Global Warming Scam

[Deathshead]

Sorry, but that novel is complete bulls**t. No nicer way to say it. Zero credibility. I think it's telling that the best the deniers could do when they spoke before congress recently was trot out a fiction writer.

I think you should do a little more reading on the subject before you make such sweeping pronouncements. What you say here simply isn't true.

Complete BS Buckaroo? What a shallow statement from someone who has obviously not read the book. Maybe you should follow your own advice. Here is a news flash for you. Saying something is not true does not make it so. New to debating are we?

Here is something from the book. (The book has footnotes as well, something many environmental hit pieces do not)



From Author Michael Chricton:

In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of exisiting knowledge and its degree of certainty.

Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend is natural phenomenon.


Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400%, de facto proff that nobody knows. But if I had to guess - the only thing anyone is doing anyway - the increase will be
0.812436 degrees C.

For anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity,
after 200 years of such false alarms is kind of weird.
I don't know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance, scleratic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness.

Most environmental "principles" (such as sustainable developement or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the west and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It's a nice way of saying: " We got ours and we don't want you to get yours, because you'll cause to much pollution"

We desperately need a need a nonpartisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research....Scientists are only too aware for whom they work.


Well I'll be!!! What is your smart ass, know it all answer now?

Anyone who says they know for sure that man is causing the Earth to warm, how much and why, is not to be believed. Don't agree? It's simple.........prove it.

 

[a_unique_person]

*deleted*

 

[Buckaroo]

What a shallow statement from someone who has obviously not read the book.

Really? Are you sure?

New to debating are we?

Um, no, actually. But I wasn't aware we were engaging in a formal debate. Thank you for setting me straight. I'll now address your points.

Here is something from the book. (The book has footnotes as well, something many environmental hit pieces do not)

Crichton's systematic misuse of his citations is well documented. He cherry-picks and misrepresents sources, often inverting their intended meaning to suit his story. Many of the authors of the actual research, in fact, have objected to his use of their own work to support his premises (See, for example, James Hansen's discussion of the misuse of his research.) His use of footnotes is a literary device meant to lend an air of authenticity to his work, nothing more. As it relies on this questionable scholarship, his position on anthropogenic global warming is dishonest and not credible. And do you really want to base your opinions on the pronouncements of a man who claims to have achieved astral projection and bent spoons with his mind?

From Author Michael Chricton:

Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend is natural phenomenon.

Not so. We actually have quite a reasonable idea. You may wish to review this thread, or do your own homework at www.realclimate.org, for verification of this statement.

Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400%, de facto proff that nobody knows. But if I had to guess - the only thing anyone is doing anyway - the increase will be
0.812436 degrees C.

Well, as long as we're playing duelling quotes, why don't we let a real climate scientist, Gavin Schmidt, weigh in against the hack writer?

He also gives us his estimate, ~0.8 C for the global warming that will occur over the next century and claims that, since models differ by 400% in their estimates, his guess is as good as theirs. This is not true. The current batch of models have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees) (Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004) , i.e an uncertainty of about 30%. As discussed above, the biggest uncertainties about the future are the economics, technology and rate of development going forward. The main cause of the spread in the widely quoted 1.5 to 5.8 C range of temperature projections for 2100 in IPCC is actually the different scenarios used. For lack of better information, if we (incorrectly) assume all the scenarios are equally probable, the error around the mean of 3.6 degrees is about 60%, not 400%. Crichton also suggests that most of his 0.8 C warming will be due to land use changes. That is actually extremely unlikely since land use change globally is a cooling effect (as discussed above). Physically-based simulations are actually better than just guessing.

-- from
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/.

(From Crichton) For anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after 200 years of such false alarms is kind of weird. I don't know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance, scleratic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness.
Most environmental "principles" (such as sustainable developement or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the west and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It's a nice way of saying: " We got ours and we don't want you to get yours, because you'll cause to much pollution"

These are not scientific statements. They are ideological (and a little absurd), and are not relevant to this discussion.

Scientists are only too aware for whom they work.

A baseless statement, reinforcing the absurd premise of the novel, that a cabal of evil climatologists will resort to murder to protect their horrible secret -- that climate change is a myth!

Well I'll be!!! What is your smart ass, know it all answer now?

Yep. Complete BS.

 

[Beausoleil]

Increase in water vapor is causing global warming.

Yep, and the increase in water vapour is caused by...

 

[rockoon]

There is no direct evidence of significant AGW - Anybody who says otherwise is LYING. Thats the truth.

If we discredit the arguements of the known liars, what truely is left?

A) Global warming may be happening.

The indirect evidence is pretty strong here and most people would probably assign a high probability to the truthfullness of the statement 'Global warming is happening'

B) Humans may be making a significant contribution to climate change.

The indirect evidence isnt so strong here, and there is also conflicting evidence. Its hard to imagine a truely critical person placing a high probability on the truthfullness of the statement 'Humans are contributing significantly to global warming' - we just don't know! Admit it and move on.

C) Global warming may have a net negative impact, possibly even causing a run-away warming.

Again, the indirect evidence isnt very strong. There is so much short-sightedness in these speculations that I can only chuckle. Rising sea levels? Displaced millions? More extreme weather? That isnt evidence of a net negative impact. Thats evidence that somebody has been cherry-picking the dramatic.

Chicken Little was eventualy shown to have a point, but it wasnt the correct point. Everybody was wrong in that story. Remember that.

Is it possible that everybody is wrong? I contend that that is actualy very likely and I assign a high probability to the truthfullness of the idea.

 

[Piggy]

There is no direct evidence of significant AGW - Anybody who says otherwise is LYING.

What do you mean by "direct"? What would qualify as "direct evidence" under your definition?

A) Global warming may be happening.

The indirect evidence is pretty strong here and most people would probably assign a high probability to the truthfullness of the statement 'Global warming is happening'

There is no doubt we're in a global warming trend

B) Humans may be making a significant contribution to climate change.

The indirect evidence isnt so strong here, and there is also conflicting evidence. Its hard to imagine a truely critical person placing a high probability on the truthfullness of the statement 'Humans are contributing significantly to global warming' - we just don't know! Admit it and move on.

First of all, a truly critical person who's looked at the legitimate science would indeed place a high probability of truthfulness (a fancy way of saying "would conclude it's likely").

Second, what does "moving on" entail? If AGW is happening, then the consequences of "moving on" may be devastating, in a way that makes even the previous World War seem slight by comparison.

If there's even a good chance that our activities are warming up the planet, that's cause for genuine alarm and positive preventative and corrective action.

If you'd like to read some of the science regarding the current warming trend, its causes, and its consequences, here (again) is a selection of reports which have already been linked to. (Perhaps you can explain your objections to them):

Summary for Policymakers by the IPCC Working Group 1 (PDF)

An increasing body of observations gives a
collective picture of a warming world and
other changes in the climate system.

Emissions of greenhouse gases and
aerosols due to human activities continue
to alter the atmosphere in ways that are
expected to affect the climate system.

Confidence in the ability of models to
project future climate has increased.

There is new and stronger evidence that
most of the warming observed over the last
50 years is attributable to human activities.

Human influences will continue to change
atmospheric composition throughout the
21st century.

Global average temperature and sea level
are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES
scenarios.

NASA scientists have found that a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime "smog" has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic.

According to this new research, ozone was responsible for one-third to half of the observed warming trend in the Arctic during winter and spring. Ozone is transported from the industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere to the Arctic quite efficiently during these seasons. The findings have been accepted for publication in the American Geophysical Union's Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.

NOAA: Report Reconciles Atmospheric Temperature Trends

“This synthesis and assessment report exposes the remaining differences among different observing systems and data sets related to recent changes in tropospheric and stratospheric temperature,” said Chief Editor Dr. Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. "Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes have increased. The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases. This should constitute a valuable source of information to policymakers.”

American Geophysical Union, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Dorset and Wageningen University

Climate change estimates for the next century may have substantially underestimated the potential magnitude of global warming. They say that actual warming due to human fossil fuel emissions may be 15-to-78 percent higher than warming estimates that do not take into account the feedback mechanism involving carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature.

In a paper to be published on 26 May in Geophysical Research Letters, Marten Scheffer of Wageningen University in the Netherlands and colleagues at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in the United Kingdom use newly acquired ancient climate data to quantify the two-way phenomenon by which greenhouse gases not only contribute to higher temperatures, but are themselves increased by the higher temperatures. This higher concentration leads to still higher temperatures, in what scientists call a positive feedback loop.

AAAS

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.... Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).... In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.

Union of Concerned Scientists

The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is already occurring and that future change is inevitable.

 

[varwoche]

There is no direct evidence of significant AGW - Anybody who says otherwise is LYING. Thats the truth.

Ah, nice to see the debate elevated here with this informed, articulate gibberish gem. Especially the LYING in all caps touch, which foretells not just scientific wisdom, but also a thoughtful and civil presentation. Most excellent!

 

[casebro]

We've all heard of Ice Ages. Can any of the experts here tell me about past Warm Eras? Like, how warm, how often, most recent?

Seems to me that the Paleo-Climatologists are ignoring the indicators of warmer periods. Like petrified forests in deserts, Woolly Mammoths sunk into frozen tundra, marine fossils found hundreds of miles inland. Do you think Lucy evolved in the Olduvai Gorge, or was it the Olduvai Fiord? All proofs that it has been warmer than this before, without Man's efforts. And with only conjecture (models) linking todays warmth to man???

And why consistantly dwell on the negatives of global warmth? Think about the positive effects of changed weather patterns: how much rice will be grown in Mongolia, or the 16 cuttings of hay per year in Nebraska, or shrimping in the Salinas Shoals. All of the additional hyro-electric power from all the additional rainfall.

We can tell from this years hurricane season that all effects will not be certainly, consistantly, negative. Just think if this year is the start of a trend- What if hurricanes are a thing of the past?

 

[robinson]

Think positive!

And why consistantly dwell on the negatives of global warmth? Think about the positive effects of changed weather patterns: ...

And that rising ocean thing. Think of the new real estate markets. Buy now, based on elevation, and have ocean front property in 2025!

 

[a_unique_person]

We've all heard of Ice Ages. Can any of the experts here tell me about past Warm Eras? Like, how warm, how often, most recent?

Seems to me that the Paleo-Climatologists are ignoring the indicators of warmer periods. Like petrified forests in deserts, Woolly Mammoths sunk into frozen tundra, marine fossils found hundreds of miles inland. Do you think Lucy evolved in the Olduvai Gorge, or was it the Olduvai Fiord? All proofs that it has been warmer than this before, without Man's efforts. And with only conjecture (models) linking todays warmth to man???

And why consistantly dwell on the negatives of global warmth? Think about the positive effects of changed weather patterns: how much rice will be grown in Mongolia, or the 16 cuttings of hay per year in Nebraska, or shrimping in the Salinas Shoals. All of the additional hyro-electric power from all the additional rainfall.

We can tell from this years hurricane season that all effects will not be certainly, consistantly, negative. Just think if this year is the start of a trend- What if hurricanes are a thing of the past?

Wishful thinking is not a scientific approach.

 

[rockoon]

There is no doubt we're in a global warming trend

None? Heh. You try to come off as so fact oriented later in this post... There is always doubt when assumptions are made.

The strongest 'evidence' of global warming are the ones most likely to be tainted by unrelated variables such as the heat island effect.

You have no doubts at all that unrelated variables are at play?

Satellite data doesnt back up the current claims.

First of all, a truly critical person who's looked at the legitimate science would indeed place a high probability of truthfulness (a fancy way of saying "would conclude it's likely").

Not so. Someone who looks at the SCIENCE isnt making that leap. Only someone who unquestioningly believes conclusions would make that leap.

Second, what does "moving on" entail? If AGW is happening, then the consequences of "moving on" may be devastating, in a way that makes even the previous World War seem slight by comparison.

Moving on entails not repetitively making the unsupported claim until you win over enough people. If you have evidence then offer it. I read your quotes from various papers and psuedonews and none of them say what you wish they did.

If there's even a good chance that our activities are warming up the planet, that's cause for genuine alarm and positive preventative and corrective action.

There is a better chance that our activities have extremely little to do with it. If you want to drag out statistics then we can do that..

I bring with me statistics on a repeating cycle of ice ages followed by warm periods. A warming earth isnt a suprise and is not evidence of significant human contribution.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is evidence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The common AGW circular reasoning is that CO2 causes a significant increase in temperatures and that a measured increase in temperatures which follows a measured increase in CO2 is evidence that CO2 is a significant contributor. The logic doesnt follow.

The evidence I have seen does not suggest that CO2 is a significant contributor to global temperatures. The evidence suggests that water vapor completely dwarfs all other factors (including CO2) combined. There is further evidence that CO2 levels were much higher in the past while the global mean temperature was significantly lower than it is today. Add it all up and you find a good reason to doubt the assumption that CO2 contributes significantly.

Remember, for significant AGW to be true under the current theory then CO2 must be THE significant contributor.

The evidence just isnt there yet.

As for my objection to all the IPCC dungheap... Their projections are well known to be seriously flawed.

 

[casebro]

Wishful thinking is not a scientific approach.

Pessimistic thinking isn't either. Give me proof (NOT models) that man is causing GW.


Ps: AUP, why do you hate mankind?

 

[Cuddles]

The evidence I have seen does not suggest that CO2 is a significant contributor to global temperatures. The evidence suggests that water vapor completely dwarfs all other factors (including CO2) combined. There is further evidence that CO2 levels were much higher in the past while the global mean temperature was significantly lower than it is today. Add it all up and you find a good reason to doubt the assumption that CO2 contributes significantly.

Let's see all this evidence then.

Remember, for significant AGW to be true under the current theory then CO2 must be THE significant contributor.

No it mustn't.

As for my objection to all the IPCC dungheap... Their projections are well known to be seriously flawed.

Well known by who? Not by all the top meteorologists and climateologists.

 

[a_unique_person]

Pessimistic thinking isn't either. Give me proof (NOT models) that man is causing GW.


Ps: AUP, why do you hate mankind?

Models are used all the time in science, haven't you heard?

The scientists aren't being pessimistic, just passing on the results of their research.

 

[a_unique_person]

None? Heh. You try to come off as so fact oriented later in this post... There is always doubt when assumptions are made.

The strongest 'evidence' of global warming are the ones most likely to be tainted by unrelated variables such as the heat island effect.

You have no doubts at all that unrelated variables are at play?

Satellite data doesnt back up the current claims.



Not so. Someone who looks at the SCIENCE isnt making that leap. Only someone who unquestioningly believes conclusions would make that leap.



Moving on entails not repetitively making the unsupported claim until you win over enough people. If you have evidence then offer it. I read your quotes from various papers and psuedonews and none of them say what you wish they did.



There is a better chance that our activities have extremely little to do with it. If you want to drag out statistics then we can do that..

I bring with me statistics on a repeating cycle of ice ages followed by warm periods. A warming earth isnt a suprise and is not evidence of significant human contribution.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is evidence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The common AGW circular reasoning is that CO2 causes a significant increase in temperatures and that a measured increase in temperatures which follows a measured increase in CO2 is evidence that CO2 is a significant contributor. The logic doesnt follow.

The evidence I have seen does not suggest that CO2 is a significant contributor to global temperatures. The evidence suggests that water vapor completely dwarfs all other factors (including CO2) combined. There is further evidence that CO2 levels were much higher in the past while the global mean temperature was significantly lower than it is today. Add it all up and you find a good reason to doubt the assumption that CO2 contributes significantly.

Remember, for significant AGW to be true under the current theory then CO2 must be THE significant contributor.

The evidence just isnt there yet.

As for my objection to all the IPCC dungheap... Their projections are well known to be seriously flawed.

Read "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery, he goes into all this in detail. It is also why there were so many doubters. The current levels of CO2 already make up most of how much CO2 can contribute to global warming already. That is a linear relation is not going to happen. Double CO2, double warming. All this is already well known by the researchers, as Flannery relates. They aren't that stupid, honestly. They do follow the scientific method, they criticise and evaluate each others work.

According to Flannery, just that little bit of warming from the extra CO2 is enough to kick off more water vapour, above what naturally occurs, (without our addition). It then sets of some drastic feedback loops. Eg, the ice melting at the glaciers, which relects most of the sunlight back into space, is replaced by dark earth or ocean, which absorbs most of the light.

 

[rockoon]

Let's see all this evidence then.

If you cannot find evidence that water vapor is THE chief contributor to the greenhouse effect, then you haven't looked. I am not your research assistant. This is well understood and has been for nearly a century. There is no debate or controversy about it.

Well known by who? Not by all the top meteorologists and climateologists.

If by "top" you mean only the ones affiliated or dependent on the IPCC, sure.

The IPCC review process is seriously flawed and it is known that their reports are dressed up to promote a viewpoint that is in conflict with data they already have.

It isnt suprising that the IPCC does not want to swallow their own "mistakes" and are unwilling to admit the flaws in the process they previously claimed was "vigorously reviewed."

The hockey stick scandal is a big thorn in their side. They chose to trumpet the hockey stick as the chief #1 undeniable evidence (hah!) and used the the old repeat it until they believe it "science" strategy. The seriously flawed graph appears more times than any other graph in almost all of their more recent "reports." Conflicting graphs (in the rare case that they include it) are obfuscated by additional data, much smaller than the hockey stick, and appear in black and white next to the large unobfuscated colorized (yet seriously flawed) hockey stick.

Any admission to the contrary now is an admission that the trust and funding that many governments have put in them was a monumental mistake. Expect them to continue to play politics until the bitter end.

 

[a_unique_person]

If you cannot find evidence that water vapor is THE chief contributor to the greenhouse effect, then you haven't looked. I am not your research assistant. This is well understood and has been for nearly a century. There is no debate or controversy about it.

No, there is not. But the scientists already know that, even if interested forum members did not know it already. The science already takes this into account.

If by "top" you mean only the ones affiliated or dependent on the IPCC, sure.

The IPCC review process is seriously flawed and it is known that their reports are dressed up to promote a viewpoint that is in conflict with data they already have.

rubbish

It isnt suprising that the IPCC does not want to swallow their own "mistakes" and are unwilling to admit the flaws in the process they previously claimed was "vigorously reviewed."

The hockey stick scandal is a big thorn in their side. They chose to trumpet the hockey stick as the chief #1 undeniable evidence (hah!) and used the the old repeat it until they believe it "science" strategy. The seriously flawed graph appears more times than any other graph in almost all of their more recent "reports." Conflicting graphs (in the rare case that they include it) are obfuscated by additional data, much smaller than the hockey stick, and appear in black and white next to the large unobfuscated colorized (yet seriously flawed) hockey stick.

Says who? You, not them. The hockey stick is only about 10 or 20 percent of their case. The existing warming and models explaining that warming are, and always have been, most of the case. Read the IPCC report. The hockey stick only takes a few pages out of, IIRC, hundreds.

Any admission to the contrary now is an admission that the trust and funding that many governments have put in them was a monumental mistake. Expect them to continue to play politics until the bitter end.

The Australian people and many others who are experiencing the adverse affects of global warming would like to disagree.

 

[DeviousB]

If you cannot find evidence that water vapor is THE chief contributor to the greenhouse effect, then you haven't looked. I am not your research assistant. This is well understood and has been for nearly a century. There is no debate or controversy about it.

Actually, the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect has been understood for over a century. Arrhenius calculated in 1896 that a doubling the amount of CO2 (then) in the atmosphere would lead to a 5-6C increase in the average temperature.

In 1931, E. O. Hulbert calculated accurate absorbtion coefficients for the atmosphere, and his results broadly supported Arrhenius, a doubling of CO2 should lead (in the absence of +ve/-ve feedback) to around a 4C rise in temperature.

In 1938, Guy Calendar began investigating anecdotal tales that suggested a period of sustained warming. By compiling and comparing all the observations he could find, he concluded that the atmospheric CO2 content had increased since the early 19th century by 10% and that this had been accompanied by a comparable warming of the Earth.

In fact, Calendar's data was flawed. But in defending it, he demonstrated that the reasoning of the time (that the overlapping absorbtion spectra of CO2 and H20 meant that no reasonable increase in CO2 should be expected to increase absorbtion) was incorrect.

The first 'modern' study of the greenhouse effect was by Lewis Kaplan in 1952. He demonstrated that not only do the absorbtion spectra of CO2 and H2O not overlap, but as atmospheric pressure decreased with altitude, CO2's effect would become more pronounced.

Gil Plass made the next advance, in 1956. By now the maths was too much for a human being; but Plass had something new, a computer. Of course, the physics hadn't changed, and neither had the maths, what the computer could do was solve the mathematical model far more quickly and accurately than a man. And its solution was unequivocal, increased CO2 means an increased greenhouse effect. Again by ignoring any feedbacks, Plass was able to determine that man's 1950's CO2 emissions would result in a global warming of 1.1 C/century.

From then the models and measurements have become more sophisticated, unknowns such as the CO2 uptake of the oceans (Revelle, 1957; Bolin and Erikson, 1958) have been identified and addressed. Arguments have raged, and still rage, as to the net effect of all the positive and negative forcings. But at no point in the last 50 years has mainstream meteorolgy returned to the earlier, flawed viewpoint that CO2 levels do not significantly change the greenhouse effect.

And so to today. J.R. Petit's 1999 paper on 420,000 years of climate observations (from Vostok ice cores), like Martin Hoffert's 1992 paper before it, concluded that out of the network of feedback mechanisms, CO2 was the main forcing mechanism. What is more the observed climate sensitivity agreed quite well with that determined by the computer models.

Theoretically, this sensitivity is explained by CO2's strong greenhouse effect (10-20% of GH warming is due to CO2, compared with 30% for H20) combined with its large atmospheric longevity.

 

[Cuddles]

If you cannot find evidence that water vapor is THE chief contributor to the greenhouse effect, then you haven't looked. I am not your research assistant. This is well understood and has been for nearly a century. There is no debate or controversy about it.

I wasn't asking for evidence that water vapour contributes to warming, although I should also point out that it is still very much debated whether clouds will actually warm or cool the Earth. I was asking for evidence that there is no effect from an increase of CO₂, since, as DeviousB has said, there is actually an awful lot of evidence that says there is an effect.

If by "top" you mean only the ones affiliated or dependent on the IPCC, sure.

By "top" I mean the ones that are respected professionals in their field and not fringe cranks desperately denying the accepted theories just so they can have a bit of publicity.

 

[rockoon]

By "top" I mean the ones that are respected professionals in their field and not fringe cranks desperately denying the accepted theories just so they can have a bit of publicity.

You mean the ones directly funded by the IPCC, or the ones indirectly funded?