Controversial views

[ukatheist]

TC: I have seen quite a few documentaries (not featuring talk show hosts afaik) but can't remember the scientists involved, but a quick wiki search does bring up a list of 'dissenters'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...al_warming

Now I know that this is probably only a handful against a sizeable majority, but it is enough to plant that little seed of doubt.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

Lets go through that list shall we.

1) David Bellamy, his apparent opposition to AGW stems from "information" he received from S Fred Singer's (we'll get to him later) propoganda machine which lied about the glaciers getting larger. He has since stopped talking about AGW, although it looks like he still doesn't accept the evidence.

2) Lennart Bengtsson, is a shill the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and is being paid to actively deny global warming. He has also cried persecution when a paper of his on global warming was refused publication on a number of grounds, not least being that it contained errors and that it added nothing to the body of science. The GWPF is a UK body chaired by Lord Lawson and funded by Michael Hintze (the man whose dodgy payments was responsible for Liam Fox's first fall), and which has generated no useful documents in relation to Global Warming, in fact they had to change their logo because it lied about increased temperatures worldwide (the logo made out that the temperature was falling over time).

3) Piers Corbyn is an astrophysicist and owner of a "weather prediction" programme of which he is unwilling to share either his data or much of his methodology. What little he has revealed shows that his science is very dodgy, for example he believes that solar activity influences earthquakes and as a result he thinks he can predict them. He's a crank.

4) Judith Curry, as far as I can see sees nothing wrong with accepting AGW, she just thinks that anti-AGW people shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. On the other hand she also thinks she should be recognised in the scientific community for keeping a blog on the matter. And her position on allowing anti-AGW papers be published hasn't anything to do with the papers' scientific merit, just that we should listen to contrary views because people have them. Science does not work that way.

5) Freeman Dyson is a long retired physicist. He has no expertise in global warming, as his commentary on the matter amply demonstrates. He accepts AGW but doesn't think the evidence is as bad as it is. He has stated on many occasions that climate models are flawed, but at no point has he ever discussed how they are flawed or proposed improvements. Again, science does not work that way.

6) Steven Koonen is a theoretical physicist and engineer. Note the lack of relevant qualifications. He also has been a high level employee of polluter and climate change denier BP. His only public contribution to the debate was a lying article in the WSJ (a long time home for climate deniers, willing to publish anything contra AGW no matter how bad the science).

7) Richard Linzen has relevant expertise. But he's not publishing his dissent in scientific journals, he's not providing any evidence for his claims. As with Koonen his output is limited to such scientific colossi as the WSJ. He is also an employee of the Cato Instituted, an organisation who has a massive vested interest in denying AGW.

8) Craig Loehle is an ecologist who has published papers on AGW, all of which have subsequently shown to be deeply flawed in methodology and used dodgy measuring data. He is also a regular at the Heartland Institutes shindig of global warming denialism, often speaking at talks.

9) Ross McKittrick is an economist (i.e. he's not even a scientist, never mind one from outside a relevant field), and from his own words it is obvious that he knows fuck all about the science behind either meterology in general or AGW in particular. He believes, without foundation, that we're currently in a global warming "pause". He has close ties to the Candian group "Friends" of "Science", a climate change denialist group which essentially is a who's who of cranks and shills in Canada for the AGW astroturf movement. As with many cranks and liars McKittrick is fond of crying "but you didn't believe Galileo either, and he was right" when refused publication in reputable journals.

10) Not that Patrick Moore is a Canadian ecologist (again not a field relevant to the study of climate change, but one deeply affected by it). He has denied every single piece of evidence about what is happening to the earth due to the recent changes in climate, going as far as to say that glaciers melting will increase arable land, when in fact losing the glaciers will destroy coastal land, which is in most countries the arable land. He is a crank. Since leaving Greenpeace his sole job has been as a PR shill for APP a clear cutting forestry country which has devestated Indonesia's rainforests with illegal tree felling.

11) Nils-Axel Morner's field of study is plate tectonics, again an area with little to no relation to AGW. He claimed that the sealevel around the Maldives is falling, essentially by lying about the findings (his numbers were not corrected to properly calibrated satellite altimeter records, which means he was cherry picking his data). And when he was found out on this he accused unnamed others of destroying data which proved his case, data he never properly furnished or referenced in the first place.

12) Garth Paltridge is a retired atmospheric physicist. In 2009 he wrote a book The Climate Caper which consists of two strands, an attempted tu quoque against the IPCC and a personal argument from incredulity against AGW. He doesn't address any of the evidence for AGW he doesn't present counter evidence, he just dismisses the whole thing because he thinks it's wrong. He seems to think AGW is a massive left-wing conspiracy to make rich people poor.

13) Roger Pielke is a political scientist. He has no relevant qualifications. He is a fan of denouncing his opponents as McCarthyists any time they deign to show the problems with his work. He refuses to say who is funding his work. He argues that the deleterious effects of climate change can mostly be put down to the fact that more rich people live in hurricane dense areas, thus more money damage is caused by hurricanes than in the past.

14) I'm going to skip forward to S Fred Singer because the previous thirteen amply demonstrate the lack of calibre of "scientific" denialists within areas relevant to global warming. Singer is the granddaddy of denialism, starting back with Big Tobacco's long and (ultimately) unsuccessful to hid the data on smoking causing lung cancer, before moving on to climate change denialism. He has taken a lot of money over the years to lie about global warming, its causes and its effects. If you want an in depth critique of him and the denialist movement, buy yourself the book Merchants of Doubt.

I'm sorry I didn't go through them all, but I simply don't have the time to look at every crank or shill out there.

Cripes, thanks for such a comprehensive reply, it's clear that you feel very strongly about this and certainly seem to know your stuff. I'll admit I didn't look at the list in too much detail, just trying to see if any of the names rang a bell as to who I'd seen. When I get the chance I'll try to educate myself a bit more, do you have any suggestions on good resources?