2011-03-08 17:05:13Call to action - help collect quotes on skeptics
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.229.6

Okay, it's time to get the ball rolling on our Skeptics Resource - short URL http://sks.to/skeptics - the concept of this resource is to first identify the top 8 or 12 climate deniers - the most famous or most effective ones. Next, pick out 3 to 5 of each skeptic's most famous/egregious quotes then get a climate expert to write a fairly short, hopefully paragraph length definitive answer. When the resource is complete, we'll launch it as the http://sks.to/skeptics webpages but also a nicely designed PDF booklet featuring all the quotes.

So first step, would be great if everyone here could help build this resource by finding short quotes from each skeptic - very egregious quotes or their most famous arguments - along with a link to where the quote came from. Once we have 3 to 5 quotes for each skeptic, I'll send this resource to the Climate Science Rapid Response Team and ask if they can solicit their stable of climate experts for a paragraph response.

Note - I have a lot of skeptics listed at http://sks.to/skeptics but we will narrow it down to either 8 or 12 - so we'll probably just go with the ones who are more outspoken and provided lots of quotes. If there's a skeptic who just doesn't give us much to work with, we'll knock him off the list.

Also, if you're trolling around the web reading articles by our merry band of skeptics, be sure to add them to our database via the Firefox Add-on and then you can assign an article to a skeptic via the Skeptic Admin. This will be something we'll need to do before launch too - try to find at least a half dozen articles by each skeptic so if we can crowd source this task as we go, many hands make light work.

2011-03-08 17:10:23Lindzen
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
I got dibs on Lindzen! I might do Spencer and Christy too, unless somebody beats me to them...
2011-03-08 17:22:27Dibs
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.229.6

Just post the quotes as you find them, probably in this thread - it can't hurt to have lots of quotes to choose from so we can pick the best ones. Ideally, they need to be short, easily debunkable and ideally, something they use a lot and recently.

2011-03-09 01:14:59Added more skeptics
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.229.6

Found a very handy list of public skeptics:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming_skeptics

So I've added a bunch more skeptics into the database and narrowed down the "finalists" to a possible top 16 (although I welcome suggestions if I've missed anyone). I've got a few like Bellamy and Corbyn which are good for nutty visual value but I don't think they're that active as public skeptics so they probably won't make the final cut.

2011-03-09 04:12:07Lindzen
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

By the way, the skeptics pages are an easy way to collect juicy quotes.

Some Lindzen quotes:

"According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far"

"all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity"

"the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative — strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior."

Source: WUWT re-post

Spencer:

"The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system"

Source: his blog

"Politicians formed the IPCC over 20 years ago with an endgame in mind: to regulate CO2 emissions. I know, because I witnessed some of the behind-the-scenes planning. It is not a scientific organization. It was organized to use the government-funded scientific research establishment to achieve policy goals."

"Virtually all of the models produce decadal time scale warming that exceeds what we have observed in the last 15 years. That fact has been known for years, but its publication in the peer reviewed literature continues to be blocked."

"Temperature proxy data from around the world suggests that just about every century in the last 2,000 years has experienced warming or cooling. Why should today’s warmth be manmade, when the Medieval Warm Period was not? Just because we finally have one potential explanation – CO2?"

"The truly objective scientist should be asking whether MORE, not less, atmospheric carbon dioxide is what we should be trying to achieve. There is more published real-world evidence for the benefits of more carbon dioxide, than for any damage caused by it. The benefits have been measured, and are real-world. The risks still remain theoretical."

Source: his blog

2011-03-09 04:26:24Christy quotes from today's congressional testimony
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.229.6

Have already added this to the Christy database (http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm).

"...much of the surface temperature warming is related to surface development around the thermometer sites."

"The second set of studies investigates one of the clearest signatures or fingerprints of greenhouse gas warming as depicted in climate models. This signature consists of a region of the tropical upper atmosphere which in models is shown to warm at least twice as fast as the surface rate of warming. We, and others, have tested this specific signature, i.e. this hypothesis, against several observational datasets and conclude that this pervasive result from climate models has not been detected in the real atmosphere."

"the new underlying [lower troposphere warming] trend remains a modest +0.09 C/decade for the global tropospheric temperature, which is still only one third of the average rate the climate models project for the current era (+0.26°C/decade.) There is no evidence of acceleration in this trend. This evidence strongly suggests that
climate model simulations on average are simply too sensitive to increasing greenhouse gases and thus overstate the warming of the climate system."

"Spencer is able to measure the amount of heat that accumulates in (departs from) the climate system as the temperature rises (falls) with temperature changes.  When all of the math is done, he finds the real climate system is dominated by negative feedbacks (probably related to cloud variations) that work against changes in temperature once that temperature change has occurred. When this same analysis is applied to climate model output (i.e. apples to apples comparisons), the result is very different, with all models showing positive feedbacks, i.e. helping a warming impulse to warm the atmosphere even more (see figure below.) Thus, the observations and models are again inconsistent."

Source: written testimony of congressional hearing

2011-03-09 15:57:23Being careful not to misrepresent what the skeptic is saying
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.229.6

The template for this venture is John Abraham's "Climate Scientists Respond" document responding to Monckton. So it's important to be aware of Jo Nova's criticism of this document:

If you are John P. Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota, you write to a few select scientists distorting what your opponent said, and then collect the infuriated responses. Abraham went on to assemble a list of things Christopher Monckton didn’t say,  complained about things he didn’t cite (even if he did and it’s printed on his slides), pretended he couldn’t find sources (but didn’t take ten minutes to ask), and created a litany of communication pollution in an effort to denigrate Monckton’s character.

Of course, the irony is Jo Nova is the queen of misrepresentation but nevertheless, we should be careful when we select quotes that we are accurately portraying their original intent and not attacking a straw man. I'm sure we'll probably get the same criticism thrown at us regardless but let's aim to produce a document with as much integrity as possible.

2011-03-10 23:48:20Monckton and others
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.160.33.83

From one of my own articles:

There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost.  There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.
Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph, 05 Nov 2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Dont-believ...

 

The 'Chinese Fleet 1421' claim is utter garbage and is thoroughly debunked by various experts at http://www.1421exposed.com/

 

The truth of Monckton's assertions requires a climate cold enough to bury farms under permafrost followed in only 70 years by a climate hot enough to melt out the central Arctic basin.  Such a startling change in climate within a traditional human lifetime - three score years and ten - would have been widely noticed and reported.  It wasn't.  And then there are the laws of physics ...

Note that 'farms under permafrost' is phrased to conjure up mental images of land actually buried under a substantial depth of ice in the minds of people who do not know the scientific definition of permafrost.

Here is an article about what was found 'under permafrost'.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/


The article is 'Climate Insiders - Their Goal is Doubt'.  Here's another quote:

"Slowly we will erode away at the consensus ...", Joe D'Aleo.

He signed a declaration that there is no consensus.  How can you erode it if it doesn't exist?


http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/climate_insiders_their_goal_doubt

 

No preview function, so here's hoping the links post ok.

2011-03-13 11:14:54Bob Carter
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233

"not only did the gentle warming terminate in 1998, but in accord with natural climate cycling that warming has been followed by a gentle cooling since about 2001."

"the correct null hypothesis is that gentle warmings, such as that which occurred between 1979 and 1998, and equivalent coolings, are to be viewed as due to natural causes unless and until evidence indicates otherwise."

Source

"The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in [average global temperature] were unusual or unnatural."

"No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 1 deg. C. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration."

"More than 50% of the 0.8 deg. C rise in [average global temperature] observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change."

Source

2011-03-13 11:27:41Pilmer
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233

"the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life"

"CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food"

"the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty."

"I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling."

"There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."

Source

2011-03-13 11:36:54Monckton
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233

"A recent paper by Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox of Rochester University, New York, has established that – contrary to various climate-extremist assertions – there has been no net accumulation of “missing energy” in the form of heat in the oceans worldwide in the six years since ocean heat content was first reliably measured by the 3000 automated ARGO bathythermographs in 2003."

"CO2 concentration is rising in a straight line at just 2 ppmv/year at present and, even if it were to accelerate to an exponential rate of increase, the corresponding temperature increase would be expected to rise merely in a straight line."

"Most of the few dozen scientists worldwide whom Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT estimates have actually studied climate sensitivity to the point of publication in a learned journal have reached their results not by measurement and observation but by mere modeling."

"the IPCC’s current thinking is that up to 2° of warming compared with the present would be harmless and even beneficial."

"the global sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, because the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice."

"Every serious economic analysis...has demonstrated that the costs of waiting and adapting to any adverse consequences that may arise from “global warming”...would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective than any Canute-like attempt to prevent any further “global warming” by taxing and regulating CO2 emissions. It follows that adaptation to the consequences of “global warming” will get easier and cheaper the longer we wait: for then we will only have to adapt to the probably few and minor consequences that will eventually occur, and not until they occur, and only where and to the extent that they occur."

source

2011-03-13 18:58:19Taken next step
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.101.78

I've emailed the CSRRT guys to see if they were interested in enlisting their stable of climate experts in writing responses. If they agree to help, it will give this project a real adrenaline shot.

2011-03-14 11:24:21CSRRT are keen on the idea
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.101.78

Next step, I'll send them some quotes. Looking at this thread (most of which was populated by Dana so many thanks for all your legwork), I was thinking of sending them a summary of what we've got so far. Here's what I've done - boiled it down to 4 quotes per skeptic and we only have 5 skeptics so far. Note - I added Lindzen misquoting Tsonis' work and hope to get Tsonis himself to respond to this. I'm sending this to CSRRT now to get the ball rolling. I'll report back on any feedback I get from them but in the meantime, we need to work on finding quotes on other skeptics so if others could help with this, preferably a range of people so Dana isn't doing all the work, that would be fantastic.

Here's the summary I'm now sending to the CSRRT:

Richard Lindzen

"According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far"
Source: WUWT

"all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity"
Source: WUWT

"the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative — strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior."
Source: WUWT

“The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.”
Source

Roy Spencer

"The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system"
Source: his blog

"Virtually all of the models produce decadal time scale warming that exceeds what we have observed in the last 15 years. That fact has been known for years, but its publication in the peer reviewed literature continues to be blocked."
Source: his blog

"Temperature proxy data from around the world suggests that just about every century in the last 2,000 years has experienced warming or cooling. Why should today’s warmth be manmade, when the Medieval Warm Period was not? Just because we finally have one potential explanation – CO2?"
Source: his blog

"The truly objective scientist should be asking whether MORE, not less, atmospheric carbon dioxide is what we should be trying to achieve. There is more published real-world evidence for the benefits of more carbon dioxide, than for any damage caused by it. The benefits have been measured, and are real-world. The risks still remain theoretical."
Source: his blog

John Christy

"...much of the surface temperature warming is related to surface development around the thermometer sites."
Source: written testimony of congressional hearing

"The second set of studies investigates one of the clearest signatures or fingerprints of greenhouse gas warming as depicted in climate models. This signature consists of a region of the tropical upper atmosphere which in models is shown to warm at least twice as fast as the surface rate of warming. We, and others, have tested this specific signature, i.e. this hypothesis, against several observational datasets and conclude that this pervasive result from climate models has not been detected in the real atmosphere."
Source: written testimony of congressional hearing

"The second set of studies investigates one of the clearest signatures or fingerprints of greenhouse gas warming as depicted in climate models. This signature consists of a region of the tropical upper atmosphere which in models is shown to warm at least twice as fast as the surface rate of warming. We, and others, have tested this specific signature, i.e. this hypothesis, against several observational datasets and conclude that this pervasive result from climate models has not been detected in the real atmosphere."
Source: written testimony of congressional hearing

"the new underlying [lower troposphere warming] trend remains a modest +0.09 C/decade for the global tropospheric temperature, which is still only one third of the average rate the climate models project for the current era (+0.26°C/decade.) There is no evidence of acceleration in this trend. This evidence strongly suggests that climate model simulations on average are simply too sensitive to increasing greenhouse gases and thus overstate the warming of the climate system."
Source: written testimony of congressional hearing

Bob Carter

"not only did the gentle warming terminate in 1998, but in accord with natural climate cycling that warming has been followed by a gentle cooling since about 2001."
Source

"the correct null hypothesis is that gentle warmings, such as that which occurred between 1979 and 1998, and equivalent coolings, are to be viewed as due to natural causes unless and until evidence indicates otherwise."
Source

"The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in [average global temperature] were unusual or unnatural."
Source

"More than 50% of the 0.8 deg. C rise in [average global temperature] observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change."
Source

Ian Plimer

"the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life"
Source

"CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food"
Source

"the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty."
Source

"There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."
Source

 

2011-03-14 11:29:19Skeptics to focus on
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.101.78

Note, I omitted Monckton as we have some responses in the "Climate Scientists Respond" document which I hope to use. So skeptics that I suggest we focus on, assuming we launch with 12 skeptics (welcome changes):

  • Pat Michaels
  • Fred Singer
  • Steve McIntyre
  • Roger Pielke Sr
  • Freeman Dyson
  • Chris de Freitas

Unless you think others are more deserving of being on the list.

2011-03-14 12:53:06Watts
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
Good quotes so far. Watts is borderline, but I guess he does have enough influence to warrant being on the list. So many WUWT posts are by guests though, he might be a little tough. More work than some of the others, but I'm sure we can find some nice UHI quotes from Watts. Getting response quotes from actual climate scientists would be big. I don't mind doing legwork, but some more help would be good.
2011-03-14 12:54:24de freitas
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
What about de Freitas? Frankly I'm not sure Ball deserves to make the list, though it depends how popular his blog becomes.
2011-03-14 13:25:30Have updated the list
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.101.78

It's not a set-in-stone list, just possible suggestions - but yes, probably do de Freitas over Watts as he's a scientist, Watts is a TV weather man. I'd love to have Dyson in there as he really pushes the old, white haired retirement bell curve further up.

But bottom line, who can we find enough quotes from?

2011-03-14 14:35:27CSRRT starting to mobilise
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.101.78

The guys at CSRRT are starting to process the quotes and organise sending them out to scientists. Exciting to see them at work. Will keep everyone posted as it develops...

2011-03-15 00:39:11Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105

McIntyre will be hard to pin down. Many before us have tried and not proven to be terribly successful. He is of the weasely type.

2011-03-15 05:53:32
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.107.62

McIntyre does have less these one-liners (I expect at least some to be found from the Briffa/Yamal incident), but he has rather ugly history of quote-mining (among other things).

2011-03-15 07:21:35Singer
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Here are some from Singer from a PBS interview.  It's a veritable gold mine.  I bolded one below that's a mischaracterization of James Hansen.  Would be awesome if we could get Hansen to respond.

There's also several instances in the interview where he says satellites show cooling over the past 30+ years.  I think the interview was in 2007, and we knew the UAH analysis was wrong in 2005, so this is some really gross dishonesty if the date is right (it doesn't say on the page).  But I don't think it's worth including since it's out of date.  It's funny though, he talks about how the satellite data is so much better than the surface data, and the satellites show the planet is cooling.  He harps on this several times.  Talk about embarassing.

"you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites."

"we get climate changes by 100 degrees Fahrenheit in some places on the earth. So what difference does a 1-degree change make over 100 years?"

"there was a strong warming between 1900 and 1940--during the same time, sea level actually fell...We have a check on the idea that accumulation of ice will be more important if there is a modest warming. Of course, if the warming is extreme, and melts all the ice caps, all bets are off. But no one is talking about that."

"we have to do a great deal of physical research on the atmosphere--that is, more observations--to discover what the feedbacks are, which way they operate. Are they positive feedbacks that enhance the warming, or are they negative feedbacks that diminish the warming? And the evidence, as far as I can tell, seems to be that the negative feedbacks must be important, because we do not see the warming that's expected from the current rise in carbon dioxide."

"One of the leading climate modelists is Jim Hanson. He actually was the man who, ten years ago, went out on a limb and said he was sure the enhanced greenhouse effect was here. He now says we can't really tell. He says the forcings are so uncertain that they're much more important than the climate models. In other words, until we get the forcings straight, the climate-model predictions are not worth very much. That is basically what he said."

"Since aerosols are mostly emitted in the northern hemisphere, where industrial activities are rampant, we would expect the northern hemisphere to be warming less quickly than the southern hemisphere. In fact, we would expect the northern hemisphere to be cooling. But the data show the opposite. Both the surface data and the satellite data agree that, in the last 20 years, the northern hemisphere has warmed more quickly than the southern hemisphere. So it contradicts the whole idea that aerosols make an important difference.   This is very embarrassing to the modelists, because they have been using the aerosol as an excuse to explain why the models do not agree with observations. I suggest that they now will have to look for another excuse."

"some models predict a warming for a doubling of CO2, of, let's say, five degrees Centigrade...other models predict something like one degree"

"The earth has experienced much, much higher levels than we have today, without any apparent ill effects, because life developed quite well. In fact, it blossomed forth at the beginning of the Cambrian period....High levels of carbon dioxide should not concern us. They will make plants grow faster. They will make agriculture become more productive. They will encourage more diversity of animals, and they'll make for a better life for human beings."

2011-03-15 09:05:49Dyson
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Dyson interview with Peiser:

"[climate models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere."

Salon interview:

"We have no reason to think that climate change is harmful if you look at the world as a whole. Most places, in fact, are better off being warmer than being colder. And historically, the really bad times for the environment and for people have been the cold periods rather than the warm periods. The fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn't scare me at all."

"The numbers of [polar] bears in the Arctic are increasing rather than decreasing. On the whole, they like it to be warm."

"We know from measurements that glaciers have been melting for 200 years at least. So it's certainly long before human activities could have caused it.  What we also know, going back 4,000 years, is that the glaciers were actually a lot smaller. They actually grew in the meantime. So it seems to be some sort of cyclical process. They grow and shrink and there's no particular reason for being worried just because they're shrinking at the moment."

"The whole community of climate experts is funded on the basis that it's an urgent problem. So [they] can't possibly say it's not urgent or else they'll lose their thumbs."

2011-03-15 12:22:35Added Singer and Dyson to the quotes document
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.101.78

Thanks Dana! Emailing the updated document to CSRRT, also asking if its possible to get Hansen to respond to the Singer quote about Hansen - that would be a great response to have:

Fred Singer

"we get climate changes by 100 degrees Fahrenheit in some places on the earth. So what difference does a 1-degree change make over 100 years?"
Source

"One of the leading climate modelists is Jim Hanson. He actually was the man who, ten years ago, went out on a limb and said he was sure the enhanced greenhouse effect was here. He now says we can't really tell. He says the forcings are so uncertain that they're much more important than the climate models. In other words, until we get the forcings straight, the climate-model predictions are not worth very much. That is basically what he said."
Source

"we have to do a great deal of physical research on the atmosphere--that is, more observations--to discover what the feedbacks are, which way they operate. Are they positive feedbacks that enhance the warming, or are they negative feedbacks that diminish the warming? And the evidence, as far as I can tell, seems to be that the negative feedbacks must be important, because we do not see the warming that's expected from the current rise in carbon dioxide."
Source

"you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites."
Source

 

Freeman Dyson

"[climate models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere."
Source

"We have no reason to think that climate change is harmful if you look at the world as a whole. Most places, in fact, are better off being warmer than being colder. And historically, the really bad times for the environment and for people have been the cold periods rather than the warm periods. The fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn't scare me at all."
Source

"The numbers of [polar] bears in the Arctic are increasing rather than decreasing. On the whole, they like it to be warm."
Source

"We know from measurements that glaciers have been melting for 200 years at least. So it's certainly long before human activities could have caused it.  What we also know, going back 4,000 years, is that the glaciers were actually a lot smaller. They actually grew in the meantime. So it seems to be some sort of cyclical process. They grow and shrink and there's no particular reason for being worried just because they're shrinking at the moment."
Source

2011-03-16 11:23:27Stall on this project
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.101.78

Just got an email from the CSRRT - they've had to put this on hold as they're starting another initiative with all their scientists and were conscious of overloading them with more than one thing at a time. So I thought best approach would be to put this on hold till the CSRRT are available to help us with it - a lot more efficient than chasing up all the scientists ourselves.

2011-03-16 15:29:20Bummer
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233

That's too bad, but maybe we can have a full list of quotes ready for when they have time to work on it.  I think we've got these guys left:

  • Pat Michaels
  • Steve McIntyre
  • Roger Pielke Sr
  • Chris de Freitas

I bet Gareth could get us some good de Freitas quotes.  Michaels should be easy.  The tough one is McIntyre.

2011-03-21 14:48:20Adding quotes
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.20.55

Perhaps best thing to do is just add quotes to the Skeptic Quotes database (instructions on how to add quotes given in this thread). So even if we never do get scientists responding, we can always respond to skeptic quotes with our own rebuttals.