Who are the leading sceptics of the conclusion that man is causing most Climate Change?

I'd say the leading skeptic is Richard Lindzen. Unfortunately I recently found out that he is completely intellectually dishonest.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aquwe...

Lindzen had a theory that the Earth has an adaptive infrared iris—a built in “check-and-balance” mechanism that effectively counters global warming (Lindzen et al. 2001).

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/

However, Lindzen's theory has been effectively disproven.

“Our results are based upon actual observations that are used to drive global climate models,” Lin concludes. “And when we use actual observations from CERES we find that the Iris Hypothesis won’t work.”

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/iris2....

Another peer-reviewed skeptical paper was written by Douglass, Singer, Christy et al. They essentially claimed that the tropical troposphere warming wasn't consistent with model predictions.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArMT....

However, it turns out that these skeptics ignored two crucial facts.

1) The discrepancy is most likely due to instrumental problems (issues with radiosonde data) rather than inaccurate modeling.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsoNE...

2) We would expect to see more rapid warming in the tropical troposphere regardless of the forcing (whether it be from increasing CO2, solar, etc.).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007...

Those are the 2 main peer-reviewed skeptical studies. See this is what a true skeptic does - examines all of the science. If you're getting your information from some amateur website (i.e. Anthony Watts) or YouTube or right-wing blogs, you're not being a true skeptic. Instead you're looking for information to confirm your pre-conceived notions. That's what a denier does, not a skeptic.

Chaotic Climate

Wallace S. Broecker

Scientific American, November 1995, pp. 62-68

"Ice cores from Greenland indicate swings in average temperature of as much as 10° C in a single decade. Flow of heat through the Atlantic Ocean may play a major role in such rapid changes, and the consequences could be very serious."

http://www.dhushara.com/book/diversit/extra/chaocl...

or

Rapid Climate Change

Kendrick Taylor

American Scientist, July-August 1999, pp. 320-327

"Earth's climate can change very rapidly, in as little time as a decade. Rapid change is likely if the rate of exchange of heat and mass between land, ocean, atmosphere, ice sheets, and space exceeds certain thresholds."

There used to be a direct link to the above peer-reviewed paper, but it has been removed for some reason. Typical alarmist move.

Yes, these articles are a little older. But these are quick examples of how these people flip-flopped because money came into play. They now support the global warming theories. They will claim "because it is true", but it is because money came into play.

These are two more to add to the list of thousands of papers.

Stephen Schwartz

Richard Lindzen

Timothy Ball

Robert Carter

David Bellamy

Hendrik Tennekes

Antonio Zichichi

Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov

Sallie Baliunas

Reid Bryson

George Chilingar

Ian Clark

William Gray

George Kukla

William Kininmoth

David Legates

Petr Chyleck

Marcel Leroux

Tad Murty

Tim Patterson

Ian Plimer

Tom Segalstad

Nir Shaviv

Fred Singer

Willie Soon

Henrik Svensmark

Claude Allegre

Robert Balling

John Christy

Roy Spencer

Or any of the other 19,000+ signers of the oregon petition.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf

http://www.dsri.dk/~ndm/PDF/manuscripts/PRL_1998_P...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/07080...

http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/nieuws/wetenschap/540...

http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

You show me a scientist who says it's real, and I'll show you one who says it's BS.

You can start with:

--John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel

--Dr. Tim Ball, world famous climatologist

--Princeton-trained physicist Fred Singer

Here's an article with lots more:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/05/profil...

Another massive index:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_t...

May I take another moment of your time?

Man made global warming doesn't exist, and you're getting scammed by believing in it. There is an entire industry based around this latest climate scare (there is one every 30 years or so, either warming or cooling). The global warming religion likes to use the National Academy of Science report as their bible, but this is bias and funded by special interest groups. Look carefully at the facts. For example, it states that temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees since the beginning of the 20th century. This is true. However, temps have NOT increased in the last 10 years. You'll notice that, in the 2008 report, none of the graphs contain data past 2000... sketchy, huh? It's because this defies the rising temp theory.

Even though the polar bears have now been put on the endangered species list, it is because environmentalists petitioned to change the rules. The population has actually tripled in the last 30 years. It's the reason that the governor of Alaska is now suing the federal government.

Furthermore, the ice shelfs are the among the highest seen in 30 years. Carbon dioxide follows temperature fluctuation (not the other way around) and may actually be a good thing. Mars is 95% Carbon Dioxide and there are no global warming issues perceived there that don't follow the same trends of the sun as Earth (hence, not man made)... the average temp is -81 degrees Farenheit. Guess how much of Earth's atmosphere is? .04%!The list goes on and on for evidence to the contrary of man made global warming, but there is no irrefutable evidence that it does exist.

And, believe it or not, George Bush is more eco friendly than Al Gore:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Cultu...

If it was such a dire thing, wouldn't Gore be more concerned about his carbon footprint?

No matter what environmentalists say (or how they say it), there is no evidence that man is causing global warming. They will use sleight of hand to try and get you, but don't be a sucker. For example, notice how NO commercials say anything about "global warming" anymore? The use the words "climate change" now. That's because environmentalists realize that time is becoming limited on this scare, but they can use the words "climate change" and keep us afraid that we're going to die, whether it be from warming, cooling, etc.

A link that'll get you started on your education (not funded by any special interest groups): http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9406

For your own good, the good of the nation, and yes, the planet, you should be VERY skeptical. Look carefully at the facts and the language. Environmentalists are not always keeping the green of nature in mind. There is a lot of money to be made in this hugely expanding industry.

It doesn't even matter if you believe in it or not. Without conclusive evidence, public policy (our taxes) should not be made to stop a hypothetical problem. We do not know what the future will bring; we can only adapt as necessary as time tells its story.

Case and point: A hundred years ago, scientists were doing calculations, trying to figure out ways to solve the massive horse manure problems we would face as the population grew. Policies were being pushed to spend large amounts of money to try and build cities that could take care of these problems. Then came Ford. Good thing we waited to see what would happen.

This situation is no different. I don't believe in man made GW, but I'm cool with it if you do (no pun intended). Just don't hop on that bandwagon that's trying to make our country alter its entire way of life based on refutable facts. That's what global warming "deniers" are pissed off about. If environmentalists want to go forward with it, then let it be through charity. But don't try to force my wallet open for a hypothetical problem. There are many other REAL, proven problems...

Even if you are someone who will never believe that global warming doesn't exist, think about this... it will cost 29 trillion dollars to fight this threat of sketchy (and special interest funded) "science" along with ruin our economy. Know how much it will take to feed the entire human population for the next 100 yrs? 7 trillion.

Still think we should be making public policies and spend all that money? Then do one thing for me before you call your local congressman: Name one thing that the government hasn't screwed up.

And feel free to collect the half a million dollar reward with any "proof" you find:

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

If you are really looking for answer, then do a Google search but I have a feeling your mind is made up and you are trolling.

Here is an article on a Harvard study (Harvard is hardly a hot bed of consrvative study.):

"Global warming is not so hot:

1003 was worse, researchers find

By William J. Cromie

Gazette Staff

The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003 in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the weather. Is there anything natural about such variability?

To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen, tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies. Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-...

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/ua...

You mean the cooling over the last year? Are you saying we caused that?

Wine-dude, the climate is just the sum of all the weather over a period of time - - it's the difference between a season and individual games. Perhaps you're a Yankees fan.

'Sides, even the environmental lobby is digging in for a cold decade, trying to make the issue go away by "predicting" a cool decade before the warming, of course, returns.

http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/20...

"Mother Nature giving us a second chance" they argue - - right. Mother Nature doing what she's going to do without regard to what we do.

I used to be pretty open-minded about this and conclude that AGW was an "interesting but unproven theory - that may yet be proven."

But the credibility of those pushing the AGW theory is more than strained. They deny anything contrary until it's impossible, then they come up with an excuse. Anyone else notice the MWP is back, even in their charts? They couldn't deny it - now they try to argue "oh, there was an MWP but 0.2 degrees C cooler than the late 1990s" - and then try to change the subject - except that, even if the MWP were 0.2 degrees C cooler than the late 1990s, those temps were sustained for two centuries - and the world didn't end and no "runaway warming" phenomenon occurred.

He's by far not a skeptic, but not all of Keeling's studies where allowed. I guess one might call it peer review. I guess its all a matter of perception.

Well you have receive a ton of excellent and truthful responses I can only add that any person who has passed freshman world history in high school should have enough facts available to him to determine for himself that the whole global warming hoax is a fraud. You did pass history didn’t you!

Here is a awesome link for the information you are searching for...

Leading skeptics? Being independent thinkers, we aren't "led" by talking heads. Dig down into the data and draw your own conclusions. You can start by comparing historic climate change with historic solar cycles...