Several skeptical scientists picked apart the general consensus of their peers, who say humans are warming the Earth at an unprecedented pace.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley About 18 months ago, as soon as I heard of Dr. Richard Müller's Berkeley Earth Temperature project, I sent an email to
several skeptical scientists drawing their attention to his statement that he considered his team's attempt to verify how much «global warming» had occurred since 1750 to be one of the most important pieces of research ever to be conducted in the history of science.
Not exact matches
There also was controversy when Rep. Raul Grijalva, D - Ariz., sent letters to seven universities, seeking information on funding for
several scientists who have been
skeptical of, or have made controversial remarks about, climate change.
The e-mail exchanges among
several prominent American and British climate - change
scientists appear to reveal efforts to keep the work of
skeptical scientists out of major journals and the possible hoarding and manipulation of data to overstate the case for human - caused climate change.
Western Fuels, then a $ 400 million coal cooperative, declared in its annual report that it was enlisting
several scientists who were
skeptical about climate change — Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, and S. Fred Singer — as spokesmen.
In the early 1990s, when climate
scientists began to suspect that our burning of coal and oil was changing the earth's climate, Western Fuels, then a $ 400 million coal cooperative, declared in its annual report that it was enlisting
several scientists who were
skeptical about climate change — Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, and S. Fred Singer — as spokesmen.
In 1991, Western Fuels, a $ 400 - million coal consortium, declared in its annual report it was launching a direct attack on mainstream science and enlisting
several scientists who are
skeptical about climate change — specifically Drs. Robert Balling, Pat Michaels and S. Fred Singer.
A reaction from Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to New York Times reporter Justin Gillis's attempts to discredit
scientists who are
skeptical of the theory of manmade global warming By NewsBusters Staff Justin Gillis of the New York Times has written a long article that criticizes Dick Lindzen of MIT by quoting
several scientists who -LSB-...]
But I've highlighted his words «enlisting
several scientists who were
skeptical about climate change» for a specific reason.
I come into contact with a wide variety of applied science practitioners of many disciplines including biologists, engineers of
several flavors, chemists, etc. etc. and I only know one that is not basically what I believe is termed a «lukewarmer» and the one person (professional) that's not
skeptical is a environmental
scientist (and he debates like a wet noodle, all he'll say is most climatologists agree.....
In recent years, however,
several scientists (myself included) have grown
skeptical of this idea because it just doesn't seem to fit with what the broader literature on social approval and relationships has reported.