2012 Global Temperatures

[BeastFromTheEast]

So before 2009?? AGREE! But he stated the past "few"!! It's 2012....so, actually, per definition ("a few") he's gottcha Phil! But we all know that this is (all together now)..."consistant with what we would expect in an AGW...blah blah blah").

[ORH_wxman]

AMSU channel 5 finally had an uptick day for the first time since February 7th on the preliminary data out for Feb 23. Depending on how quickly the rebound from its cratered position is before the end of the month, there is a good chance it could challenge February 2008's monthly anomaly of -0.25C. But we'll have to wait and see how quick the rise is. If it rises very quickly, then more than likely we will end up with an anomaly between -0.10C and -0.20C rather than challenging the lower 2008 number.

[blue sky]

AMSU channel 5 finally had an uptick day for the first time since February 7th on the preliminary data out for Feb 23. Depending on how quickly the rebound from its cratered position is before the end of the month, there is a good chance it could challenge February 2008's monthly anomaly of -0.25C. But we'll have to wait and see how quick the rise is. If it rises very quickly, then more than likely we will end up with an anomaly between -0.10C and -0.20C rather than challenging the lower 2008 number.

I did not think it could go much lower given that this time of your the global climo starts its upward march. The anomaly should be interesting to watch howver.

[PhillipS]

So before 2009?? AGREE! But he stated the past "few"!! It's 2012....so, actually, per definition ("a few") he's gottcha Phil! But we all know that this is (all together now)..."consistant with what we would expect in an AGW...blah blah blah").

Actually, it wasn't a gottcha - since the dip in sea level only lasted about 14 months (that's less than two years, for you skeptics) - it was another swing and a miss. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's honest but just never learned how to use a calendar. Maybe he slept through that lecture.

And you're correct - the variability in the measurements is consistent with mainstream AGW blah, blah, blah. Which is one of the reasons climatologists emphasize long-term trends. But you know that - you're just trying to be humorous, right? Keep trying, you may yet succeed one of these days.

[LakeEffectKing]

Actually, it wasn't a gottcha - since the dip in sea level only lasted about 14 months (that's less than two years, for you skeptics) - it was another swing and a miss. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's honest but just never learned how to use a calendar. Maybe he slept through that lecture.

And you're correct - the variability in the measurements is consistent with mainstream AGW blah, blah, blah. Which is one of the reasons climatologists emphasize long-term trends. But you know that - you're just trying to be humorous, right? Keep trying, you may yet succeed one of these days.

Your eyes must be better than mine...I swear the 60 day smoothing line is lower at the very end than during the early part of '09....but I haven't cleaned my contacts in a couple days.

Are there any "year to year" type weather regimes which wouldn't be "consistant with.....(you know...blah...blah)"? It seems like there is quite a large spread (like maybe everything!?) that we should expect.

[PhillipS]

Your eyes must be better than mine...I swear the 60 day smoothing line is lower at the very end than during the early part of '09....but I haven't cleaned my contacts in a couple days.

Are there any "year to year" type weather regimes which wouldn't be "consistant with.....(you know...blah...blah)"? It seems like there is quite a large spread (like maybe everything!?) that we should expect.

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is yes - there are annual cycles in many parameters that aren't so much inconsistent as irrelevant to climatology. I'm sure you are familiar with the CO2 plot from Mauna Loa which shows both the monthly mean values and the same data with the annual cycle removed. And, of course, there is the annual cycle of arctic sea ice melt which seems to fascinate climate buffs of all persuations. Even sea level values have an annual cycle. Here is the same data I posted above but with the seasonal values retained:

Climate scientists often remove the annual cycle for the same reason they often report metrics as anomalies from a baseline - it makes it easier to assess long-term changes. And climate science is all about the long term.

[LakeEffectKing]

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is yes - there are annual cycles in many parameters that aren't so much inconsistent as irrelevant to climatology. I'm sure you are familiar with the CO2 plot from Mauna Loa which shows both the monthly mean values and the same data with the annual cycle removed. And, of course, there is the annual cycle of arctic sea ice melt which seems to fascinate climate buffs of all persuations. Even sea level values have an annual cycle. Here is the same data I posted above but with the seasonal values retained:

Climate scientists often remove the annual cycle for the same reason they often report metrics as anomalies from a baseline - it makes it easier to assess long-term changes. And climate science is all about the long term.

I appreciate the response, but not quite what I was looking for. The more pointed question is: What year to year, or multi year to multi year, or decadal to decadal regime would falsify (in your mind) the current hypothesis of 3 +/- degrees C/century with current CO 2 increases? I've posed this question to Rusty before and frankly can't recall his response other than it seemed ambiguous to me. To me, the hypothesis (in its current state) is untestable (unless we wait for the end of the century). There are sub hypotheses (Arctic Ice, glacial melt, ocean acidification) that rely upon AGW, but the hub of the entire debate is the warming aspect. All other "sub hypothesis" that "pass" tests certainly add supporting evidence for the general AGW hypothesis, but it seems the global temperature has too many complex features to acually test.

[PhillipS]

I appreciate the response, but not quite what I was looking for. The more pointed question is: What year to year, or multi year to multi year, or decadal to decadal regime would falsify (in your mind) the current hypothesis of 3 +/- degrees C/century with current CO 2 increases? I've posed this question to Rusty before and frankly can't recall his response other than it seemed ambiguous to me. To me, the hypothesis (in its current state) is untestable (unless we wait for the end of the century). There are sub hypotheses (Arctic Ice, glacial melt, ocean acidification) that rely upon AGW, but the hub of the entire debate is the warming aspect. All other "sub hypothesis" that "pass" tests certainly add supporting evidence for the general AGW hypothesis, but it seems the global temperature has too many complex features to acually test.

Thank you for the clarification, I think I better understand your question now. The answer is yes, there are hypothetical short-term scenarios that would, if not totally falsify mainstream AGW, at least cause major head scratching and re-assessment of our level of climate understanding.

For example, (and please keep in mind that this is an example I'm putting together as I type this) the Sun will reach a solar maximum in 2013. It is expected to be a weak maximum but it should still be good for about 0.08 C over the solar minimum in 2009-2010. And ENSO has been in a La Nina phase recently and could change to an El Nino by 2013, too. According to mainstream AGW that would also bump up global temperatures as it did in 1998. So if in 2013 we have a solar maximum, a strong El Nino, low volcanic activity, and CO2 levels on their current upward trajectory - and yet we get a 'year without a summer' as has happened at times in the past - I think climatologists would have to scramble to explain real world observations so contrary to AGW theory predictions.

Is that closer to answering your question?

BTW - the predicted warming is closer to 2 C this century, not 3 C. In recent decades we've observed warming of about 0.15 - 0.18 per decade so we're pretty much on track with the predictions.

[Jesse]

The next few decades may prove to be very hard for TerryM and his friends. Well based on Terry's picture, not sure about him. But his friends will definitely need to pay attention to this decade of stalled warming and the past few years of dropping sea levels, and see if this is the start of something greater than they imagine.

[WeatherRusty]

I appreciate the response, but not quite what I was looking for. The more pointed question is: What year to year, or multi year to multi year, or decadal to decadal regime would falsify (in your mind) the current hypothesis of 3 +/- degrees C/century with current CO 2 increases? I've posed this question to Rusty before and frankly can't recall his response other than it seemed ambiguous to me. To me, the hypothesis (in its current state) is untestable (unless we wait for the end of the century). There are sub hypotheses (Arctic Ice, glacial melt, ocean acidification) that rely upon AGW, but the hub of the entire debate is the warming aspect. All other "sub hypothesis" that "pass" tests certainly add supporting evidence for the general AGW hypothesis, but it seems the global temperature has too many complex features to acually test.

The bottom line answer is that there is no real world test. An analog time variant Earth to perform tests on is not available. Modeling can be a useful tool in reproducing the past and projecting the future however.

The many component physical parameters which comprise the hypothesis/theory are themselves rooted in sound, first principles of physics. Paleoclimatology provides scientists with knowledge of how climate has changed in the past, and thus how it will likely change in the future in response to a given perturbation. So, we determine a range of likely warming between 2C and 4.5C per doubling of CO2 or it's equivalent forcing.

We detect an energy imbalance at the TOA indicating the Earth is absorbing energy. If that were not found to be the case, it would be very difficult to entertain AGW.

Spectroscopy both from space and the surface indicates an increase (broadening and deepening of absorption spectral lines) since the 1970's at the wavelengths absorbed by atmospheric CO2. Direct evidence of an enhancement to the greenhouse effect. If that were not found to be the case, the whole physical basis for AGW would be cast into doubt.

Despite these findings, it is not possible to say with certainty what the global temp will be 50 or 100 years from now. Just that if we double CO2 by then, within the following decades temp with likely rise to something like 3C over pre-industrial average. Prove it? No. Has the hypothesis passed tests and become a theory? Semantics for sure, but I'd say so.

[PhillipS]

I appreciate the response, but not quite what I was looking for. The more pointed question is: What year to year, or multi year to multi year, or decadal to decadal regime would falsify (in your mind) the current hypothesis of 3 +/- degrees C/century with current CO 2 increases? I've posed this question to Rusty before and frankly can't recall his response other than it seemed ambiguous to me. To me, the hypothesis (in its current state) is untestable (unless we wait for the end of the century). There are sub hypotheses (Arctic Ice, glacial melt, ocean acidification) that rely upon AGW, but the hub of the entire debate is the warming aspect. All other "sub hypothesis" that "pass" tests certainly add supporting evidence for the general AGW hypothesis, but it seems the global temperature has too many complex features to acually test.

I attempted to answer your question in post #98 above - and I would like your answer to the inverse question:

As a skeptic, what climate behavior or data would convince you that mainstream AGW theory is, for the most part, correct? I understand that there will always be aspects of climate science that need additional research and refinement, so I'm not asking for what would totally settle your doubts - just what would it take to convince you that our emitting gigatons of GHGs is forcing the Earth's climate out of the relative stability we've experienced for several millenia and into a new state with potentially serious characteristics (heat, drought, more frequent extreme weather events, rising sea levels, blah, blah, blah)?

A second and related question is - what sort of AGW consequence (either occurring, impending, or predicted) would convince you that it is critical to stabilize or reduce GHG concentrations in the atmosphere?

[LakeEffectKing]

I attempted to answer your question in post #98 above - and I would like your answer to the inverse question:

As a skeptic, what climate behavior or data would convince you that mainstream AGW theory is, for the most part, correct? I understand that there will always be aspects of climate science that need additional research and refinement, so I'm not asking for what would totally settle your doubts - just what would it take to convince you that our emitting gigatons of GHGs is forcing the Earth's climate out of the relative stability we've experienced for several millenia and into a new state with potentially serious characteristics (heat, drought, more frequent extreme weather events, rising sea levels, blah, blah, blah)?

A second and related question is - what sort of AGW consequence (either occurring, impending, or predicted) would convince you that it is critical to stabilize or reduce GHG concentrations in the atmosphere?

As I stated before, I think it to be "untestable" except to wait until the often mentioned benchmark date of 2100....Now if someone were to come up with a different hypothesis (on a shorter timescale), then of course it's testability period would necessarily be shorter.

Some may argue that we have tested the hypothesis by "backcasting"...however, with inferior data collection and somewhat suspiciously a continuous revising of historical data that helps to suppport the AGW hypothesis (subconscience confirmation bias at play??), I am more inclined to "test" hypotheses on future data.

Now some caveats.....if significant warming were to recommence over the next decade (while our oceanic patterns remain in a cooler phase, and SC 24 and 25 do indeed continue to be weak), my skeptisism of CAGW would wane, certainly.

Over at Eastern, (before it's demise) Skier and I had discussions (and actually a set of polls) about what it would take to alter one's position on CAGW before 2020. http://www.easternus...ange-your-mind/ http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?/topic/239772-what-temperature-threshold-would-change-your-mind/

[skierinvermont]

[/indent]

I just wanted to point out this graph is inaccurate. Here is an accurate graph of IPCC temperature projections vs observations. HadCRUT should be ignored because it does not include the arctic. An average of GISS and NCDC is most appropriate in my opinion.

[skierinvermont]

Also the claim that sea levels are dropping the past few years is false.

Sea levels today are close to 10mm higher than on this date 3 years ago. The three year line of best fit is also at a rate near 3mm/yr which is the same rate that has been experienced over the last 20 years, and higher than the rate over the last century.

[skierinvermont]

I appreciate the response, but not quite what I was looking for. The more pointed question is: What year to year, or multi year to multi year, or decadal to decadal regime would falsify (in your mind) the current hypothesis of 3 +/- degrees C/century with current CO 2 increases?

The answer to this question is fairly simple IMO:

If global temperatures were to fall outside of and remain mostly outside of the IPCC 95% confidence interval. As the graph I posted above shows, this threshold is no where close to being met.

[blue sky]

I just wanted to point out this graph is inaccurate. Here is an accurate graph of IPCC temperature projections vs observations. HadCRUT should be ignored because it does not include the arctic. An average of GISS and NCDC is most appropriate in my opinion.

If i am not mistaken your gragh is from IPCC 2007 report. The other three IPCC predictions are false. You gotta think that the 2007 prediction has to be within error range given the short time scale and large error bars.

I think Giss is the worse of the global data sets. RSS and UHA first. Hadcrut....and the Hanson adjusted Giss....last.

[ORH_wxman]

If i am not mistaken your gragh is from IPCC 2007 report. The other three IPCC predictions are false. You gotta think that the 2007 prediction has to be within error range given the short time scale and large error bars.

I think Giss is the worse of the global data sets. RSS and UHA first. Hadcrut....and the Hanson adjusted Giss....last.

IPCC's 2007 AR4 forecast will also look pretty bad if we get to 2015 with little additional warming. That graph looks like it stops after the spike in 2010. 2011 was obviously cooler and 2012 won't be anywhere near 2010 either.

[skierinvermont]

If i am not mistaken your gragh is from IPCC 2007 report. The other three IPCC predictions are false. You gotta think that the 2007 prediction has to be within error range given the short time scale and large error bars.

I think Giss is the worse of the global data sets. RSS and UHA first. Hadcrut....and the Hanson adjusted Giss....last.

You are grossly in error. This is another problem with your graph, it depicts the 2001 and 1995 projections completely incorrectly. All the moron that made that graph did was take trends (who knows where he got the trends from) and start them in the year of the IPCC report. However, in reality the IPCC projections were made against specified baselines. Here is an accurate comparison of the various IPCC reports' projections with accurate baselines AND accurate slopes. As you can see the 1995 and 2001 projections were actually cooler not warmer than the 2007 projection contrary to your false assertion that they are false. All three projections (1995, 2001 and 2007) are well within the confidence intervals and fairly close to the mean estimate (especially the 1995 and 2001 projections). The 1995 projection has actually been slightly too cold.

I strongly encourage you to find a more reliable source of information.

Also you are incorrect that my previous graph comes from the 2007 report. If you look at the axes you will note that it runs through 2010, is very close to the mean projection, and well within the 95% confidence interval of a 2-5C climate sensitivity.

You are also woefully misinformed regarding the various temperature sources. As I have demonstrated to various other posters including tacoman and ORH who have agreed with me, the most accurate estimate of global surface temperature is probably closest to GISS because HadCRUT does not include the arctic. Ironically, HadCRUT shows more warming over the last 30 years than GISS when the arctic (which has warmed rapidly) is excluded from both. It would therefore seam that the evil mastermind Hansen is somehow magically adjusting HadCRUT higher than GISS.

[blue sky]

You are grossly in error. This is another problem with your graph, it depicts the 2001 and 1995 projections completely incorrectly. All the moron that made that graph did was take trends (who knows where he got the trends from) and start them in the year of the IPCC report. However, in reality the IPCC projections were made against specified baselines. Here is an accurate comparison of the various IPCC reports' projections with accurate baselines AND accurate slopes. As you can see the 1995 and 2001 projections were actually cooler not warmer than the 2007 projection contrary to your false assertion that they are false. All three projections (1995, 2001 and 2007) are well within the confidence intervals and fairly close to the mean estimate (especially the 1995 and 2001 projections). The 1995 projection has actually been slightly too cold.

I strongly encourage you to find a more reliable source of information.

Also you are incorrect that my previous graph comes from the 2007 report. If you look at the axes you will note that it runs through 2010, is very close to the mean projection, and well within the 95% confidence interval of a 2-5C climate sensitivity.

You are also woefully misinformed regarding the various temperature sources. As I have demonstrated to various other posters including tacoman and ORH who have agreed with me, the most accurate estimate of global surface temperature is probably closest to GISS because HadCRUT does not include the arctic. Ironically, HadCRUT shows more warming over the last 30 years than GISS when the arctic (which has warmed rapidly) is excluded from both. It would therefore seam that the evil mastermind Hansen is somehow magically adjusting HadCRUT higher than GISS.

Your previous graph comes from the 2007 report. It's in the headline of your graph. And it's nice to make a prediction in 2007...and say the prediction is from 2000. That's IPCC science.

Here's your graph updated to 2011

[blue sky]

sorry for the multiple graph posts. Still getting the hang og this.

[ORH_wxman]

AR4 has several scenarios obviously...the multi-model mean of warming by 2015 for each scenario since 1999 is as follows:

Commit: +0.155C

B1: +0.354C

A1B: +0.352C

A2: +0.332C

The non-commit model means won't be remotely close.

[blue sky]

You are grossly in error. This is another problem with your graph, it depicts the 2001 and 1995 projections completely incorrectly. All the moron that made that graph did was take trends (who knows where he got the trends from) and start them in the year of the IPCC report. However, in reality the IPCC projections were made against specified baselines. Here is an accurate comparison of the various IPCC reports' projections with accurate baselines AND accurate slopes. As you can see the 1995 and 2001 projections were actually cooler not warmer than the 2007 projection contrary to your false assertion that they are false. All three projections (1995, 2001 and 2007) are well within the confidence intervals and fairly close to the mean estimate (especially the 1995 and 2001 projections). The 1995 projection has actually been slightly too cold.

I strongly encourage you to find a more reliable source of information.

Also you are incorrect that my previous graph comes from the 2007 report. If you look at the axes you will note that it runs through 2010, is very close to the mean projection, and well within the 95% confidence interval of a 2-5C climate sensitivity.

You are also woefully misinformed regarding the various temperature sources. As I have demonstrated to various other posters including tacoman and ORH who have agreed with me, the most accurate estimate of global surface temperature is probably closest to GISS because HadCRUT does not include the arctic. Ironically, HadCRUT shows more warming over the last 30 years than GISS when the arctic (which has warmed rapidly) is excluded from both. It would therefore seam that the evil mastermind Hansen is somehow magically adjusting HadCRUT higher than GISS.

Here are the "Morons" as you say who produced my original graph that you mock.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

[skierinvermont]

Your previous graph comes from the 2007 report. It's in the headline of your graph. And it's nice to make a prediction in 2007...and say the prediction is from 2000. That's IPCC science.

Here's your graph updated to 2011

I misunderstood you, I thought you were saying that it was actually literally in the 2007 report. Yes it is the 2007 projection with data through 2010. Nice to see it updated through 2011. Still well within the 95% confidence interval (not even close to falling out) despite the La Nina.

Moreover, your assertion that the other two projections (1995 and 2001) are 'false' remains incorrect. The 1995 and 2001 projections are cooler than the 2007 projection (your graph is false in that regard as well). In fact, the 1995 projection is actually cooler than observation.

In short, your graph and all of your assertions based off it are grossly in error. That is what happens when you get your information from unreliable unscientific sources.

[skierinvermont]

Here are the "Morons" as you say who produced my original graph that you mock.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Well then they are either morons or liars take your pick. As everybody knows, the 1995 and 2001 projections were cooler than the 2007 projection. This is common knowledge to anybody in the field. To make a graph that shows otherwise is egregious misconduct. Again, I encourage you to find information from more reliable sources.

[blue sky]

Well then they are either morons or liars take your pick. As everybody knows, the 1995 and 2001 projections were cooler than the 2007 projection. This is common knowledge to anybody in the field. To make a graph that shows otherwise is egregious misconduct. Again, I encourage you to find information from more reliable sources.

WOW!

[skierinvermont]

WOW!

You are obviously not aware of the number of hacks that hold PhDs. Good science is not made by anybody that has a PhD. It is made peer-review. You'll note most of those you list do not even hold PhDs in relevant fields.

Moreover, the error is so obvious and egregious to anybody with any familiarity with the field I could not care less the number of PhDs the person who made the graph has. As I said before, it is common knowledge that the 1995 and 2001 projections were cooler than the 2007 projection. In fact, skeptics made a huge stink when the 2007 projection was warmer than the 1995 and 2001 projection. Apparently these 'PhDs' missed the headlines:

[LakeEffectKing]

How many of the "97%" of scientists, (that is often regurgetated) have similar credentials that blue sky referenced?

[blue sky]

You are obviously not aware of the number of hacks that hold PhDs. Good science is not made by anybody that has a PhD. It is made peer-review. You'll note most of those you list do not even hold PhDs in relevant fields.

Moreover, the error is so obvious and egregious to anybody with any familiarity with the field I could not care less the number of PhDs the person who made the graph has. As I said before, it is common knowledge that the 1995 and 2001 projections were cooler than the 2007 projection. In fact, skeptics made a huge stink when the 2007 projection was warmer than the 1995 and 2001 projection. Apparently these 'PhDs' missed the headlines:

I know that you did not have the time to look at the names and research them. I putting this up to an off night for you. Those names are beyond reproach.

For several years I enjoyed your discussions as you debated facts. Facts we disagreed on. But facts. Now you seem to have fallen into the Terry M....trap. Attack all sources that disagree with you.

It was weird that you posted the IPCC chart and ended it in 2010. Leaving out the 2011 decline.

What's going on dude?

[TerryM]

How many of the "97%" of scientists, (that is often regurgetated) have similar credentials that blue sky referenced?

I believe that it was 97% of Climate Scientists.

[WeatherRusty]

I believe that it was 97% of Climate Scientists.

In other words...all of them. There is a consensus of agreement amongst active, publishing climate science researchers.

Richard Lindzen resides within the 3%.

Lindzen has published work with the conservative think-tank, the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, "The Heat Is On," Ross Gelbspan notes that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.

Roger Cohen is the former Manager of Strategic Planning and Programs at ExxonMobil Corporation.

He is a George C. Marshall Institute "Expert," and has led a push for the American Physical Society (APS) to weaken their position on climate change.

Cohen became involved in studying global warming when Exxon realized that its "business environment" could be affected.

William Happer is Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics and Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton University and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute and is on the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Jan L. Breslow is a physician and professor at Rockefeller University, specializing in cardiovascular disease. He is a former president of the American Heart Association. [1]

Breslow was one of 16 scientists to sign a January, 2012 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal declaring that here is "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," despite having no experience in climate science or a related discipline.

Harrison Schmitt is a self-proclaimed climate skeptic, and is on the board of the Heartland Institute and the contrarian Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. He was also the president of the Annapolis Center from 1994 to 1998.

Apart from denying the existence of man-made global warming, the Annapolis Center has spent considerable effort calling into question the link between air pollution and asthma, the impacts of mercury pollution, and the dangers of pesticide residue on food.

Since 1998, ExxonMobil has given $973,500 to the Annapolis Center. In 2004, at the centre's annual dinner, it honoured Senator James Inhofe for his work in "promoting science-based public policy."

Shall I go on?