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

Gulf Coast. The snow at a National League Playoff game this year, California wildfires,
and some tornadoes, droughts, and floods are blamed on AGW. These types of events
have been occurring for hundreds of years,‖ Coleman explained. ―The recent usage of the
phrase ‗global climate change‘ seems to protect the AGW people; they have their bases
covered now. They have even discussed a scenario where global warming and ice melting
will cause a problem with the Gulf Stream and an Ice Age in North America. So, even if
it gets very cold for many years, they can say it was AGW,‖ he added. ―No one mentions
the possible advantages of AGW, if it is occurring. Some models apparently indicate that
the most intense warming would occur in the polar regions. Is that all bad? Maybe people
could grow crops in Siberia and northern Canada, and sea lanes would open for shipping
in the Arctic. ―Winters could be warmer, lowering some energy bills,‖ he wrote. (LINK)
Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National
Technical University of Athens‟ Department of Water Resources and
Environmental Engineering, declared their dissent in 2009. ―We maintain there is no
reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no
evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening,‖ Christofides and Mamassis wrote
on November 17, 2009. ―Climate is equally uncertain at all zoom levels. In fact,
mathematical analysis of the climate indicates that its behavior is such that the
uncertainty is the maximum possible at all zoom levels. This maximization of uncertainty
at all scales is called the Hurst-Kolmogorov behavior of climatic processes. Nature loves
uncertainty, and it fools us in two ways: on the one hand we wouldn‘t be able to predict
the future of climate, even if we fully knew the natural laws that govern it, because of
chaos; and on the other hand, we can‘t be very certain of the statistically expected
behavior of climate which is based on our observations of the past, because of the Hurst-
Kolmogorov behavior.‖ (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)
Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, rejected man-made climate claims in 2009. Makarevich ―says there are clear
cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles, he says, are
related to solar activity.‖ In a November 29, 2009 article, he explained: ―In my opinion
and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are
being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere
or of the oceans.‖ ―Makarevich expects a normalization of Arctic temperatures in the
coming years. This view appears to have the support of a growing number of Russian
scientists. Some even predict a temporary cooling of temperatures towards the middle of
this century, a phenomenon known as a ‗Little Ice Age.‘‖ (LINK)
Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock, an honorary fellow with
Institute for Economic Affairs, published a study challenging man-made global
warming claims in 2009. Beenstock‘s paper, titled ―Polynomial Cointegration Tests of
the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming,‖ found ―that greenhouse gas forcings do
not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore,
previous claims that carbon emissions permanently increase global temperature are false.
Although we find no permanent effect of greenhouse gas forcings on global temperature,
there appears to be a temporary, or short-term, effect. We show that this temporary effect
can easily be mistaken for a permanent one. Polynomial cointegration tests show that the
putative permanent effect is induced by the spurious regression phenomenon.‖ The paper
16