements, created by the libertarian Cato Institute, opposing President Obama’s claims that combating climate change was urgent and that the science was beyond dispute. Here is the content of the ad:“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” — PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19, 2008With all due respect Mr.President, that is not true.We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.(1,2) After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.(3) The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.(4) Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.1. Swanson, K.L., and A.A.Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022. 2. Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at Temperature data (HadCRUT4, CRUTEM4) Climatic Research Unit global temperature. 3. Pielke, R.A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481. 4. Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651SYUN AKASOFU, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ALASKAARTHUR G. ANDERSON, PH.D DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,IBM (RETIRED)CHARLES R. ANDERSON, PH.D ANDERSON MATERIALS EVALUATIONJ. SCOTT ARMSTRONG, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIAROBERT ASHWORTH CLEARSTACK LLCISMAIL BAHT, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIRCOLIN BARTON CSIRO (RETIRED)DAVID J. BELLAMY, OBE THE BRITISH NATURAL ASSOCIATIONJOHN BLAYLOCK LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY (RETIRED)EDWARD F. BLICK, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA (EMERITUS)SONJA BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF HULLBOB BRECK AMS BROADCASTER OF THE YEAR 2008JOHN BRIGNELL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON (EMERITUS)MARK CAMPBELL, PH.D U.S.NAVAL ACADEMYROBERT M. CARTER, PH.D JAMES COOK UNIVERSITYIAN CLARK, PH.D PROFESSOR,EARTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA, OTTAWA, CANADAROGER COHEN, PH.D FELLOW, AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETYPAUL COPPER, PH.D LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)PIERS CORBYN, MS WEATHER ACTIONRICHARD S. COURTNEY, PH.D REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGEUBERTO CRESCENTI, PH.D PAST-PRESIDENT,ITALIAN GEOLOGICAL SOCIETYSUSAN CROCKFORD, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIAJOSEPH S. D’ALEO, FELLOW, AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETYJAMES DEMEO, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS (RETIRED)DAVID DEMING, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMADIANE DOUGLAS, PH.D PALEOCLIMATOLOGISTDAVID DOUGLASS, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTERROBERT H. ESSENHIGH, E.G. BAILEY EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF ENERGY CONVERSION THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITYCHRISTOPHER ESSEX, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIOJOHN FERGUSON, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE (RETIRED)EDUARDO FERREYRA ARGENTINIAN FOUNDATION FOR A SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGYMICHAEL FOX, PH.D AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETYGORDON FULKS, PH.D GORDON FULKS AND ASSOCIATESLEE GERHARD, PH.D STATE GEOLOGIST, KANSAS (RETIRED)GERHARD GERLICH, PH.D TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAT BRAUNSCHWEIGIVAR GIAEVER, PH.D NOBEL LAUREATE,PHYSICSALBRECHT GLATZLE, PH.D SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, INTTAS (PARAGUAY)WAYNE GOODFELLOW, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWAJAMES GOODRIDGE CALIFORNIA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST (RETIRED)LAURENCE GOULD, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORDVINCENT GRAY, PH.D NEW ZEALAND CLIMATE COALITIONWILLIAM M. GRAY, PH.D COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITYKENNETH E. GREEN, D. ENV. AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTEKESTEN GREEN, PH.D MONASH UNIVERSITYWILL HAPPER, PH.D PRINCETON UNIVERSITYHOWARD C. HAYDEN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT (EMERITUS)BEN HERMAN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA (EMERITUS)MARTIN HERTZBERG, PH.D. U.S. NAVY (RETIRED)DOUG HOFFMAN, PH.D AUTHOR,THE RESILIENT EARTHBERND HUETTNER, PH.DOLE HUMLUM, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF OSLOA. NEIL HUTTON PAST PRESIDENT, CANADIAN SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTSCRAIG D. IDSO, PH.D CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND GLOBAL CHANGESHERWOOD B. IDSO, PH.D U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (RETIRED)KIMINORI ITOH, PH.D YOKOHAMA NATIONAL UNIVERSITYSTEVE JAPAR, PH.D REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGESTEN KAIJSER, PH.D UPPSALA UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)WIBJORN KARLEN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF STOCKHOLM (EMERITUS)JOEL KAUFFMAN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF THE SCIENCES, PHILADELPHIA (EMERITUS)DAVID KEAR, PH.D FORMER DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NZ DEPT. SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCHRICHARD KEEN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF COLORADODR.KELVIN KEMM, PH.D LIFETIME ACHIEVERS AWARD, NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FORUM, SOUTH AFRICAMADHAV KHANDEKAR, PH.D FORMER EDITOR, CLIMATE RESEARCHROBERT S. KNOX, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER (EMERITUS)JAMES P. KOERMER, PH.D PLYMOUTH STATE UNIVERSITYGERHARD KRAMM, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKSWAYNE KRAUS, PH.D KRAUS CONSULTINGOLAV M. KVALHEIM, PH.D UNIV. OF BERGENROAR LARSON, PH.D NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYJAMES F. LEA, PH.DDOUGLAS LEAHY, PH.D METEOROLOGISTPETER R. LEAVITT CERTIFIED CONSULTING METEOROLOGISTDAVID R. LEGATES, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARERICHARD S. LINDZEN, PH.D MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYHARRY F. LINS, PH.D. CO-CHAIR, IPCC HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES WORKING GROUPANTHONY R. LUPO, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURIHOWARD MACCABEE, PH.D, MD CLINICAL FACULTY, STANFORD MEDICAL SCHOOLHORST MALBERG, PH.D FREE UNIVERSITY OF BERLINBJORN MALMGREN, PH.D GOTEBURG UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)JENNIFER MAROHASY, PH.D AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENT FOUNDATIONJAMES A. MARUSEK U.S.NAVY (RETIRED)ROSS MCKITRICK, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF GUELPHPATRICK J. MICHAELS, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIATIMMOTHY R. MINNICH, MS MINNICH AND SCOTTO, INC.ASMUNN MOENE, PH.D FORMER HEAD, FORECASTING CENTER, METEOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE, NORWAYMICHAEL MONCE, PH.D CONNECTICUT COLLEGEDICK MORGAN, PH.D EXETER UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)NILS-AXEL MÖRNER, PH.D STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)DAVID NOWELL, D.I.C. FORMER CHAIRMAN, NATO METEOROLOGY CANADACLIFF OLLIER, UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIAGARTH W.PALTRIDGE, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIAALFRED PECKAREK, PH.D ST.CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITYDR. ROBERT A. PERKINS, P.E. UNIVERSITY OF ALASKAIAN PILMER, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE (EMERITUS)BRIAN R. PRATT, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWANJOHN REINHARD, PH.D ORE PHARMACEUTICALSPETER RIDD, PH.D JAMES COOK UNIVERSITYCURT ROSE, PH.D BISHOP’S UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)PETER SALONIUS, MSC CANADIAN FOREST SERVICEGARY SHARP, PH.D CENTER FOR CLIMATE/OCEAN RESOURCES STUDYTHOMAS P. SHEAHAN, PH.D WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.ALAN SIMMONS AUTHOR, THE RESILIENT EARTHROY W. SPENCER, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA—HUNTSVILLEARLIN SUPER, PH.D RETIRED RESEARCH METEOROLOGIST, U.S. DEPT. OF RECLAMATIONGEORGE H. TAYLOR, MS APPLIED CLIMATE SERVICESEDUARDO P. TONNI, PH.D MUSEO DE LA PLATA (ARGENTINA)RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER, PH.DDR. ANTON URIARTE, PH.D UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAISVASCOBRIAN VALENTINE, PH.D U.S.DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYGOSTA WALIN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG (EMERITUS)GERD-RAINER WEBER, PH.D REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGEFORESE-CARLO WEZEL, PH.D URBINO UNIVERSITYEDWARD T. WIMBERLEY, PH.D FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITYMIKLOS ZAGONI, PH.D REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGEANTONIO ZICHICHI, PH.D PRESIDENT, WORLD FEDERATION OF SCIENTISTShttp://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/climatead_chicagotrib_rev.pdfBy 2010, the number of scientists willing to speak out against the theory of CAGW had grown to over 1,000 and included many actively working scientists. The names appeared in a report to the US Senate: “More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President Al Gore.” The report included many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who had turned against the organization and its agenda. It also noted that the number of dissenting scientists was more than twenty times the number of UN scientists (52) who had authored the media-hyped 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers.Here are some comments from a few of the dissenters:UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita - “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process. Short answer: Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas. 12 of the 26 scientists who wrote the relevant section of a U.N. global warming report are up to their necks in ClimateGate.” Zorita was a UN IPCC Contributing Author of the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Since 2003, he has headed the Department of Paleoclimate and been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research in Germany. He has published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies.“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” - Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” - Research Chemist William C. Gilbert, study published in August 2010 in the Journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.”Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Global ResearchWelcome to the International Climate Science Coalition Web Site CLIMATE SCIENTISTS' REGISTER ENDORSERS500 Prominent Scientists Warn U.N.: 'There Is No Climate Emergency'90 leading Italian Scientists sign Petition: “Anthropogenic Origin of Global Warming is an unproven Hypothesis” … Catastrophic Predictions “Not realistic”International Panel Calls for End to Global War on Fossil Fuels (2018)Over 30,000 scientists sign petition denouncing the unproven hypothesis of CAGW: Global Warming Petition ProjectDr. David Evans, mathematician, engineer and climate computer modeler, who worked for the Australian government determining how much reduction in CO2 emissions it should attempt, now believes there is no need to do so because alarmist computer models greatly exaggerated the amount of warming due to CO2.Freeman Dyson is an English-born American theoretical physicist and mathematician, known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Now retired, he spent most of his professional career as a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, alongside such notables as Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman and Robert Oppenheimer. He believes that CAGW computer models are completely unreliable and incorrect because the alarmists do not understand the science of fluid dynamics, which control the behavior of the atmosphere.Ivar Giaever is a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 for his work on quantum tunneling in superconductors. Much like Freeman Dyson, he deplores the strong-arm tactics and intolerance of global warming alarmists. He also likens their vehement faith-based belief in anthropogenic global warming without valid scientific proof to a new religion.Enormous listing of skeptical scientists, organizations and polls- http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.htmlHow many silent skeptics are there at NOAA? Dr. Rex Fleming speaks out after years of working thereFellows of the Geological Society pushback over climate positionList of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming - WikipediaGlobal warming: second thoughts of an environmentalistCrumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate AlarmOver 440 Scientific Papers Published In 2019 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate AlarmSkeptic Papers 2019 (1)Missed A Few, IPCC? 368 New 2018 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate AlarmismSkeptic Papers 2018 (1)Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)So far this year, 400 scientific papers debunk climate change alarm 2017Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmhttps://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-1/- Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Changehttps://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-2/ - Part 2. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstructionhttps://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-3/- Part 3. Unsettled Science, Ineffective Climate ModelingSkeptic Papers 2015http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html 1350 papers in 2014Former Environmental Activist Now Apologizes for 'Climate Scare,' Has Op-Ed Deleted By 'Forbes'On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare June 29, 2020Andrew Montford: Nullius in Verba: The Royal Society and Climate ChangeSo, yes there are many 1000s of very high-IQ individuals (including many climate scientists and other scientists) who are skeptical of the unproven hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

No there is no such consensus as thousands of leading scientists debunk the theory.The work of the UN IPCC admitted openly is less focused on the environment and real climate science , rather it is more a project in economics and wealth distribution with the fear of global warming the cat’s paw to gain supporters.The Working Group #1 of the UN IPCC failed in 1995 with their first major report to find evidence of anthropogenic climate change that could be discerned apart from natural variability. This is critical to seen that the radical view of human caused warming is not settled science. The full story well documented in Bernie Lewin’s recent book.Why this history of the IPCC machinations is so important. E. Calvin BeisnerCompelling historyReviewed in the United States on January 18, 2020Anyone who thinks the science behind global warming alarmism it's simple, objective, empirically sound science in action needs to read this book. The political and financial forces driving toward alarmist conclusions about climate change have been powerful for generations, and that have resulted in scientific claims that go far beyond the evidence. Those in turn have led to government policies that go far beyond not only the science but also the economics, and threaten to undermine the prospects uplifting the world's remaining poor out of their poverty and suffering.The UN are guilty of a swindle about human made climate change as they doctored the key scientific working group report in 1995. The sordid story is presented objectively by Bernie Lewin in his book SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL.The UN climate science working group of 2000 experts said this when they made their report in 1995. They said we do not have scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reducedThe IPCC Working group presented details of the uncertainty about human caused climate that focused mostly on the fact the Co2 thesis is overwhelmed by natural variation and climate history. Here are details in their report where evidence is uncertain.Environment blogClimate changeFriday, December 19, 201497 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 64 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.Methodology: The data (11,944 abstracts) used in Cook et al. (2013) came from searching the Web of Science database for results containing the key phrases "global warming" or "global climate change" regardless of what type of publication they appeared in or the context those phrases were used. Only a small minority of these were actually published in climate science journals, instead the publications included ones like the International Journal Of Vehicle Design, Livestock Science and Waste Management. The results were not even analyzed by scientists but rather amateur environmental activists with credentials such as "zoo volunteer" (co-author Bärbel Winkler) and "scuba diving" (co-author Rob Painting) who were chosen by the lead author John Cook (a cartoonist) because they all comment on his deceptively named, partisan alarmist blog 'Skeptical Science' and could be counted on to push his manufactured talking point.Peer-review: Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard "pal-review" instead of the more rigorous peer-review.Update: The paper has since been refuted five times in the scholarly literature by Legates et al. (2013), Tol (2014a), Tol (2014b), Dean (2015) and Tol (2016).* All the other "97% consensus" studies: e.g. Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.Popular Technology.netThe claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand upConsensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrongRichard Tol: 'There is disagreement on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate.' Photograph: Frank Augstein/AP Photograph: Frank Augstein/APRichard TolFri 6 Jun 2014 15.59 BST971The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard TolDana Nuccitelli writes that I “accidentally confirm the results of last year’s 97% global warming consensus study”. Nothing could be further from the truth.I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up.Cook and co selected some 12,000 papers from the scientific literature to test whether these papers support the hypothesis that humans played a substantial role in the observed warming of the Earth. 12,000 is a strange number. The climate literature is much larger. The number of papers on the detection and attribution of climate change is much, much smaller.Cook’s sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about “the literature” but rather about the papers they happened to find.Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.The abstracts of the 12,000 papers were rated, twice, by 24 volunteers. Twelve rapidly dropped out, leaving an enormous task for the rest. This shows. There are patterns in the data that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard. In July 2013, Mr Cook claimed to have data that showed this is not the case. In May 2014, he claimed that data never existed.The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.Cook tried to validate the results by having authors rate their own papers. In almost two out of three cases, the author disagreed with Cook’s team about the message of the paper in question.Attempts to obtain Cook’s data for independent verification have been in vain. Cook sometimes claims that the raters are interviewees who are entitled to privacy – but the raters were never asked any personal detail. At other times, Cook claims that the raters are not interviewees but interviewers.The 97% consensus paper rests on yet another claim: the raters are incidental, it is the rated papers that matter. If you measure temperature, you make sure that your thermometers are all properly and consistently calibrated. Unfortunately, although he does have the data, Cook does not test whether the raters judge the same paper in the same way.Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.The debate on climate policy is polarised, often using discussions about climate science as a proxy. People who want to argue that climate researchers are secretive and incompetent only have to point to the 97% consensus paper.On 29 May, the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the US House of Representatives examined the procedures of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Having been active in the IPCC since 1994, serving in various roles in all its three working groups, most recently as a convening lead author for the fifth assessment report of working group II, my testimony to the committee briefly reiterated some of the mistakes made in the fifth assessment report but focused on the structural faults in the IPCC, notably the selection of authors and staff, the weaknesses in the review process, and the competition for attention between chapters. I highlighted that the IPCC is a natural monopoly that is largely unregulated. I recommended that its assessment reports be replaced by an assessment journal.In an article on 2 June, Nuccitelli ignores the subject matter of the hearing, focusing instead on a brief interaction about the 97% consensus paper co-authored by… Nuccitelli. He unfortunately missed the gist of my criticism of his work.Successive literature reviews, including the ones by the IPCC, have time and again established that there has been substantial climate change over the last one and a half centuries and that humans caused a large share of that climate change.There is disagreement, of course, particularly on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate. There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.I believe Nuccitelli and colleagues are wrong about a number of issues. Mistakenly thinking that agreement on the basic facts of climate change would induce agreement on climate policy, Nuccitelli and colleagues tried to quantify the consensus, and failed.In his defence, Nuccitelli argues that I do not dispute their main result. Nuccitelli fundamentally misunderstands research. Science is not a set of results. Science is a method. If the method is wrong, the results are worthless.Nuccitelli’s pieces are two of a series of articles published in the Guardian impugning my character and my work. Nuccitelli falsely accuses me of journal shopping, a despicable practice.The theologist Michael Rosenberger has described climate protection as a new religion, based on a fear for the apocalypse, with dogmas, heretics and inquisitors like Nuccitelli. I prefer my politics secular and my science sound.Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of SussexCO2 is too minute, too variable and not correlated with temperature because it lags not precedes temperature rise. CO2 has no climate effect and is essential to plant life through photosynthesis. We need more CO2 for greening the earth not less.Science unlike politics and religion is based on doubt and skepticism therefore the very idea of finding consensus in evaluating a new and controversial theory like AGW is a false and antiscientific. Therefore, when alarmists talk consensus this is a tip off they are covering up disputed and shoddy science by the laughable claim “the science is settled. “Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).I published an answer to a similar question recently. See - James Matkin's answer to Is there really scientific consensus that man-made climate change is actually happening?Leading scientists around the world are petitioning governments that there is no climate crisis for them to address. 500 scientists signed this European Climate Declaration as one example. 90 well known Italian scientists added their further petition.Science is not in the consensus business like politics and religion. Doubt is the engine of science. This means just one brilliant skeptic can undo poor research and conventional wisdom.Here is an example of a cogent attack that debunks anthropogenic climate change.ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu: Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis (Japanese Edition) Kindle EditionbyNakamura Mototaka(Author)ArticlesGSMANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”SEPTEMBER 26, 2019CAP ALLONDr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.In his bookThe Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.DATA FALSIFICATIONWhen arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).But now we have Nakamura.The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his websiterealclimatescience.com.Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.NAKAMURA ON CO2He writes:“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free onKindleSUPERB Demolition Of The ‘97% Consensus’ MythPosted: June 10, 2020 | Author: Jamie Spry |It’s time for us all to recognize the 97% con game | CFACT“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendationson the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”– Prof. Chris Folland,Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research“The models are convenient fictionsthat provide something very useful.”– Dr David Frame,Climate modeller, Oxford University***A must watch demolition of the “97% Consensus” myth. Ping this to anyone claiming that there is a scientific consensus on CO₂ as the primary driver of earth’s climate.Via Clear Energy Alliance :97 Percent of scientists believe in catastrophic human caused climate change? Of course not! But far too many believe this ridiculous statement that defies basic logic and observation. (Can you think of any highly-political issue where you could get even 65% agreement?) The 97% Myth has succeeded in fooling many people because the phony number is repeated over and over again by those who have a financial and/or ideological stake in the outcome. By the way, what any scientist “believes’ doesn’t matter anyway. Science is what happens during rigorous and repeated experimentation.VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/***SALIENT reminders about “consensus” from science legend, Michael Crichton :“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”― Michael Crichton“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”― Michael Crichton“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”― Michael CrichtonMUST READ CRICHTON :Fear, Complexity and Environmental Management in the 21st Century (Michael Crichton) | ClimatismNew lists are published that debunks the notion of any overwhelming scientific consensus and human made global warming.Articles“THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGEDECEMBER 20, 2018 CAP ALLONFor 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.Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELSDr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. [27][28][29]Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]Joseph D’Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[34][35][36][37]Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[38][39]Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[40]Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D., Industrial Chemistry, University of Tokyo [202]Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[41][42]Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[39][43][44][45]Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]Sebastian Lüning, geologist, famed for his book The Cold Sun. [201]Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[53][54]Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[55][56][57]Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[58][59]Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[60][61]Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[62][63]Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[64][65][66][67]Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[68][69]Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[70][71]Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[72][73]Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[74][75]Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[76][77]Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[78][79]Valentina Zharkova, professor in mathematics at Northumbria University. BSc/MSc in applied mathematics and astronomy, a Ph.D. in astrophysics.SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWNSyun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[142][143]Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[144][145]Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[146][147]Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[148][149]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.[150][151][152]Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[153][154]David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[155][156]Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML’s Hurricane Research Division.[157][158]Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[159][160]Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[161][162]Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[163][164][165]Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[166][167]SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCESIndur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[168][169][170]Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[171][172]Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[173][174]Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[175][176]DECEASED SCIENTISTS— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.August H. “Augie” Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[177][178]Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[179][180]Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[181][182]Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[183][184]William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[185][186]Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former firector, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001-2007.[187][188][189]Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[190][191][192]Harold (“Hal”) Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[193][194]Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[195][196][197]Joanne Simpson (1923-2010), first woman in the United States to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, [201]SPEAKING OUTA 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 BengtssonAny 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 CrichtonAnother 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 activity, cloud-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."The List" - Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change - Electroverse