Marc Morano statement: "I have been in regular contact with Dr. Gray for over a decade and he once almost came to testify in front of the U.S. Senate. Gray is also featured in my new book, 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.' Gray states in the book, “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense.” The world will miss Gray's passion for science and scientific truth. RIP."
Dr. Richard Lindzen: The time history of such matters as droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and temperature extremes is well recorded by official bodies like NOAA, and display no systematic increase. Indeed, some, like hurricanes, appear to be decreasing. These trends have been documented by R. Pielke, Jr., and even the IPCC has acknowledged the absence of significant associations with warming.
The attempt to associate present weather extremes and other matters ranging from obesity to the Syrian Civil War, with climate change is frequently hilarious.
Sea levels: "Carefully analyzed tide gauge data shows sea-level increasing about 20 cm per century for at least 2 centuries – with no sign of acceleration to the present. The claim that this increase is accelerating is very peculiar. Tide gauges don’t actually measure sea-level. Rather, they measure the difference between land level and sea level. At many stations, the former is much more important. In order to estimate sea level, one has to restrict oneself to tectonically stable sites. Since 1979 we have been able to measure sea level itself with satellites. However, the accuracy of such measurements depends critically on such factors as the precise shape of the earth. While the satellites show slightly greater rates of sea level rise, the inaccuracy of the measurement renders the difference uncertain. What the proponents of alarm have done is to accept the tide gauge data until 1979, but assume that the satellite data is correct after that date and that the difference in rates constitutes ‘acceleration.’ They then assume acceleration will continue leading to large sea level rises by the end of this century. It is hard to imagine that such illogical arguments would be tolerated in other fields."
CO2: "The question is can this increase in CO2 produce much in the way of climate change. Increases in CO2 have produced about a 1% perturbation in the earth’s energy budget. This impact was so much smaller before around 1960, that almost no one (including the IPCC) claims the impact was significant before that date. Even a 1% change is no greater than what is normally produced by relatively small changes in cloud cover or ocean circulations which are always carrying heat to and from the surface."
"According to the IPCC, models find that there is nothing competitive with man-made climate change, but observations contradict this. The warming from 1919-1939 was almost identical to the warming from 1978-1998. Moreover, there was an almost total slowdown of warming since 1998. Both imply that there is something at least as strong as man-made warming going on."
"I suspect that most ordinary people realize that this is a phony issue, and it has been clear in the US that Trump’s lack of concern for this issue has not been a political problem for him."
Asked about solutions to climate change, Judith Curry, president and co-founder of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said the cure might be worse than the disease. “We just have to learn to live with any climate we get, and to the extent, we can control it is probably futile,” Curry said. ...
Though organizers said the event was a conversation, not a debate, Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, said he believed Mann and Titley painted him as dishonest, and he “took umbrage” with the portrayal. He agreed with Curry — there’s a lot of uncertainty surrounding climate change, and it’s good to disagree on issues. A consensus, he said, refers to the political and social world. “A consensus is not about how many people will jump off a bridge with you,” he said.
For Judith Curry, one of the two climate science skeptics on the panel, the idea that an increase in carbon automatically increases the earth’s temperature is too simplistic. She said earth has many complex systems and there could be other factors playing into climate change that we don’t yet understand. “The madhouse that concerns me is the one that has been created by some climate scientists,” Curry said. “The madhouse is characterized by rampant overconfidence in an overly simplistic view of climate change, enforcement of a politically motivated and manufactured consensus, attempts to stifle scientific and policy debates, activism and advocacy for their preferred policies, self-promotion ... and public attacks on scientists who don’t support the consensus.” Moore, the former Greenpeace official, attributed climate change to natural changes in the earth and suggested that humans should even be happy there’s more carbon dioxide in the air because it helps plants grow.
Dr. Judith Curry: 'If you assume that carbon dioxide is the control knob for the climate than you can control climate by reducing CO2emissions. If you assume that climate change primarily occurs naturally, then the Earth’s climate is largely uncontrollable, and reducing CO2emissions will do little or nothing to change the climate. My personal assessment aligns with the right-hand side, emphasizing natural variability. However, the IPCC and the so-called consensus aligns with the left-hand side. About 10 years ago, I also aligned with left-hand side, because I thought supporting the IPCC consensus was the responsible thing to do.'
In 2010, I started digging deeper, both into the science itself and the politics that were shaping the science. I came to realize that the policy cart was way out in front of the scientific horse.