U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed ... - NJIAT

aerosol effects on weather and climate, called claims that man-made global warming
was causing any recent abnormal weather an "abuse of limited scientific knowledge."
Cotton, who has been extensively cited in the peer reviewed literature, rejected global
warming alarmism on October 17, 2006 in Climate Science. "Climate variability has been
with Earth for eons. Greenhouse warming is only one factor affecting climate change.
There are many other factors some associated with human activity, many not, and not all
processes associated with climate variability have been quantitatively identified," Cotton
said. "Therefore I am skeptical about claims of forecasts of what the climate will be like
in say, 5, 10 years or more. I also view claims that a few years of abnormal weather (like
intense hurricane landfalls, severe storms and floods, and droughts) to be caused by
human activity as abuse of limited scientific knowledge." (LINK)
Bernie Rayno, Senior Meteorologist with AccuWeather, said in February 2007, "Our
climate has been changing since the dawn of time. There is not enough evidence to link
global warming to greenhouse gases." "We as humans thought we were causing a cooling
cycle," Rayno said, referring to the fears of a coming ice age in the 1970s. "It's interesting
to watch the media flip back and forth on this," he added.
VK Raina, India's leading Glaciologist, questioned the assertion that global
warming was melting glaciers in India. "Claims of global warming causing glacial melt
in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina told the Hindustan Times on
February 11, 2007. The paper continued, "Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of
9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly
200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers. It
is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalized by a few individuals, the
septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue
should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion." (LINK)
IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist
with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience
in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100
papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling,
slammed the UN IPCC process. "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments
and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD
(Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of
the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers
with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my
review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process," Khandekar wrote in a May
28, 2007 letter to the editor of Canada's The Hill Times. "...Adherents of the IPCC
science like to insist that the debate over climate change science is over and it is now
time for action. I urge [those IPCC supporters] to browse through recent issues of major
international journals in climate and related science. Hardly a week goes by without a
significant paper being published questioning the science," Khandekar added. "The
science of climate change is continuously evolving. The IPCC and its authors have closed
their minds and eyes to this evolving science which points to solar variability as the
prime driver of earth's climate and not the human-added greenhouse gases," he
concluded. (LINK) Khandekar also further critiqued the UN's IPCC process in a February
13, 2007 interview in the Winnipeg Sun. "I think the IPCC science is a bit too simplistic,"
40