Twitter battle reveals reporters blacklisted climate expert

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.