Scientists Against Climate Alarmism

These are some of the scientists who actively oppose climate alarmism (or opposed it through the last days of their lives):

Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics:

Dr. Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in physics.

Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, physicist.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, member of the National Academy of Sciences, professor emeritus of MIT; an atmospheric physicist.

Dr. Fred Singer, chief scientist of the U.S. Department of Transportation (1987– 89), vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (1981–86), founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences in the University of Miami (1964–67), the first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962–64); an atmospheric and space physicist.

Dr. William Happer, former director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy, professor emeritus of physics of the Princeton University.

Dr. Roy Spencer, U.S. Science Team leader for the AMSR on NASA’s Aqua satellite, a meteorologist.

Dr. John Christy, distinguished professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Earth System Science Center at UAH, an atmospheric scientist.

Roy Spencer and John Christy are co-recipients of NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for global temperature monitoring work with satellites.

Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist.

Dr. Freeman Dyson, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, London Mathematical Society, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003); former chairman of Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963); a winner of the Danny Heineman Prize (American Physical Society), Lorentz Medal (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences), Hughes Medal (The Royal Society), Max Planck Medal (German Physical Society), Oppenheimer Memorial Prize, Harvey Prize, Wolf Prize in Physics, Andrew Gemant Award (American Institute of Physics), Enrico Fermi Award (U.S. Department of Energy); professor emeritus of physics, Princeton University.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, professor of economics.

Stephen McIntyre, a mining expert and businessman.

Dr. Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre co-authored the first paper, debunking the “hockey stick” fabrication by Michael Mann et al.

Dr. Patrick Michaels, former president of of the American Association of State Climatologists.

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist.

Dr. Craig Idso, Agronomy and Geography.

Dr. Edward Wegman, a former chair of the National Research Council Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics.

Dr. Judith Curry, a former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, a climatologist.

Dr. David Legates, a former Delaware State climatologist

Dr. Tim Ball, geography and climatology.

Dr. Roger Revelle,  Al Gore’s “mentor” (according to Al Gore).

Dr. Robert Jastrow, the founder and first director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), an astronomer.

Dr. William Nierenberg, chairman of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee (1979-1983) – the first comprehensive research of the alleged “global warming” danger; member of the National Academy of Sciences; director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (1965-1986), chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (1971-1975), chairman of the Advisory Council of NASA (1978-1982); member of: the White House Task Force on Oceanography (1969-1970), the National Science Board (1972–1978, 1982–1988),  the National Research Council (1978–1984), the Council of the National Academy of Sciences (1979-1982), a physicist.

John Coleman, Weather Channel Founder.

Anthony Watts, editor of the leading web climate publication, a meteorologist.

Also Dr. Christopher Essex, Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., Dr. Nir Shaviv, Dr. Sherwood Idso, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Dr. Robert Carter and countless other distinguished and competent scientists. More than 30,000 scientists and other professionals with expert knowledge of natural sciences have signed the Oregon Petition.

Only a few real scientists, including disgraced Dr. James Hansen and corrupt Dr. Mario Molina, support climate alarmism. The rest are serial perjurer Michael Mann and countless practitioners of  “environmental studies” and “climate change science.”

Climate alarmism is a huge fraud that is riding a gravy train of enormous size.  The climate change industry alone boasts an annual revenue of $1.5T (yes, $1.5 trillions).  It’s likely an exaggeration but there are still hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers money that are spent on climate alarmism promotion – the largest PR operation in history.

16 thoughts on “Scientists Against Climate Alarmism

  1. Hi
    Thank you for your fine efforts.
    One correction – our petition gathering more than 31,000 scientist signatures was circulated in 2007. An earlier version with exactly the same petition statement was circulated in 1998 and obtained 17,000 signatures. See
    Best Regards,
    Art Robinson
    (You have “Oregon Petition (1998)” on this web site. It should read “Oregon Petition (2007”

  2. I assume that anybody interested in climate change must have seen (or heard a lot about) Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”. Would somebody who espouses the climate catastrophe position please point out ONE THING that Big Al predicted in his film that came true. Let me help: Nothing, Nada, Zip.

    1. what fatuous nonsense – the rate of both polar and ice sheet melting is worse than predicted – so I guess your ridiculous position is that if the genocide of the unborn espoused by those of you who hate the creation is actually occurring more quickly than predicted then you feel vindicated. Your argument shows just how sick and evil those of you who wish to despoil the garden entrusted to mankind to steward truly are.

  3. I see why you didn’t post the names of scientists who do believe in climate change. The list would be way too long since over 97% of scientists believe in climate change.

    1. At least 97% of believers in climate cult do believe in climate cult. This is a trivial statement. They are free to call themselves whatever they like, even “scientists”. That does not make them real scientists. The list of real scientists who “believe in climate change” (as this term is understood and used by this cult) would be very short. The only name that comes to my mind is James Hansen.

    2. The 97% hoax has been long ago debunked (even by the IPCC). Two grad students working under an Australian professor embarked upon a project whereby they searched abstracts of scientific papers published between 1991-2011 that included the term “climate change”. They identified about 12,000 papers that met this criteria. There were 30,000 authors who wrote these papers. These author were contacted by the grad students and asked to answer a short survey a) is CO2 a greenhouse gas and, b) has the earth warmed since 1850 and c) has mankind added CO2 to the atmosphere (incidently, all three are true). Well, about 2/3 of the authors couldn’t be bothered to respond to such a silly survey. So the grad students got about 10,000 responses from the 30,000 scientists originally contacted. Emails were sent out to these approximately 10,000 authors asking for elaboration on their climate change positions. Only about 1200 of them responded. Of the 1200, 97% of them agreed that global warming was happening and was dangerous. So only 1200 of the 30,000 authors (4% !) responded. There’s your 97% concensus, Bill Mason. Not so impressive, eh?

    3. And, most of the 97% have some motive for believing in climate change, specifically it would harm them in some way professionally. The gentlemen listed here have already climbed the mountain of success and could care less what others think of their opinion!

      1. Right. But there is no 97% of any kind of scientists, even fake ones, in support of climate alarmism. Those who repeat this obviously fake number are bound by a dogma.

  4. Some of what you say doesn’t match with my understanding of the world. But, I’ve also not done the deeper digging into wikipedia’s processes that I’d have to do to find out whether I agree or not with what you are saying.

    I would be interested in doing some of that research and discussing the findings here, because I’d like to have the opportunity to revise my opinion as well as understand your own viewpoint more. My question for you is: would you be willing to discuss these aspects of about wikipedia in more depth here? (the goal isn’t to persuade you differently… the goal is just to understand our viewpoints more deeply)

      1. With respects, if you disagree with anything on wikipedia, you can go and make an edit, or engage in a public discussion with the people who maintain the page you are interested in. Even if they are somehow biased, you can present your case there for others to see on the Talk page. As far as I’ve ever seen, it isn’t an organization which is “controlled” in the same way top-down managed media outlets are, so there’s lots of places for dissenting views to be presented there.

        (fwiw, as far as I know, someone being a nobel laureate in what looks like sub-atomic physics doesn’t make them an expert on climate issues, anymore than someone being the world’s top-rated chef necessarily knows how to grow wheat)

        My point here isn’t to say that your feelings about climate change are wrong. It is a big and complex issue. I’m merely hoping you can bring constructive and data-driven arguments that support your view to the table. We need everyone’s data and dispassion here.

      2. I am replying to the Wikipedia part of your comment. You might be surprised, but the Wikipedia is a top-down managed media outlet, just like The New York Times or Encyclopaedia Britannica. Unlike traditional media outlets, Wikipedia hides identities of the holders of the real editorial power (Arbitrators, Stewards, Bureaucrats etc.) from the public. Also, Wikipedia is a fully owned subsidiary of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc.

        See the official chart, or read about the organizational structure in this this or this Wikipedia article. Disregard every claim with a vague word (“community”, “consensus” etc.) in it.

        Ordinary people editing Wikipedia articles are contributors, not real editors. Calling you and other contributors “editors” sounds like a con to me. You can modify content of an article, but somebody else can immediately undo or neuter your modification. You can talk to other contributors like you, and convince or compromise with them. If your change or compromise is politically neutral, it will stay. If it goes against the far left politics of the Wikimedia Foundation, higher ranking editors will intervene and make sure their version of the text prevails.

        That happened many times, but you can try yourself. Try to edit the Climate Change entry to make it less alarmist or more realist.

Leave a Reply