A small group of US experts stubbornly insist that, contrary to what the vast majority of their colleagues believe, humans may not be responsible for the warming of the planet Earth.
3,000 experts, including several renown US scientists, jointly won the award with former US vice president Al Gore for their work to raise awareness about the disastrous consequences of global warming.
In mid-November the IPCC adopted a landmark report stating that the evidence of a human role in the warming of the planet was now "unequivocal."
Retreating glaciers and loss of snow in Alpine regions, thinning Arctic summer sea ice and thawing permafrost shows that climate change is already on the march, the report said.
Carbon pollution, emitted especially by the burning of oil, gas and coal, traps heat from the Sun, thus warming the Earth's surface and inflicting changes to weather systems.
But these other guys say:
The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, doesn't show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming," wrote lead author David Douglas, a climate expert from the University of Rochester, in New York state.
"The inescapable conclusion is that human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," Douglas wrote.
According to co-author John Christi from the University of Alabama, satellite data "and independent balloon data agree that the atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface," while greenhouse models "demand that atmospheric trend values be two to three times greater."
Data from satellite observations "suggest that greenhouse models ignore negative feedback produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects" of human carbon dioxide emissions.
The journal authors "have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases."
Fred Singer is the founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, with extensive funding from Exxon, SHell and other oil companies, as well as, it is suggested but not confirmed, the Moonies. [source]
"Moneys from Moonies is Money to Loonies" (to twist a phrase).
Never let it be said that I ignore the "other side." Except, form now on, I think I will.
Singer & co got a paper of minor interest published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then claimed in the SEPP press release that it completely refuted anthopogenic global warming. Fortunately, the world's press checked out SEPP's credentials and the original paper and realised that it was nonsense.
I'm joking, of course. Numerous gullible sites -- mostly local rags, but also Fox News -- put up the press release as fact. One site claimed it was a huge multi-university research effort, rather than a minor paper by some contrarians.
DeSmogBlog has some good links.
There is no real evidence that shows human-produced CO2 is the important factor in the current warming. The spotlight is shining brighter on the research done so far, and the public is starting to realize that it is not a pretty picture when the measurement techniques and the projections are taken in the entirety. This is no TOE. Climate is a far more complex issue, and the research is in its infancy. Claims of consensus just do not resonate in peoples' minds.