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

Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, former member of the
EPA‟s Science Advisory Board, served on a committee of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and was a former adjunct professor in the
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Michigan. Wolf, who
has authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies in the fields of ozone, sulfates and
aerosols, was the Principal Research Scientist and Manager for Atmospheric
Modeling and Assessment and Climate Change Programs for General Motors
Research Laboratories. Wolff received the Frank A. Chambers Award by the Air and
Waste Management Association for outstanding technical achievement to the science
of air pollution. He is also a member of the American Meteorological Society, the
American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. ―As an atmospheric scientist for over thirty years, engaged in studying and
seeking solutions to environmental problems, I am appalled at the state of discord in the
field of climate science,‖ Wolf told the Environment and Public Works Committee on
January 23, 2009. ―For too many in the field, critical thinking, the basis for all scientific
inquiry, is not only absent, it is disdained. The basis for the crisis-level global warming
concerns are climate models (and their predictions) that are not validated and poorly
reproduce the observed hydrological cycle. In addition, the surface temperature networks
are contaminated by urban and other land-use influences,‖ Wolf explained. ―These facts
alone should be reason for skepticism. However, many additional reasons exist. There is
no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere. Historical accounts and
paleoclimatological evidence tell us that it has been significantly warmer and significantly
colder in the past. Moreover, in the past, temperature changes preceded changes in CO2
concentrations, which imply that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 concentrations, not
visa versa,‖ he added. ―Furthermore, statistical relationships between solar activity proxies
and climate hint at a controlling relationship with the sun even though observed solar
variability alone is insufficient to explain all of the variation in temperature. It is
unconscionable that solar and other natural phenomena, such as the oceanic oscillations,
are not included in the dialogue as we pursue explanations for the recent warm
temperatures and a more recent apparent cooling trend,‖ he concluded. (LINK)
Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy
in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the
American Chemical Society on topics such as methane, dissented form man-made
climate fears in 2009 and slammed the media for "journalistic malpractice" for promoting
fear and attempting to discredit scientists skeptical. ―According to the [Baltimore Sun]
editorial ‗A New Year's resolution‘ (Jan. 2, 2009), tens of thousands of scientists like me
are ‗flat-earth types.‘ I guess my doctorate in chemical physics from Johns Hopkins doesn't
give me nearly the qualifications to analyze the science associated with the global climate
as an editor with an agenda,‖ Campbell wrote on January 13, 2009. ―If we are going to
stoop to name-calling, an appropriate name for people with the view The Baltimore Sun
endorses could be ‗Chicken Littles.‘ But instead of claiming that the sky is falling, they
claim the sky is burning. The editorial claims that there is a consensus among scientists that
man-made carbon dioxide is causing global climate change; however, consensus in science
is an oxymoron. From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof is more convincing than
thousands of other scientists who believe something to be true,‖ Campbell explained. ―And
160