Climate Change General - /ccg/

[Anonymous No.9219744]

the past is the key to the future edition

[Anonymous No.9219755]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[Anonymous No.9219772]

>>9219755
Now remove anyone who isn't an expert in climate science or has no publishing history in climatology - you will be left with like 3 or 4 people.

It's an incredibly easy exercise to find people drop in fantastically stupid criticisms of scientific fields outside their expertise. The famed astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, for example, believed to the day he died that Archaeopteryx lithographica was a forgery and even published articles in Photography journals trying to prove it.

[Anonymous No.9219903]

>>9219772
Who are those 3-4 experts? In general, who is at the cutting edge of climate science and why?

[Anonymous No.9219971]

>>9219903
probably the most famous living skeptic is Richard Lindzen, who was an atmospheric scientist at MIT. His main idea in regards to climate change was that a substantial negative global cloud feedback would negate most of the warming induced by warming and the concurrent climate feedbacks. But that hypothesis has been rejected by other climate scientists because not only is there no evidence for a substantially negative cloud feedback, in fact, the response of clouds will very likely amplify the warming even further. Lindzen's ideas are also inconsistent with the paleoclimate record (he also believes that emissions reduction is a plot to control all of life and that environmentalists are planning a new Holocaust).

I wouldn't say there are is a cutting edge of climate science, but there is a list of names that keep coming up in the big landmark papers. I'll give some of them from the top of my head:

>Susan Solomon (MIT, got Nobel prize in chemistry together with Paul Crutzen for her work on Antarctic ozone depletion)
>Benjamin Santer (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>Veerabhadran Ramanathan (Scripps, UCSD)
>Stefan Rahmstorf and Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber (PIK)
>James Hansen (NASA GISS)
>Kerry Emanuel (MIT)
>Tim Wigley (University of Adelaide)
>Valerie Masson-Delmotte (Institut Pierre Simon Laplace)
>Eric Rignot (NASA JPL)
>Michael Mann (PSU)
>Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS)
>Michael Oppenheimer (Princeton)
>Kevin Trenberth (NCAR)
>Dana Royer (Wesleyan)
>Gavin Foster (Southampton)

[Anonymous No.9220806]

>>9219903
I can name a few of the most widely cited contrarian climate scientists off the top of my head.

Patrick Michaels
John Christy
Richard Lindzen
Roy Spencer

Christy and Spencer have been wrong many times in their own research, and Lindzen's work has received heavy criticism from his peers as well. Michaels essentially acts as a full time shill for Heartland / Cato / any other think tank that pays him.

These are the best and brightest of the climate change contrarians that actually are in the field itself. I don't think Lindzen even publishes anymore though.

[Anonymous No.9221917]

>>9219744
>the past is the key to the future
trite, and mostly false

[Anonymous No.9222015]

>>9221917
catastrophist pls go

[Anonymous No.9222022]

What are you guys doing to reduce your carbon footprint? Less driving? Eating less meat? Reducing your TV/Computer usage?

[Anonymous No.9222075]

>>9219971
>he also believes that emissions reduction is a plot to control all of life and that environmentalists are planning a new Holocaust

>>9219772
>he famed astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, for example, believed to the day he died that Archaeopteryx lithographica was a forgery and even published articles in Photography journals trying to prove it.

How can rational and learned men, experst in their own field, be so.... delusional? I can't grasp that.