Mashable science editor Andrew Freedman told Pielke he was “on many reporters’ ‘do not call’ lists despite your expertise” after the two got into a spat on Twitter. Pielke wanted Freedman to make a correction to an article we was quoted in.
Pielke demanded a correction, and slammed Mashable for misquoting him, which sparked Freedman to remove Pielke’s quotes from the story altogether. That only escalated things in their Twitter battle.
Pielke Fired back:
Pielke’s no global warming skeptic, but he’s made a name for himself challenging scientists, politicians and activists claiming global warming is making extreme weather more frequent and severe.
Pielke testified before Congress in 2013, telling senators that global warming was not making weather worse — evidence that’s supported by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings.
Despite the evidence behind his claims, Pielke became a controversial figure in climate science. Democratic lawmakers even targeted him in an investigation into the funding sources behind researchers who disagree with the White House on climate science.
Environmentalists also forced Pielke to give up his role as a contributing author on FiveThirtyEight, the website founded by predictive pollster Nate Silver. He stopped writing for the site in 2014 after left-leaning news outlets and blogs attacked an article he wrote debunking claims about global warming’s impact on damages from extreme weather.
The Democratic investigation was the last straw for Pielke, and he stopped publishing academic work on climate science in 2015.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
Gotta sing from the approved song sheet or face being excluded, difficult to prove but it happens too often to be coincidence.
Where is this song sheet? This is hilarious; scientists want fame by saying they agree with everyone else!!! Why isn’t the news all over this?! Oh, you’re a conspiracy theorist with a crappy conspiracy theory about climate change.
Folk still need to follow the song sheet without variation. Don’t tell me you have never heard of being dropped of the payroll for being politicly incorrect?
You didn’t answer the question. Where is the song sheet? The only place I’ve heard RUMOR of being dropped from a magical payroll for not following a “song sheet” is from folkS like yourself who are in the delusion there is a conspiracy afoot. This conspiracy theory of yours is nuts.
What is the AGW anti-science crowd so afraid of? The should be interested in the pursuit of knowledge not the shut down of inquiry. A sad lot they are.
Nobody is shuttin down inquiry, since RP Jr doesn’t inquire with reporters. He doesn’t tell the entire truth either, which is why no one wants his opinion any more.
Best,
D
You don’t pay attention to much so your “opinion” doesn’t mean anything. Best?? You are a kook.
Thanks for your awesome deflection from your incorrect assertion. You crushed it.
Best,
D
You are welcome, kook.
You crushed that again! Go you, your awesum!
Best,
D
You have shown yourself to be a kook time and again. Your point?
Oh, wow! You showed me! You crushed it agin’.
Best,
D
Yes, I did, kook.
That you did a good job, buddy! Yes you did! Good job!
Best,
D
You are a kook. I know it, the world knows it. Why do you insist on trolling here? Huh?? Think you are proving anything? A clue for you, you aren’t, other than your ignorance which is only exceeded by your arrogance. Poor Dano the kook, desperate for conversation. Fool. Best my a**
And with that, I saw you are one of the worst debaters ever. Do you have any substance?
I don’t debate asswholes like YOU. Got that, clown. Now F off
Wow Dano2, why do we bother with the likes of this?
I get on a roll and require more and more amusement from that one.
It’s previous screen name was more amusing.
Best,
D
Sure you do, kook. Now come back with something childish as you always do.
Huh, you’re a psychologist with the ability to diagnose over the internet and use technical jargon like “kook”. Never mind, I thought you were worth talking to.
You must be the kook’s pal. What difference does my opinion make to you? Now, F off, clown.
Your opinions don’t make a difference to me. However, your egregious ignorance and belligerently arrogant attitude are amusing at best.
Oh F off already. Who cares what YOU think? You have ZERO clue about climate dynamics so all you do is troll here. NOW, F off AGAIN.
I might have done a PhD in paleoclimate reconstructions of speleothems. What I am doing here is trying to help the more intelligent understand the real science. Now let’s talk about what scientific credentials you have to read the science literature and understand it and properly critique it.
I don’t need to show credentials to know you are full of garbage. Your credentials don’t prove a damn thing except that you “think’ you know something you actually don’t. You can’t show HOW CO2 DRIVES climate and it is evident in your babble. PHD? Piled Higher and Deeper as they say. Now who is so “arrogant”….LMAO at the educated idiot.
No, you need to show credentials for me to take anything you say about a scientific topic seriously. You have shown no indication of even a basic knowledge in this area. So you clearly didn’t look up the work of the 19th century scientists I mentioned who showed how CO2 drives the climate. Again, I didn’t expect much from you.
You have a PHD (supposedly) and I’m not taking a thing you say seriously. My knowledge in the area is that I know you haven’t figured it out yet. You got something else, clown? Go take your case to Willie Soon. Argue with HIM if you have the expertise which I highly doubt.
Of course I haven’t figured out your area of expertise. So far it seems to be in nothing. Would you care to inform this knowledge? I’ll guess whatever you feel is your expertise, it sure isn’t climate science, because your terrible at that.
My “expertise” would not make a bit of difference to you. It really doesn’t matter. Why do you insist on trolling here? Do you think you can change anyone’s mind? You can’t. You don’t have the knowledge to do so. I don’t give a damn what you think of me but know this, I despise YOU and people like you. You are all blowhards who think you understand something you clearly don’t have a clue about. Humans adding 120 parts per MILLION of a trace gas is driving things? Really???? Are you really that ignorant to believe that garbage? I feel for you (not really). Your PHD must have come from the back of a match pack.
Now tells how YOU know how sensitive the climate is to CO2 feedback? This ought to be rich. Not someone else paleo-expert. YOU. Otherwise shut the F up and go away.
I’m sorry you find basic education to be trolling. So now I really am curious about your expertise! Whatever it is, it certainly does not qualify you to discuss climate science. If you had read the Air Force work as I suggested, you would have found the answer to your question which is too difficult for you to be about 1.1 deg C/doubling of CO2. This is just the CO2 portion though and you have to take other feedbacks into account as well. And let’s propose another experiment: let’s add 120 ppm of ricin, oh fuck it just use iron, (and that’s how you use the F bomb without being a little child about it) into your bloodstream and then have you tell us it has no effect . . . when you’re dead.
120 ppm of ricin in the blood stream has NOTHING to do with 120 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, But to dummies like YOU you think that means something. It doesn’t. As to your claim of 1.1 deg?C doubling of CO2? That hasn’t been agreed upon and YOU know that. It is disinformation you expect others to accept. Go tell Willie Soon that one. He’s 10 times smarter than YOU and will set you straight.
Sorry, it sure seemed like your argument was that a small trace gas can have no effect. I was just pointing out that small trace amounts of things is not an argument against efficacy. And as for the 1.1 deg C, I know that has been agreed upon once the data was in from all the high altitude measurements done by the military. Sorry, but you clearly don’t have enough knowledge to discuss this competently. Perhaps you should try actual science. I will go tell “hey, look how much I’ve been funded by fossil fuel industry and even referred to my own work as ‘deliverables’ Willie Soon. And he is so wrong about the sun ever since 1980, but that makes no difference to you I guess. You found one tool to agree with your nonsense and bought it hook line and sinker . . . sucker.
Dr. Soon isn’t the only one disagreeing with that figure. You know that as well. All you can do is try to discredit him for taking money from someone. Well, who pays YOU? Huh? The government? If so, your opinion doesn’t mean anything either. After all, your livelihood depends on saying what you do. Nobody pays me to offer an opinion and I know this. YOU and everyone else you can cite does not have enough understanding of climate dynamics to say with ANY certainty what CO2 is doing to the climate. That is a FACT you can’t refute no matter what you say!!!
I discredited him for taking money specifically from fossil fuel interests, corresponding with them and calling his papers “deliverables” and doing shit science. All of that is demonstrably true, and yo have nothing here. Move on if you have any science to discuss, or keep making a fool of yourself. Your choice.
Move on? Right. shorey, you really are an arrogant asswhole. Now F off. That is about all you can grasp.
Not fear, disgust. We are interested in knowledge, but denigrate cherry picked data of a biased egomaniac.
KMA, kook.
Score thus far , Dano2 7 , Know-nothings 0
Another kook heard from. Score? AGW kooks , like you, have NOTHING.
You do realize you have not made any arguments thus far. Chew on this, the troposphere has been measured to have warmed over the past few decades, while the stratosphere has cooled. This was a prediction of greenhouse warming back in the 70’s. How do you explain this. I’ll be honest, I’m not expecting much of you.
Which can’t be shown that CO2 is causing it. What part of that can’t your pea-brain grasp? Show us HOW CO2 DRIVES climate change. Can you? NO YOU CAN’T. Neither can anybody else on the planet. THAT is a FACT you can’t refute no matter what you post. Eat it.
Actually, the prediction was for CO2 and it’s ability to absorb and re-emit thermal IR, and how CO2 drives climate was given by John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, and Samuel Langley back in the 1800’s. Sorry you missed the science boat. Like I said, I wasn’t expecting much from you.
That again proves NOTHING but it does to educated kooks like YOU. I am well aware of CO2’s physical properties yet YOU can’t explain how it DRIVES climate. You must be aware that there is debate on how much forcing (if ANY at all!) there is from CO2. SO! Who the hell are YOU to spout off about it???? Your paleo PHD means diddly squat here. You are another educated dummy pontificating on something you know very little about, degree withstanding. You are another FRAUD in my book.
You got something else, clown?
So you don’t know how to read the scientists? Ok, so what Tyndall showed was that CO2 transmitted visible light but absorbed thermal IR. It was Fourier of the previous century along with the work of Kirchhoff that showed that visible is the main output of the Sun, but Earth reradiates that energy as thermal IR. And right there is why CO2 can accumulate heat energy in the lower atmosphere and cause climate change. In the field of paleoclimatology we see plenty of instances of CO2 driving climate change, so all that science is pretty solid. Sorry you haven’t had understanding of this yet, it is pretty basic.
Your first sentence shows how arrogant you are. That is why you are nothing more than another asswhole who trolls here. shorey, F off already. I despise self-righteous asswholes like YOU. Your credentials belie your stupidity.
BTW, what you wrote STILL DOES NOT show how CO2 DRIVES climate change.
Yes, I guess I do try to use my whole ass, and not do things half assed. The fact you don’t understand the work of scientists who showed how CO2 drives climate through direct observations and experimentation shows you really don’t have what it takes to discuss this with any intelligence. Hate to say I was right, not much of worth comes from you. Now look into the U.S. Air Force work on heat seeking missiles and how it even furthers the work of those I mentioned above. How misguided you are. Try doing just a little bit of intellectual work here and drop the pathetic juvenile behavior.
Right. Your condescension is only exceeded by your ignorance. You may think you understand paleo-climate. YOU DON’T. You haven’t a clue. I laugh at clowns like you. You think proxies show you everything? Ice cores? You got any idea how precession and plate tectonics figure into things? You think you know for sure what the sun’s output was (EXACTLY) millions of years ago or even more recent than that? YOU DON’T. Troll somewhere else.
Then I propose a challenge to you: pick any event in the paleoclimatological record and let’s see if you can keep up with the discussion. My condescension to you, which is properly identified, is due to the fact that you haven’t been able to give a shred of evidence for a thing you’ve said while I have given you multiple sources to follow. You really don’t have anything brought to the table yet except your misspelled curse words. That was mildly amusing.
What ever you think you know about the paleo “record” would be YOUR conjecture and not worth discussing. You are another FRAUD.
In other words you don’t even know of an event to discuss?
I no interest in debating what YOU think you know. I can recognize an exercise in futility. Something you obviously can’t….LMAO at the clown.
It’s not backed up by your rhetoric. You speak like an ignorant child.
What does that make you? a fool perhaps? Must be…..hahahahaha
Still makes me the guy spanking you intellectually. You have shown me a truly ignorant individual. Would you like to show me any other side of yourself or just keep confirming?
F U shoorey, whore.
You do realize that rolls off me like water off a duck. But it is a good reflection of the lack of intellect you have. Reflect on that.
hahahahahaha…….you fool. You are being played like a violin and you’re too ignorant to see it.
Did you have any science to discuss here? Just more verbal diarrhea from someone who seems bent to prove that they are ignorant.
No more ignorant than you are, shorey. You can’t show me anything but your arrogance and condescension. There is nothing for me to try to convince you. Your mind is closed. Humans are changing the climate. That is only thing you’ll accept. Too bad the climate itself and time are not showing what you believe. Don’t you have some more paleo temperature tables to fabricate? hahahahahahaha
Look, another post in which you have not been able to name a single paleoclimate event. Your ignorance is so blatant to me it is a bit amusing. You keep making yourself more a fool. I did not accept humans causing climate when I was younger, until the evidence became overwhelming. That’s what happens when you keep you mind open and keep looking for more data instead of acting like a chile on CFACT sites using misspelled cuss words like a juvenile. But it’s worse, because I think you MIGHT be an adult. Sad.
You want me to name a paleoclimate event? What would that exactly prove? That I have great googling skills?
An open mind?????? OH! the irony. Who are YOU to talk about open minds. Yours is so closed it has an out-of-order sign attached to it.
Keep trying your condescension routine. It fits you. After all, you are an a** hole.
You claimed you knew more about climate science than I, so I proposed a test. You failed. You can’t name a single event for any purpose at all. If that is the extent of your knowledge, then by definition, it is non-existent. There are climate deniers so much more intelligent and interesting to talk to you than you, and since you keep saying you don’t debate me . . . what’s the point here.
You are an idiot. I made NO such claim. I don’t pretend to be an expert, you do and I know you aren’t. If you think I’m not intelligent enough to debate with then why are you still doing it? Frustrated, huh? LMAO at the fake PHD.
So still unable to list a single paleoclimate event I see. Not really a debate, just a constant litany of my pointing out your willful ignorance. Now, here is a paleoclimate event to discuss, the PETM. There I did your homework for you. Now can you take the next step and say something about the PETM that would show you have any clue of climate science?
So what? You must be desperate to prove you know a little something.
PETM stands for Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum and I just enjoy teaching things to people who are clearly unaware. Apparently I do know a little something more than you on this. Asking so what proves you aren’t following our discussion. Now go look up the PETM before proceeding and see if you can see the connection to today’s situation. Otherwise I have to hold your hand through that part too.
You are clearly discussing things with yourself. I don’t care what you think you know and I’m not paying any attention to what you write. What ever you supply doesn’t show CO2 drives climate change and that is a fact you just can’t seem to grasp.
Actually, I’m just having fun proving you don’t know anything about climate science. You’re possibly one of the dumbest people I’ve talked to here. I just wanted to let you know.
Sure. You don’t have a clue what I do or don’t know. You are letting your poor imagination get the best of you and your frustration is there for all to see. My intelligence is equal or greater than yours yet I have no need to impress you with what I know. That is for the insecure likes of you. You are simply a frustrated little man.
And more evidence that you don’t have any knowledge on this subject. It’s so much fun proving your ignorance over and over as you are such a dense fellow. Now let’s see about the PETM when CH4 was emitted into the atmosphere and converted to CO2 and the planetary temperatures all spiked. I’ll hold your hand and guide you through. That means CO2 caused climate change in the past. Now if you have any science to respond, I’d love to hear it. If you want to cry about it, go cry to your mommy.
Still trying to impress yourself, I see. Sad little insecure man.
Thanks for proving you have no substance and that you are truly the dumbest person I’ve ever had to discuss climate science with. You don’t know anything and continue to whine like a child. Cry to your mom, I don’t care you’re feelings are hurt. Now, try to discuss any paleoclimate event, as I have spanked you with repeatedly today, and see if you can raise to a level above moron.
Your feelings hurt because I made true statement? It is a truth that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. If you can’t understand that one then it is you who is dumb as a pile of rocks.
My feelings about you are that you are an idiot. Now in truth that correlation of your comments to your intellect is you are in idiot. Now, can you give any concrete science statemet yet? We have be discussing for over a month and you only show lack of knowledge. Should we discuss snowball Earth now? Oh, is this the first time you heard of it. Fucking moron.
Oh, did I just mention another point of paleoclimate science and let’s see what you have to respond with. I’m just having fun proving you stupid.
You have unmasked yourself. You have proved nothing except that you are no scientist.
Oh dear, no substance again!? I guess you just want to show with evidence that you know nothing.
I am right and you know it. You’ve been unmasked.
What I know, and you can’t disprove, is that you know nothing about climate science. Idiot.
I know enough not to make the moronic statement you did. You are a fraud.
Oh dear, you’ve been unmasked as not being a scientist. Oh, dear.
And so when I say no substance look back at every post I made previously that I asked you substantive questions and yo have no answers. Thanks for proving you know nothing. Idiot.
I am not interested in having any dialogue with you. You are the one who came out of the blue to insult me. Why? You can’t substantiate AGW and that is a fact. You IMAGINE yourself to be a paleoclimate expert and it’s obvious you are not. Sad little man.
And yet you got drawn into an insult fest today with great ease. I only had to tap a few fingers and you only turned your concern to me while you obviously lied. You are an intellectual joke. Have you come up with any substance yet? No, every post shows your ignorance.
Try using science to argue instead of stupidity.
I already did and it flew over your head. Any REAL scientist knows that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. You dispute that? Let’s hear it.
Do it again if you think that’s true and let’s see what happens to your stupidity. Dumbest CFACT robot ever is your award.
I just told you. Take your meds, slow down and read slowly.
Oh another post with no substance. Trying to prove yourself an idiot yet once again? Notice how I give you actual Paleo climate of an inch, and you come back with only stupidity? Fucking idiot.
Awl, poor shorey, can only respond with insults. Yet you have the audacity to call me childish. Go look in the mirror. You’ll see an unhinged child.
Yeah, like when I insulted you about the PETM. Seems I can only respond with Paleoclimate information that you’re ignorant of them therefore you feel it as an insult. How fitting, you’re a moron
Right. Go look in the mirror. You’ll see a REAL moron.
No substance. Idiot.
You didn’t understand it. Figures. Go back and read what I said. I made a basic scientific fact that flew over your head. You are no scientist.
Went back and saw your lack of understanding, but I already knew you were an idiot. Have you gotten around to figuring out the post Carboniferous Ice Age yet? Of course you haven’t, you don’t know shit.
Yeah, tell me how CO2 drives climate when it lags temperature by 200-800 years, Paleo-fraud. You are a clown and insecure little man.
So you think that if temperature lags a driver that they cannot be causally connected? So because a pot of water on the stove does not instantly warm up but lags the heating from below you think the stove isn’t heating the water? Climate scientists have long said that the claimant response on centuries scales to a greenhouse forcing. Sorry you didn’t know the science already, but I’m not surprised because were just proving you’re an idiot again.
We are done. Go back to your sandbox, fraud
I guess you can’t show CO2 didn’t cause the post Carboniferous ice ages and the PETM.
I don’t have to show it did. You do. You can’t.
Hey, I thought you said we were done? Just can’t stay away now that you’re in my sights can you. PETM is a spike in global temperatures and if you don’t explain it with CH4 and CO2, please enlighten us as to how it happened! I’m not holding my breath as I wait for you to crash and burn yet again.
You’ve taken your meds. Good to see. NOW, we are done. Talk to yourself now…buh bye
Ah, the ubiquitous “taken your meds” comment. Pretty much a white flag of surrender these days on the internet. Ok folks, that’s all he could muster. He could dish it out but couldn’t take it.
BTW, very poor analogy. Not the same thing. You can’t grasp that.
BTW they are both examples of transient sensitivity to temperature response vs equilibrium sensitivity. You just wouldn’t know that.
Well, dude, the joke seems to be on you. You are practically unhinged. I suggest you get some medication or psychiatric help.
Hmm, someone gave you actual evidence that you ignored. All you had to respond was insults. Look hard at your inner child. He’s still childish. You are the dumbest fucker I’ve had to deal with. Congrats.
You’ve lost and you know it. That is why YOU are the one with the childish insults. Do you even reread what you post?
Your insults are getting more extreme and that is all you have. To imply correlation as causation unmasks you as no scientist. It is very evident. Poor sad little man.
You keep saying you have no wish to debate, which shows you have no knowledge base, and yet you keep coming back to get intellectually spanked again. Stop abusing yourself.
You must be a legend in your own mind too !!! You may think you are “spanking” someone. It is an illusion, fool. LMAO at the clown.
And those with no intellectual backing, such as yourself, eventually end up here. Please, do try that ricin experiment and do humanity a favor.
F U your family too.
Well, that had no substance, but that’s par for the course for you. I am finally in conclusion, you are intellectually bankrupt. Don’t you have anything?
F U your family too !
The curse words were misspelled intentionally to get through the filter. It would figure that I would have to explain that to you, ASSWHOLE. You really aren’t as bright as you think you are….LMAO at the fool.
If you don’t have the balls to use them properly, then why make a fool of yourself. You make yourself appear rather juvenile with such silliness. It’s too easy to turn around on you.
I have the balls, pal. More than you can imagine, PUNK.
It’s not backed up by your rhetoric. You speak like an ignorant petulant child.
If so, what does that make YOU interacting with me? Huh?
hahahahhaaha
The guy spanking your asshole intellectually.
In your dreams, little broomstick cowboy.
They finally got tired of RP Jr’s prevaricating and passive-aggressive mendacity. Long past time.
But is this a distraction from the Michaels gaffe?
Best,
D
I put him on my “not worth talking to” list a long time ago. About time the press caught on to his B.S.
RP knows more than YOU do about it, FRAUD.
RP is joke. Does he know the new NOAA study that nuisance flooding is increasing on the East coast?
a study ??? really??? Wow!! That says it all then…….
hahahahahahaha
Yes, data crunching study. It’s called doing work to claim expertise knowledge, unlike your tactic of just talking without thinking now knowing.
A data crunching study that could be in error. You seem to arbitrarily accept every single study as some sort of proof. Without thinking, I might add. How ironic…….LMAO at the idiot
Well, error is part and parcel of science. So it’s funny that you knee jerk attack a new NOAA study without even asking me to show it to you. You should look at things before just criticizing. Take how I handled your claim of Dr. Soon. He really has a monetary bias and his data really is in conflict with reality. The sun has reduced output over the later 20th century with a rise in T. Dr. Soon has to focus on pre-1980 records to make his case. He has to cherry pick the data set to bring him to his “Sun is all” idea. So I’ve looked into both, don’t accept without proof, and yet you just proved you did. What was that about irony?
You have no absolutely no clue how complex climate dynamics really is and it shows in every post you make. That NOAA study proves NOTHING in regard to how CO2 is causing climate change. All dummies like you have is scare tactics to make people believe your garbage. You are a true joke.
I completely understand you find it confusing. Data is produced in the investigation of the interaction of EMR with various gasses of the atmosphere at varying levels when the Air Force investigated how best to tune their heat seeking missiles. You should look into that. Data was produced by John Tyndall in the late 1800’s showing which gasses these were that retained heat in our atmosphere. You should look into that. Your being willfully ignorant is not the same as having useful knowledge. You should look into some of the science so you can discuss it more competently.
None of that shows CO2 driving climate change. Do YOU really think you convince me of anything? To me, you are an anonymous nobody on the internet.
Actually that’s exactly what Tyndall and Langley were working toward, though we do need to add in Svante Arrhenius to get the full reasons why CO2 can drive climate change. And if you could wrap your head around the PETM, it does too. Do I need to hold your hand and explain all this to you too?
So what? It doesn’t prove CO2 drives climate change. Fact. You have nothing.
Poor Dano the kook. He must have called his other kook friends to come to his aid. A couple of idiots who think THEY know climate dynamics. LMAO at the fools.
BTW that goes for gutless jmac as well.
Brave stance – running away and calling widdle names from afar.
Best,
D
I am not running anywhere, kook. As soon as you can get over your OCD by making a post without your phony ‘Best D’ attached then, and only then, will you be taken half way seriously. Dano the kook.
For the climate kooks trolling here:
1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration
in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been
detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).
2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t
cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some
700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of
the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming
is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or
politicized with each succeeding report.”
4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a
degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state
of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of
satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for
Policymakers.”
8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of
approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable
human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support
the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human
activities.”
9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by
now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a
major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the
hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide
emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global
warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from
ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding
our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has
grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and
coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the
present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more
recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem
with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the
most-used IPCC scenarios.”
13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s
effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The
IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of
climate change.”
14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic
global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA’s
James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the
[scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at
first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were
false.”
15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most
important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no
signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall
frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large
increases in the population at risk.”
16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow
increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who
questions their authority.”
18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading
scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a
significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual
number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”
19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate
change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When
people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and
scientists.”
20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and
global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally
unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate
model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more
than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made
with them.”
22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the
IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of
magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”
23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be
taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review
process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC
report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it
might be.”
24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of
climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims
as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for
Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated
process of spin-doctoring.”
26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the
Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together
by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a
process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas
and being scientifically unsound.”
28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather
than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and
exploits public ignorance.”
29. Dr Harry Lins: “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. The case for alarm regarding climate change is
grossly overstated.”
30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC
reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in
which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of
a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC
Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a
“consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and
also misleading.”
33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales
have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science
is not settled.”
34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many
scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research
funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are
willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of
the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a
rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were
actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce
particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of
the understanding of the climate system.”
37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions …
predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to
uncertainties.”
38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that
is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people
who are not scientists.”
39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone
says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled
on this topic is in fantasia.”
40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary
of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or
even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a
(slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the
calculations from climate models?”
42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and 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.”
43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was
formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause
global warming are only a means to that goal.”
44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political
rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions
in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite
voices.”
45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather
it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that
global warming is man made.”
46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in
the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by
overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this
trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”
47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant
drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative
studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have
at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing
these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of
publication.”
Yeah, I know. None of them are credible. They’ve all been shown to be wrong. They get their income from fossil fuel companies…..blah, blah, blah.
The interesting thing is that they are all highly educated. PHD’s all.
Hmmmmmm…..who to believe, them or some clown who comes here claiming he has a PHD in paleoclimate? Think I’ll go with those 50.