05.11.2014 Views

Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global ...

Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global ...

Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Retired U.S. Navy Physicist and Engineer James A. Marusek dissented in 2008.<br />

Marusek conducted solar research and concluded in a 2008 analysis: ―The sun is a major<br />

influence on climate change on Earth in that it provides solar irradiance that warms the<br />

planet and a far reaching magnetic field that shields Earth from the effects of galactic<br />

cosmic rays, which cools the planet…This paper looks at the relationship between the solar<br />

magnetic field (as expressed in ‗AA Index‘) and ocean surface temperature over the period<br />

from 1880 A.D. to present and finds this relationship is best expressed by a natural<br />

logarithmic function.‖ (LINK) Marusek rejected global warming theory as well. ―The<br />

anthropological global warming (AGW) hypothesis would have us believe that global<br />

temperatures are rising as a result of increased carbon dioxide levels in Earth‘s atmosphere<br />

and that humans are the primary cause of this increase,‖ he explained. ―An opposing<br />

hypothesis - natural global warming (NGW) - believes the rise in recently observed<br />

atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is driven by natural global warming and by volcanic<br />

activity and that humans have little effect in altering Earth‘s climate,‖ Marusek wrote.<br />

(LINK)<br />

Climate researcher Willis Eschenbach, who has published climate studies in Energy<br />

and Environment journal and had comments published in the journal Nature,<br />

dissented from man-made climate fears in 2008. ―I am definitely a critic of the IPCC, they<br />

are doing their job abysmally poorly. Rather than advance the cause of climate science,<br />

they impede it through their reliance on bad statistics, bad economics, and bad data,‖<br />

Eschenbach wrote to EPW on February 20, 2008. ―As an example of the ridiculous state of<br />

climate science, the major discussion revolves around the global surface temperature. We<br />

have different major groups (HadCRUT, GISS, GHCN, NOAA) each keeping a ‗global<br />

temperature record‘, and all of them are different,‖ Eschenbach explained. ―Even with a<br />

Freedom of Information Act request, I couldn't get HadCRUT3 to divulge their data ...<br />

that's not science. The most basic numbers in the field, and we don't know how they are<br />

calculated, and they are not shared,‖ he added. (LINK) Eschenbach also refuted the<br />

attempted resurrection of the ―Hockey Stick‖ temperature graph in 2008. (LINK)<br />

Professional Engineer Allan M.R. MacRae of Alberta, Canada, authored a scientific<br />

analysis critical of man-made global warming in 2008. ―The IPCC‘s position that<br />

increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature<br />

data,‖ MacRae wrote on February 5, 2008. Variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration<br />

lag (occur after) variations in Earth‘s Surface Temperature by ~9 months. The IPCC states<br />

that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming - in effect, the<br />

IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC‘s core scientific conclusion is<br />

illogical and false,‖ MacRae explained. (LINK)<br />

Dr. Alex Storrs, an Associate Professor at the Department of Physics, Astronomy &<br />

Geosciences at Towson University, dissented in 2008. ―I gave a talk at the event here<br />

(Towson Univ.) titled ‗Science, Skepticism, and <strong>Global</strong> Warming‘, and am still walking<br />

upright. I pointed out how skepticism is central to the scientific enterprise and raised the<br />

question ‗What if it‘s not CO2?‘‖ Storrs wrote to CCNET newsletter on February 8, 2008.<br />

―[I] pointed out that by averaging the results of different climate models, rather than<br />

investigating the strengths and weaknesses of each model and choosing (tentatively, of<br />

course) the best, the IPCC had deviated from the scientific process,‖ Storrs wrote. He<br />

135

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!