Information on quoted/interviewed scientists and speakers featured in this doc:
Climate scientists featured in the doc (w/ some selected quotes):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
More recently, in a publication in the series Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy he said:[5]
* "I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have but it is not the greenhouse relation."
* Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv
"Recently Nir Shavivs Solar Hypothesis has been disputed by new analysis of the suns output over the last 25 years, which shows that the suns activity has been decreasing since 1985 while global temperature have continued to rise at an accelerating pace.
Nir Shaviv has tried to rescue the idea by invoking a time lag between changes in the sun and their effect on the Earth’s climate. But Professor Lockwood’s data, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, shows the sun’s magnetic field has declined since 1985, even as the world heats up.
Professor Lockwood dismissed Nir Shavivs claim as “disingenuous”.
“Nobody has invoked that kind of lag before. It’s only been invoked now as a way out,” he said."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Clark
In 2004 Clark wrote a letter to the Editor of the The Hill Times saying:
That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
“Wall Street Journal (June 11, 2001), Lindzen stated that “there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them” and “I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.”[11]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
On the subject of Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005, “Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as ‘fact,’ I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.” [4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wunsch
"I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the climate wars because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise… I am on record in a number of places as complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could “shut off” or that with global warming Britain would go into a “new ice age” are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality [2] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
“He has received financial support in research funding and consulting fees from the fossil-fuel energy industry.[9] He is a fellow of the Cato Institute and edits the World Climate Report, published and funded by the not-for-profit organization Greening Earth Society created by the Western Fuels Association.”
?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
Not climate scientists:
-Philip Scott (Professor of Biogeography)
-James Skikwati (Economist and Author)
-Nigel Calder (Former Editor New Scientist)
-Lord Lawson of Blaby
-http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
-Professor Paul Reiter (entymologist)
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz
-Paul Driesen, author
