NOTE: The content of this post was originally going to appear with the AGU list, but, in order to make the resources shorter more uniform, I have included the following as a blog post instead of as part of the list.
act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.
she also added (in other parts of her statement):
There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.
But as a scientist I remain skeptical.
Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left, although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both. The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use. No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas.
You may judge for yourself, but I chose to include her as a skeptical scientist because she is “skeptical” and supports several skeptical arguments, such as that land use changes have not been properly “factored in”. As a side note, I would say her arguments align well with the climate realist view.
On the aforementioned list, for several scientists who we still may regard as skeptical I was unable to find a skeptic declaration which they signed, or a peer-reviewed paper supporting skeptical arguments, or an article or presentation supporting skeptic arguments by the scientists in question.
These scientists who, while still having two skeptic links, have two of Skeptic Link 1 or another case where they have two skeptic links of the same kind, are, since they have two skeptic links, I believe it is still safe to say, skeptics.
The following 2 scientists were originally going to be on the AGU list, but since their only claim to being skeptical that was verifiable was that they signed one “skeptic declaration” (as Jim Prall puts it, which, in his opinion, merits their being on a list of skeptics), I decided to not put them on the list (since keeping them would lower the quality of it, because there isn’t enough evidence, in my opinion, to prove that they in fact were skeptical) but also decided to put their names and links here, as well as the notable honors they received (if any). If anyone would like to give me evidence to the contrary I will consider re-adding them.
Here are the awards from the AGU or other prominent organizations’ awards that the scientists who didn’t make it on the list were recipients of.
significant contributions to the geophysical sciences by an outstanding early career scientist.
significant original contributions to the ocean sciences.