“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.”

-Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

“Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data…That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.”

-Dr.Richard Lindzen, MIT

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

-UNIPCC Japanese Scientist Dr.Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,”

-Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”

– Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.”

– Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

– U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”

– Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.”

– Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

(Note: there really IS a Flat Earth Society, at http://www.theflatearthsociety…, whose president Daniel Shenton, thinks “the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming.” (See So much for Obama’s comment that “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.”

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?”

– Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.”

– Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”

– Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”

– Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”

– Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that
generates funds.”

-Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation.”

-Prof Christopher de Freitas, of the University of Auckland, NZ said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change (see…

(In 2003, Dr. de Freitas, who edits the journal Climate Research, had published a peer-reviewed article saying the recent warming is not unusual, relative to previous historical climate changes in the past 1,000 years. As you might suspect, Dr. de Freitas had to withstand multiple demands he be fired from his editorial job, as well as his university position.

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”

— UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“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 [UN] IPCC.”

-Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.”

-South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”

-Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” John Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,”

-John Theon is former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA

“Over the years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific. I regret that. There are already more than enough climate activists, while there are too few solid and neutral bodies that make down-to-earth and well-founded statements about climate change and climate policy.”

-Economist Richard Tol, in a prepared statement for the Dutch parliament examining climate-related controversies http://nofrakkingconsensus.blo…, or

Sir Fred Hoyle –said about the climate modeling that keeps failing: “Understanding the Earth’s greenhouse effect does not require complex computer models in order to calculate useful numbers for debating the issue… To raise a delicate point, it is not very sensible to make approximations… and then perform a highly complicated computer calculation, while claiming arithmetical accuracy of the computer as the standard for the whole investigation.” [1] (In fact the famed W.C. Rontgen wrote in 1894 about models, noting “It is almost always possible to compare the results of thought processes with reality to provide the experimental scientist with the proof he needs. If the result does not agree with reality, the former in necessarily incorrect, even if the speculation that led to the result was ever so ingenious or fanciful.” – cited from A.N. Tschaeche of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, in Chemical Health and Safety, July/Aug. 1996)

David Legates of the University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean, & Environment, who is skeptical of climate change predictions of catastrophe, realized years ago that his independent position means that he should not accept corporate money for research or speaking fees. “There’s a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey.”

[2]Professor Emeritus Friedrich Karl Ewert a geologist from Paderborn University noted the “evaluation of long-term temperature readings . . . disprove that we have man-made global warming,” and presented the results of his analysis at a CFACT meeting in 2011 that of over 1,100 temperature curves from around the world, concluding, “the final result is that in 74% of all stations of the world we had no warming.” While the UN has often been told there will be terrible consequences if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere remains at or increases from the current 390 parts per million (ppm), Dr. Ewert pointed out that “in the geological past, we had the greatest glaciation of the earth (the glacier went down to 35 degrees north) when we have carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere of 1400 [ppm]. That means it was several times higher than today.” In other words, the historical evidence proves CO2 does not control earth’s climate. Dr. Ewert summarizes “It is necessary to conclude that the particular effect of man-made carbon dioxide production is not recognizable, in other words, does not exist.” [3]

“I am a skeptic on climate change. I know the climate is changing, and it always has been. I’ve studied this intensively over many years. I started what I call the Carbon Project here in British Columbia back in 1989 in order to bring everybody together to discuss this subject and figure out the facts behind it.

Since then, I have watched as hysteria has grown, as if the whole world is going to come to an end and civilization is going to die because of humans causing this climate change. I don’t buy that, and I certainly know we don’t have any proof of it. I’m not denying that we might be playing some role, but the natural factors that have always caused climate change have not suddenly disappeared. I’m very skeptical of the alarmist nature of climate campaigning.”

–Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace,…

“…hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonised and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century.

All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2. Based on climate reconstructions from North Atlantic deep-sea sediment cores, Professor Gerard Bond discovered that the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long. So it is really the Sun that shaped the temperature roller-coaster of the past 10,000 years… Furthermore, what is little known is that CO2 also requires a strong amplifier if it were to aggressively shape future climate as envisaged by the IPCC. CO2 alone, without so-called feedbacks, would only generate a moderate warming of 1.1°C per CO2 doubling”

–Fritz Vahrenholt, one of Germany’s earliest green energy investors and global warming supporters.…

“On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS [to] revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”

A former high-ranking Obama administration official, Dr. Steven Koonin, who served as Obama’s undersecretary for science in the Energy Department, and is the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University says climate science and the implications of global warming are not “settled,” and has insisted such claims are “misguided” and stifle debate on the matter. Koonin also stated that group think among experts has been inhibiting “the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.” Story at…

Dr. Caleb Rossiter, Adjunct professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics and the School of International Service, American University, is a liberal Democrat, but accepts that science – as opposed to Al Gore’s conception – is science — no matter what your political persuasion. Says Rossiter about AGW:

“My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe”and “Obama has long been delusional on this issue” and “Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe I think is deluding themselves.”

Of course, for having the temerity to present his findings about the climate, Professor Rossiter was booted out of a 23 year association with the Institute for Policy Studies. This is the kind of retaliation academics who speak honestly about the climate have come to expect. More details on this at…

“During the past 17 years global temperatures have not been rising, temperatures have stabilized. There has been no warming since 1997. The power of solar irradiance has decreased consistently since 1990 and is still rapidly declining. Since 1990, the Sun has not been warming the Earth as in the past,”

-Habibullo Abdussamatov, astrophysicist and head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. According to Abdussamatov, our planet may enter what he calls “a mini-ice age” at the beginning of next year.  “The ‘mini-ice age’ is associated with a change in the power of solar output and has a quasi-period of some 200 years. Roughly speaking, two centuries, plus-minus 70 years,” as reported by RIA Novosti.

At one Congressional hearing, distinguished climatologist and professor Judith Curry testified that recent data

“calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change.”

“This is not about the weather. It’s not about climate. It’s not about science. Those things are being used to further another agenda.”

“And as someone who has loved (weather) all his life, it’s really disheartening to see this going on in my country.”

“It’s about destroying capitalism, destroying freedom as we know it,”

–Joe Bastardi, Accuweather meteorology, then WeatherBell Chief Forecaster. He also suggested climate science was “prostituted” by global warming activists. (see…

[1] The Great Greenhouse Controversy. In: Emsley J (ed) The Global Warming Debate. European
Science and Environment Forum, London, 1996, pp 179-189


[3] Cited from CFACT email of June 8, 2011; video at…
Dr. Ewart’s credentials found at…


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s