Nic Lewis, an independent scientist often critical of the IPCC, told BBC News: "The magnitude of the increase in vegetation appears to be considerably larger than suggested by previous studies. "This suggests that projected atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies that global temperature rises projected by IPCC models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply." And Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: "It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models). "These disagreements are at the heart of the public debate on climate change, and these issues should be debated, not dismissed."
Liming Li, professor of physics at UH College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, is leading a team of scientists from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Wisconsin-Madison: 'On Earth, the incoming energy is about the same as the outgoing energy. That means the temperature doesn't change dramatically, even with greenhouse effects," Li said. "Saturn and Jupiter are emitting more energy than absorbed, so they are generating some type of internal heat. Earth and Titan are similar, with no significant internal heat."
As early as 1903 — when Republican Theodore Roosevelt was president — “scientists were aware of (Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius’s) theory that CO2 emissions could bring global warming,” says Spencer Weart, a climate historian and author of “The Discovery of Global Warming.” But “it was regarded as speculative, and it had no policy implications since warming was not expected until centuries later, if at all, and was assumed to be benign,” he says.