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 ...
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