Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

Are there any scientists who DISAGREE with Climate Change and don't believe in it?

Why has "Climate Change" become so politicized?!

Science used to be an objective discipline...but now science has been hijacked by leftie zealots who have no background in science!

Are there any Scientists who DISAGREE with Climate Change or don't believe in it?

9 Answers

  • Bob
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

    IPCC co-chairs for Netherlands and Sierra Leone debate changes to the Report Summary.

    Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

    In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

    Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

    The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

    These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

    Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

    By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world

  • 1 decade ago

    If you are referring to the Global Warming Theory, then yes. To the best of my knowledge, global warming has always been a "theory". It may or may not be the case, the jury is still out. But, I am sure that all of the scientists (except those who are on BIG OIL payrolls) believe that human factors are (or will have) effects on the environment.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes there are plenty who do not believe that there is solid proof for Man made climate change.

  • 1 decade ago

    "Science used to be an objective discipline...but now science has been hijacked by leftie zealots who have no background in science!"

    Science still is an objective discipline, unless you get your information from denier blogs and Fox news, or deniers who have no background in science like Lord Mockingtone or TV Weathermen like Anthony Watts. (lets call them rightie zealots)

    The deniers claim a petition of 31000 scientists who oppose AGW, yet at the recent Heartland climate conference they could raise just 73 delegates (many of these were not actual scientists at all) they included Journalists like James Delingpole and Political hangers on like Marc Moreno & and Lord Whatshisname and ordinary Wattshisname. I guess the other 30927 (who strongly oppose GW) just couldn't make it that day, funny as they didn't make it last year or the year before either.

    Yet real science meetings get real scientists to attend the last AGU had over 15000 (real people) attend. The longer this goes on the sillier deniers look as they continue to make preposterous claims about large numbers of scientist who supposedly oppose AGW yet they never seem to appear at any meeting to support that claim. The only thing that surprises me is that anyone still believes these denier fairy stories.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Assuming climate change means global warming caused by humans, then yes.

    In a poll last year of scientists, about 97% of active climate researchers said 'yes' to the idea that climate was changing and humans were significant drivers of it. By extension, about 3% think otherwise.

    (Amongst non climate experts, support was only just about 80%).

    Scientists who dispute human caused global warming include the likes of Lindzen and Spencer who think that it's mostly clouds, or that clouds will cool us off. They also include the like of Singer and Ball who're bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. On the whole, Lindzen and Spencer are generally 'skeptics', doing research to try and explain their view. Meanwhile Ball, Singer etc are 'deniers' whipped out by the media and politicians.

  • Oscar
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Quite a few actually. I know the environmentalist types claim 97% agree with them. But it is easy to manipulate a poll. For example, picking who you are going to ask from those whom you think agree.Another thing is they can probably get 97% that agree that the earth is warming. But what percentage actually agree that humans are a significant cause. All you need do is threaten their grants.

    The fact is the earth is always either heating or cooling. One or the other. The temperature never stays the same for very long. The earth lacks one of those handy programable controls attached to central heating and cooling.

    Then there is their obsession with so-called greenhouse gasses. As if no other factor could possibly have any effect. Our climate is controlled by one factor? How absurd is that.

  • 1 decade ago

    31,487 disagree.

    9,029 with PhDs.

    They disagree that human activity is causing a change to the Earth's climate.

    They are not all climatologists. Their specialties cover the spectrum of scientific studies.

    MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, the worlds foremost Climatologist, does not believe in Global Warming.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes. There were many scientists who thinks otherwise...Some of them even tried to believe that climate change is never a negative force but a positive one...

  • 1 decade ago

    I find it sad the way deniers cling to the OISM petition it's a well documented fraud

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.