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

The following scientists may not be referred to as "skeptical" but they make very
important and noteworthy points: (Note: The below scientists are not included in total
tally of skeptical scientists)
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Amy Frappier labeled climate fears oversimplified. Boston
College's professor of Geology and Geophysics Frappier explained in a February 1, 2007
article in Boston College's newspaper The Heights, "The geologic record shows that many
millions of years ago, CO2 levels were indeed higher - in some cases many times higher -
than today." Frappier noted that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do not
consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, but gases instead stabilize in the
atmosphere and cease having a warming effect. "At some point the heat-trapping capacity
of [the gas] and its effect get saturated," said Frappier, "and you don't have increased
heating." According to the article, Frappier, who believes mankind is having an impact on
the climate, criticized Gore because "his movie fails to mention any ancient incongruity
between carbon dioxide and temperature."
Scientists Claim Computer Model Predictions are 'Useless Arithmetic' - Orrin H.
Pilkey, a coastal geologist and emeritus professor at Duke and his daughter Linda
Pilkey-Jarvis, a geologist in the Washington State Department of Geology, wrote a
book in 2007 entitled Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict
the Future. Thought the authors stress their book does not specifically address man-made
global warming fears, it does present "an overall attack on the use of computer programs to
model nature," according to a February 20, 2007 New York Times book review. The Times
book review explained how these models "may include coefficients (the authors call them
‗fudge factors') to ensure that they come out right. And the modelers may not check to see
whether projects performed as predicted." "Nature is too complex, they (the authors) say,
and depends on too many processes that are poorly understood or little monitored - whether
the process is the feedback effects of cloud cover on global warming or the movement of
grains of sand on a beach," the Times article explained. "And instead of demanding to
know exactly how high seas will rise or how many fish will be left in them or what the
average global temperature will be in 20 years, they argue, we should seek to discern
simply whether seas are rising, fish stocks are falling and average temperatures are
increasing. And we should couple these models with observations from the field. Models
should be regarded as producing ‗ballpark figures,' they write, not accurate impact
forecasts," the Times article continued. The coastal models are so flawed that Pilkey
recommends dredging up a lot of sand and dumping it on the beach "willy-nilly" and he
predicts you would end up with the same result, minus the "false mathematical certitude."
(LINK)
Climatologist/seismologist Dr. Jose Rial of the University of North Carolina is
studying glacial seismic activity in Greenland and has chastised the media and criticized
a proponent of man-made climate fears for presenting a "falling-sky" view of Greenland's
climate. "I also know that there is no evidence to suggest that these quakes [linked to ice
melt on Greenland] ‗are happening far faster than ever anticipated' [as Robert Corell of The
Heinz Center claimed]," wrote Rial in a September 13, 2007 letter to the UK Guardian.
Rial criticized the UK newspaper for presenting a ‗falling-sky' alarmist perspective and
added that "it will take years of continued surveying to know whether anything here [in
Greenland] is ‗accelerating' towards catastrophe, as the article [featuring Corell] claims."
293