Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming

Jan 03, 2011 | 

Font Size  

  

Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming

Jan 03, 2011 | 



PRINCETON, NJ (January 3, 2011)—S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”

Singer, a leading scientific skeptic of anthropocentric global warming (AGW), is an atmospheric physicist, and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization that began challenging the published findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the 1990s. SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, a statement of dissent from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that has been signed by over one hundred scientists and meteorologists.

Asked what he would like to see happen in regard to public opinion and policy on climate change, Singer replied,

I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes, then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems.

NIPCC is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, another group established by Singer. In 2009 NIPCC published Climate Change Reconsidered,an 880-page report on scientific research that contradicts the models of man-made global warming. Singer believes that global warming exists but that human contributions to it are minimal. In the interview Singer said he believed his efforts in the last twenty years had been successful in disproving the notion that “the science is settled.”

Singer continues his work in the sciences, focusing lately on geophysical research and the Earth’s atmosphere. He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University  of Virginia, and he was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962).

The National Association of Scholars does not take a position on global warming but advocates for a full discussion of all sides of the controversy.To learn more about NAS, visit www.nas.org.

 ####

Image: Pixabay 

CONTACT: Ashley Thorne, Director of Communications, NAS: 609-683-7878; thorne@nas.org 

Dion

| July 31, 2012 - 12:50 PM


Pulling numbers out of thin air is a terrible and odious way to have a debate with “both sides of the argument.” That 40% number is a falsehood- there is about a 98% consensus of all scientists who study this phenomena that anthropogenic climate change is a reality, and every major scientific institution in the world supports the conclusion of man caused global warming.

Want a number that isn’t pulled out of thin air? Multiple REAL polls have showed that it’s possible 1/5 of Americans believe that the sun goes around the Earth. So hey, let’s have a debate about whether the earth goes around the sun—there seems to be more honest disagreement with that than there is over man made global climate change.

But not personally liking global climate change doesn’t make it any less true- and misleading people through made up data is reprehensible.

Bill Hubbard III

| October 17, 2012 - 10:48 PM


Dion…. Here are Mr. Singer’s credentials, in case you missed them:  He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and he was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962).  I tend to believe his 40% estimate.  What credentials do you have in order to state 98% of scientists agree global warming is man-made?

I believe Mr. singer"s conclusion is well founded: ” I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes, then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems.”  What say you Mr. Dion? 

Joshua

| November 02, 2012 - 8:28 PM


Climate change is obviously occurring, but what is not so obvious are the factors involved and their respective impact. We don’t know if man plays a major or insignificant role in the equation and we don’t even know if the effects we are currently witnessing are unique or cyclical.

The fact that we hear so much about the melting of the Arctic ice caps and hear virtually nothing about the growth of the Antarctic ice caps is telling- global warmers aren’t interested in data that doesn’t support their politicized campaign against pollution. Their cause is noble and I support the notion that we should take care of the resources given to us, but using spotty science to promote that cause is unwise. The ends do not justify the means.

Add to the fact that the “solutions” to a problem (which may be man made or man made-up) is cap and trade and carbon credits only further fuels the skepticism- particularly when the very ones who are pushing the global warming agenda are those who are in a position to profit from it (ie Al Gore). Furthermore, the green companies that have been given tremendous government subsidies have a track record of going bankrupt- so again, our “solutions” to a questionable problem do not seem to produce the desired results. They have nearly all been a colossal waste of (often taxpayer) money.

Maybe we should rethink our green strategies and stop using questionable science as a blunt instrument of change.

lol for fools

| January 06, 2013 - 10:36 PM


Bill - there are numerous studies showing the 98%, maybe you should go look t them instead of believing one person with creditntials, just because you agree with what is said, doesnt make it true.

Ryan

| December 16, 2013 - 6:47 PM


The 98% is a figure pulled from reading only the abstacts of sientific paper, if they read all the papers fully they would have got a different figure, scientists were appalled over this because their papers were falsely represented, the figures show more like , 24% believe that changes to the climate are normal and we have a minimum affect,17%  believe climate change is both anthopogenic and natuaral, they are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modelling, they believe that we can’t take action till the research becomes unbiassed, 10% believe in both anthrogenic and natural climate change but believe the source of damage is largely unknown, 5% believe climate change is both anthropogenic and natural and cause a moderate risk, they are skeptical that the IPCC modeling is acurate, this leaves 36% beleiving in anthropogenic climate change and 8% against it, according to the peer reviewed organization studies, the old review showed 3% dis agree with agw so they published 97% agree we are the cause, they neglected to say that over half of the 97% believe we have minumal affect, you need to be careful of people with an agenda

JAMES MATKIN

| February 13, 2015 - 1:07 PM


Some scientists submit solar data contradicts the view there is any significant man made warming.  Proponents of global warming are pushed in the corner with this data and refuse to countenance any room for doubt and rather resort to name calling with cult like religious overtones ie “deniers.”  Fortunately, Canadian government sees the uncertainty in this debate and steps back from taking negative economic action.  How is global warming responsible for record freezing winters with mountains of snow and two decades without any increase in warming?  Indeed the data is contradictory enough to put in play the question are we entering the next ice age.  It is entirely possible that the sun, and variations in the earth’s axis not man are wrecking havoc with our climate.  Dr. Abdussamatov points out that over the last 1,000 years deep cold periods have occurred five times. Each is correlated with declines in solar irradiance much like we are experiencing now with no human influence. “A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions. The common view of Man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect.” Another recent article by climatologist and former NASA Consultant, Joh L. Casey predicts “ICE AGE NOW” with 30 years of record cold temperatures around the globe. 

I submit the first and last word on climate change should come from the sage advice of the famous nobel prize winning physicist, Richard P. Feynman. 
“The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darned sure of what the result is going to be, he is in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize the ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty—some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.”  Nobel Prize Scientist Richard P. Feynman.

We must leave room for the “doubt” about mans role in global warming and question if it is real, especially as we struggle with the coldest winters around the world over the past decades.

Roald Larsen

| October 01, 2015 - 5:15 PM


100% of real scientist knows there’s no man made global warming, cause, if you can’t empirical show the effects, real scientists know you have to go back to 0-hypothese. If you don’t, you’re not a scientist. That means; No Man Made Global Warming!

Les K

| November 01, 2015 - 1:17 AM


Cooke’s 98% consensus amounted to 76 out of 77 self-described “climate scientists” agreeing.

Chris

| November 20, 2015 - 4:49 PM


Dion, that 98% lie was proved fraudulent many years ago. Stop making up stats.

JAMES MATKIN

| November 20, 2015 - 7:15 PM


There is no doubt S. Fred Singer’s estimate of sceptical scientists about the anthropogenic global warming theory are growing as the evidence of contradicts the theory.  The Pacific Islands are increasing by 8% not abrading; the Antarctic ice is Incredibly gaining 100 billion more ice pack annually, there has been no hurricane in North America for > 10 years. The seas rise is only 5 inches over the past 100 years not 6” as thought.  Most important the 97% “consensus” study Cook et al (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals.
Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.For example Scafetta explained. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

Joe

| November 30, 2015 - 7:44 PM


98% of North Koreans think Kim Jung-un is the best leader in the world, the other 2% are dead.

It depends on where you take your polls at.

Charlie

| January 15, 2016 - 1:42 AM


Well then let’s meet the scientists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0

george jones

| April 08, 2016 - 8:23 PM


could use more science info

Collin Ford

| May 20, 2016 - 10:19 AM


This website is so stupid, Global Warming is happening, look at the facts. There are 40 percent of scientists that do not deserve to be scientists because they are not seeing what a 7th grader can.

Calob Williams

| May 20, 2016 - 12:26 PM


global warming sucks

Joe

| May 20, 2016 - 12:54 PM


According to a National Geographic article March 19, 2003 “Climate Change Killed off Maya Civilization” The Mayans were also wiped out by global warming. Maybe they should have drove hybred cars. Oh wait there were no factories, cars, or anything man made that would do that.  Hmmmm

gary demos

| May 27, 2016 - 12:49 PM


It seems most of what is proposed in dealing with climate change is a desirable direction for the people of Earth. Regardless of whether human activity is adding to climate change or not. Renewable energy, energy storage, fusion energy, small new tech fission energy, energy efficiency, biomimicry, etc. Ground, air, and water pollution from fossil fuels .... via extraction, transportation, and burning are agreed upon ... yes? Conservation seems a logical way to proceed as with about 3 billion people at the cusp of being voracious consumers of natural resources .... scarcity is usually the source of conflict and war.

Joshua

| May 27, 2016 - 2:49 PM


Gary Demos,

Not exactly. Most of the proposed “solutions” for AGW at best simply delay the inevitable while eroding civil liberties in the process. Renewable energy sources are great, but they are not capable of replacing fossil fuels either in capacity nor price competitiveness. Even many anti-fossil fuel experts admit that nuclear is the only technology currently available that can actually replace fossil fuel energy.

So the truth is, if we let the alarmists drive policy, our energy costs will skyrocket, world productivity will plummet, poverty will increase, government will have more control of our lives and all of this will have a pretty negligible effect on the climate. That is not a desirable direction at all.