Who are the expert climate change deniers and skeptics?

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWM...

The above file has a pretty extensive list of those who oppose the catastrophic version of AGW. I'm sure there plenty that you would have trouble with (i.e. not climate scientists by definition) but here are some I'd like to highlight:

- Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, a senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo, has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth and served as a referee for scientific journals. Quote: “The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) has determined that the earth's temperature has risen by about 0.7° C since 1901. According to Dr. Brekke, this time period coincides not only with an increase in human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, but also with a higher level of solar activity, which makes it complicated to separate the effects of these two phenomena.”

- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, the principal investigator for the Committee for Scientific Research of the province of Buenos Aires (CIC) and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata, dissented from the global warming “consensus” in 2007. "There is no denying a warming; the discussion is whether it was created by man or whether it is natural. There are effects of human action, but it is much more likely to be a natural product,”

- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics in 1973, Ivar Giaever, a fellow of the American Physical Society, declared himself a dissenter in 2008. “I am a skeptic,” Giaever announced in June 2008. “Global warming has become a new religion,”

- Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen, who is a lecturer in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado, a member of the American Meteorological Society. According

to Keen, global warming ranges between a “minor inconvenience that’s overblown” or “nothing – it doesn’t exist” or “a good thing.”

- Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. After researching climate issues further he converted to a man-made global warming skeptic.

- UN IPCC award-winning environmental physical chemist Dr. Kiminori Itoh of Yokohama National University, a contributor to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer, publicly rejected man-made climate fears in 2008, calling the promotion of such fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history.”

As a matter of fact, there are a large number who had previously worked on the IPCC reports.

Since there are "millions of scientists in the world working in fields that relate to global warming and climate change" and since you are "a climate scientist myself so please avoid silly answers such as ‘they’re afraid to speak up’ or ‘their work gets discarded’, the reality is quite the opposite."

you must have some examples to support your view of reality. Who are these climate scientist that have spoken up who's work doesn't invoke a desire to discard there work or discredit them?

strpenta - No, we don't "think" warmons are hypocrites, they are. Trevor himself thinks 90% of the earths population believes there is a problem with their lifestyles. 90% is enough to make the changes he believes are necessary to save the planet. Either he's ignorant about the 90% or the 90% are hypocrites.

Hopefully -- you.

The Lear jet leftists expect to form the core of the global Inner Party. There they will continue to enjoy the finest foods and most advanced gadgets the world has to offer -- while deciding your fate for you.

If you work very hard and show them your unwavering loyalty you may be permitted to join the global Outer Party. You will be allowed occasional servings of meat - and air conditioning on a rationed basis.

The rest of us will eat beans and swelter -- for the good of the planet.

There are a number of lists that have been compiled over the years, naturally since they are different lists compiled at different times, there will be some duplicate names between lists. Some of the lists provide qualification and some don't. Some have comments of the signers and some don't. But here are some examples:

Wiki List with qualifications and some detail as to what they believe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_op...

Over 130 German Scientists that signed an open letter skeptical of man-made Global Warming

http://climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Ano...

CATO compiled list - Open letter to Obama stating the problem is "grossly overstated"

http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternat...

There are more lists of skeptical scientists --- where is YOUR list of individual scientists willing to put their names and reputations on the line for man-made Global Warming Trevor?

-----------------------

Winston --

<< Most scientists could not identify & justify that we have global warming & climate change.>>

If you mean "most climate scientists" then you are a liar.

Your proposed solution is not possible in the reality-based physical universe where the rest of us live.

=====

jim z --

<<Frankly I have to be skeptical that you are a scientist. <<

That is hysterical coming from someone incapable of distinguishing science from politics - and who disagrees with most of the professionals in his own "alleged" field of expertise, including The American Geophysical Union and the Geological Society of America.

http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/pdf/position_statements...

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm

And as for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, you have to admire the honesty of John C. Lorenz (AAPG President 2009-10) -- "as a group we have no particular claim to knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics through either our education or our daily professional work."

http://64.207.34.58/StaticContent/3/TPGs/2010_TPGM... (page 28)

The former head of earth sciences department at my uni is a sceptic- geologist Ian Plimer. Melbourne University is one of the elite unis in Australia, consitantly ranking highly in the world assessments of quality institutions. He has moved on to the University of Adelaide, a not as prestigious destination. My lecturer, David Karoly was one of the IPCC 4th report authors and he detailed the reasons why Plimer's explanations are incorrect (Plimer is author of a book called Heaven and Earth and blames submarine volcanoes for CO2). Coincidentally, Plimer sits on the boards of several mining companies including coal gas company Ormil Energy (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/1816194.html ).

There is another aussie at a backwater university named Robert M. Carter. He is also a geologist specialising in paleoclimate but has also published material on climate systems (eg http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/McLean_deFreita... ) and doesn't appear to be on the fossil fuel industry payroll. However he is on the payroll of anti-climate science groups such as Australian conservative "think tank" the Institute of Public Affairs (as I type their website is down but this is mentioned on his wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter#cite... ).

people with common sense

You claim:

<<<Please note, I’m a climate scientist myself so please avoid silly answers such as ‘they’re afraid to speak up’ or ‘their work gets discarded’, the reality is quite the opposite.>>>

Yet based on your previous answer, you seem to me to be an extreme leftists who thinks all the world problems are due to Exxon Mobil. Did you learn that in "Climate Science"? Frankly I have to be skeptical that you are a scientist. For example, your previous answers on geology indicate a good knowledge of English and a sparse knowlege of geology.

In general, you answered it already. We don't need to search for specific people to your question. Most scientists could not identify & justify that we have global warming & climate change. There were more than a 100 scientists in association who wrote UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki Moon last November 2009 in contesting the issue of the probable environment tax that will eventually be used by governments once the (Kyoto Protocol) treaty or (Copenhagen) deal will be fully subscribed. So, instead of the scientists corroborating to the urgency of resolving global warming & climate change, they turned around asking UN to defend their cause of action. These scientists lost their credibility when they asked the Secretariat, together with UNEP & IPCC, to present evidences, justify the environmental problem, and many more. And hence, there was a stalemate in COP 15 or say, status quo thereafter. Nothing will be resolved in this world. COP 16 had no forced after IPCC admitted already in public that it scientifically blundered in their studies. However, UN scored in bringing COP 17 (December 2011-January 2012) to a success with USA, India & China agreeing to reduce carbon scheme.

If you say you are a climate scientist, then you must agree with your replier that agriculture & forestry have a hand in greatly manipulating & managing weather & climate than UN's corruptible carbon emission reduction. If you do, then the best way to resolve global warming is by rehabilitating barren, infertile & desolate lands (vs. increasing annual desertification from the recorded 60% by Millennium Dev. Goal as of 2005) to massively refertilize lands into arability & productivity primarily and secondarily by creating & inducing photosynthesis & chemosynthesis. This will dramatically absorb trapped CO2 and in turn, release O2 in the same amount absorbed in order to cool the climate (vs. heat waves, droughts, forest fires, etc.), neutralize long trapped methane & other acidic gases, normalize weather (vs. floods, violent storms, tornadoes, etc.), strengthen our immune system (vs. epidemic or pandemic), repair the O3 layer (vs. holes), reduce rising sea levels (vs. sinking islands & islets), rebuild the glaciers & ice shelf and many more.

A recurring theme in online communities that deny science (and not just climate science) is the belief that there's an organized, pervasive scientific conspiracy.

Consequently, scientists who work most closely with the issue are the ones considered least trustworthy, and vice versa. If you're an editor, and your journal has ever published a paper from the folks at East Anglia, your journal is a fraud. If you're a scientist, and you've ever published anything in the same journal that the folks at East Anglia have also published in, you're suspect. And god help you if you actually are one of the folks at East Anglia.

Based on this pattern of belief, it does not surprise me that the majority of the patron saints of (climate, AIDS, evolution, vaccine, psychiatry, you name it) denial are not scientists, and that's unlikely to ever change.