Scientists who have switched from Climate Advocates to Climate Skeptics

[Snowlover123]

Hi everyone, I am new here, and I was once a Climate Change Advocate. A couple of years back, I would have told you that it was man causing climate change. But then I decided to check the basic facts of AGW, and found that 2+2=1000.23.

There are a lot of senior scientists with PhDs who have also switched from Climate Advocates to Climate Skeptics, so I am not alone in this switch.

Dr. Denis Rancourt, PhD Physics






Another Environmental Scientist Bails on Man-Made Global Warming by Marc Morano | Climate Realists

Quote:Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement.

Allegre's second thoughts



Dr. Claude Allegre, French Environmental Scientist.

Quote:Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.







His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Dr. David Evans





http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/anoth...l-warming/

Quote:The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.



But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Dr. Tad Murty, Indian Oceanographer

Quote:"I switched to the other side in the early 1990s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously," Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm

Quote:"I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics." "After that, I changed my mind," Labohm explained. Labohm co-authored the 2004 book Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma with Eindhoven University of Technology emeritus professor of chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "‗Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‗noise.'"

Dr. Tim Patterson, PhD Paleoclimatology

Quote:"I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change," Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his "conversion" happened following his research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific." "[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator)," Patterson explained. "Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances," he wrote. "As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles.

Dr. Nir Shaviv, PhD Astrophysics

Quote:""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,”

Professor Christopher De Freitas, Climate Scientist

Quote:“At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,' But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.”

Dr. Ian Clark, PhD Paleoclimatology

Quote:“I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.”“However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun.

Dr. Jan Veizer, Environmental Chemist

Quote:“I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,”

Dr. Miklós Zágoni PhD Physics and Environmental Researcher.

Quote:Zágoni was once Hungary・s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. After researching climate issues further he converted to a man-made global warming skeptic. After studying the theory developed by Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists, the March 6, 2008, article in Daily Tech reported. Zágoni wrote to EPW on May 3, 2008, "The present-day greenhouse theory is incorrect in the 91

sense that it is incomplete: it does not contain all the real energetic constraints and boundary conditions. As former NASA atmospheric scientist Ferenc Miskolczi has showed in a new analysis, the Earth maintains a balanced greenhouse effect with controlled surface temperature, which cannot be changed solely by changing the atmospheric longwave absorber concentration. It can be changed only if the incoming available energy changes. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission cannot generate global warming, neither in the past, nor in the future. The 1 degree Celsius temperature rise from the mid-1800s is mainly due to natural causes; its origin is somewhere in the ocean's heat exchange and/or in the change of solar constant and the planetary albedo. Further 3-6 degree global warming is physically more than unlikely: it is impossible. The new greenhouse equations of Dr. Miskolczi can be read at the official website of the Quarterly Journal of the HMS, Vol. 111. No.1., 2007 (LINK) ―To put it in a language that IPCC will understand: Extra CO2 does not result extra 'radiative forcing' in the final account, as the energy constraint rules it back to its equilibrium value. Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions. So, contrary to the common wisdom, there is no positive H2O-temperature feedback on global scale: in Earth-type atmospheres uncontrolled runaway warming is not possible. This new theory seems to be only a little step forward in the two-hundred year old greenhouse science, but its consequences are revolutionary: actually it stops the possibility of man-made global warming.‖

Geologist Bruno Wiskel

Quote:Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a "Kyoto house" in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol's goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic that he recently wrote a book titled The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.

Geologist William F. McClenney

Quote:

McClenney now says he has done ―the math and realized that you just can‘t get to global warming with CO2.‖ ―I believed [global warming theory]. It made sense. I could see it easily and clearly.

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD Physics.

Quote:[He] took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions 196

of catastrophic man-made global warming. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution," Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. "With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies," Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of CO2 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR Science entitled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time." "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels," Jaworowski wrote. "For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists-and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time," Jaworowski wrote. "The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seems now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present," he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth's climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."

Holland Meteorologist Hajo Smit, also former member of the UN IPCC.

Quote:

―After the range of very warm years and ‗dvent・ Al Gore, I became a reluctant climate change believer for about 6 months,‖Smit wrote EPW 82

on April 11, 2008. Smit credited Gore with ultimately turning him into a skeptic. Gore ―prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp,‖Smit wrote. In addition, Smit also critiqued the climate models that predict future catastrophe. ―I am troubled by the practices I had seen at work in GCM (global climate models), the whole field seemed highly suspicious to me.‖―During my full year working at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, I became suspicious about the way modeling science is done. Odd arbitrary parameterizations seemed the rule rather than the exception,‖Smit explained. The ―practice of simplifying models so that accurate measurements can be used to calibrate them, seemed to be abandoned by GCM groups in favor of a childish delight in presenting colorful computer printouts of when and where which temperature changes will occur. Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact,‖Smit wrote. ―The vast amount of new research since my graduation points to clear cut solar-climate coupling and to a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2-emissions and climate change,‖

Award Winning Geologist Leighton Steward:

Quote:

Steward reversed his global warming view and is now a 94

skeptic. ―Steward came to the issue of global warming as a ‗eliever‘,‖an October 4, 2007 article reported. ―‗ was a prophetic global warmer,‘ Steward said. ‗ore won‘t debate this subject,‘ said Steward, but maybe he has come to understand it – ‗aybe that‘s why he has cancelled the last six months of his tour,‘‖the article continued. ―‗e [on earth] are at one of the lowest points of CO2 levels today,‘ Steward said.‖

Dr. Roger W. Cohen; APS Fellow PhD Physics

Quote:―I retired four years ago, and at the time of my 125

retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC's case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is,‖

Dr. David Bellamy; PhD Biology and Environmentalist

Quote:

[He] converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can't be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy's conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy's long activism for green campaigns.

[Scpg02.]

welcome

[Richard111]

Hi there Snowlover. Good to see scientists doing science. Problem is politicians are not influenced in any way by reasoned debate. Their beliefs are proportional to the level of lucre being poured into their pockets. Its the politicians causing the problems, paid scientists are simply tools of convenience.

[Snowlover123]

Thank you both!

[Climate Realist]

Welcome Snowlover! Great first post.

I enjoyed reading those quotes.

[Goose52]

Ladies and gentlemen I think Snowlover is doing great work on another board I periodically check in on. If you are the same Snowlover? Welcome. Your going to like it here. The number is a little different but I am Goose5.

[Snowlover123]

(06-03-2011 10:13 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  Welcome Snowlover! Great first post.

I enjoyed reading those quotes.

Thank you, Realist!

I agree, especially since this is just more evidence that many reputable scientists with PhDs are saying "Hang-on, this just doesn't add up."

---

(06-03-2011 08:08 PM)Goose52 Wrote:  Ladies and gentlemen I think Snowlover is doing great work on another board I periodically check in on. If you are the same Snowlover? Welcome. Your going to like it here. The number is a little different but I am Goose5.

Hi Goose!

Yes, I am the same Snowlover on the other board, and I just recently discovered this board.

As I debated with all of those CAGW Advocates on the other forum, and as I debunked all of their arguments, they became very agressive.

For example, here are some quotes towards the later part of the debate.

over/under Wrote:"he's"(it's probably more than one person) also able to synthesize a large amount of fairly complex information and link it with a wide variety of denial counter-arguments indicating a good grasp of both.

I'm starting to smell Cato, Marshall, Heartland....whatever

Then...

over/under Wrote:Snow has a mental illness

It is quite interesting how agressive they become when their arguments are debunked, because it shows that more than science is being driven here.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:It is quite interesting how agressive they become when their arguments are debunked, because it shows that more than science is being driven here.

I am currently ankle biting "sceptical" at WUWT blog.He keeps avoiding answering my comment to what he wrote.

My latest comment to him

I am wondering if he will explode soon.

I have been pointing out that the "Hockey Stick" paper claims are contradicted by decades of research in History,Biology,Geology,Archeology and of course climate history.

I even had the gall to post a link to a website that catalogs hundreds of "peer reviewed" science papers.Attesting to the existence of a MWP.

He is ignoring me.

[Goose52]

Yes, that is a common tactic among the true believers. Snow I have to say you show remarkable restraint over their. Welcome I think you'll find this board quite stimulating.

[Climate Realist]

(06-04-2011 05:04 AM)Snowlover123 Wrote:  -snip-As I debated with all of those CAGW Advocates on the other forum, and as I debunked all of their arguments, they became very agressive.

For example, here are some quotes towards the later part of the debate.

over/under Wrote:"he's"(it's probably more than one person) also able to synthesize a large amount of fairly complex information and link it with a wide variety of denial counter-arguments indicating a good grasp of both.

I'm starting to smell Cato, Marshall, Heartland....whatever

Then...

over/under Wrote:Snow has a mental illness

It is quite interesting how agressive they become when their arguments are debunked, because it shows that more than science is being driven here.

All ad-hominem attacks of no substance. i.e. they cannot logically argue with the facts you have presented and so resort to calling you names or insinuating against your character and motives. Shows basically they have lost the argument, they know it and are in denial over the destruction of their belief system.

I'm surprised they did not call you a "denier in the pay of Big Oil". Whoever "big oil" are?? My counter to this that they absolutely hate is to link to the CRU website where it clearly states that it is CRU and not Realists are in the pay of BP, Shell, The Sultan of Oman and several energy companies!

[Scpg02.]

(06-04-2011 10:34 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  My counter to this that they absolutely hate is to link to the CRU website where it clearly states that it is CRU and not Realists are in the pay of BP, Shell, The Sultan of Oman and several energy companies!

I've brought those types of things up before and it always throws believers for a loop. I also show how it is in "big oil's" interests to keep supplies tight through regulation. Once again "big oil" had record profits this year. Sadly they continue to swallow the line that big oil is fighting AGW as if they want free and easy supplies.

[Derek]

Hello Snowlover123, and welcome.

I have asked before,
" "Skeptics" - Are you wasting your intelligence, and our time. ? "
ie,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-955.html

I repeat,
" It is apparent by this point that AGW is dead, as a "theory",
(AGW never got past the unproven hypothesis stage according to the scientific method).

When will so many skeptics realize it is already way past the time,
to actually question the principles of AGW,
and stop wasting your intelligence, time, and effort
merely quibbling the figures of AGW.

This quibbling the figures, so many "merely" do, only prolongs the agony we will all suffer from.
From what is undoubtedly the biggest scam in human history so far, namely,
man made global warming fears. "

This is all based upon an imaginary "greenhouse effect" - until "scientists" start questioning that,
I have little faith in them being either "scientists" or "skeptics", in any sense whatsoever.

What was it H. L. Mencken said. As Steve used to quote.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

GH "theory" and it's "bastard" offspring AGW, fits that perfectly.........