Megatherium

Your list of scientists is incomplete. It should also include the Galileo Movement, Patrick Moore, Ian Plimer, Lord Monckton ..... They all deny that global warming is a problem. Some deny it exists. All deny the validity of science in the 1800s that firmed the central role of CO2 in managing earth's thermostat.

But, the amazing thing is, their individual views differ markedly from those of their brethren. There is no common view, no published / reviewed research. A couple in your list do have an atmospheric physics background, but neither has convinced any colleagues of the validity of their views. One is a specialist in under the surface geophysics, with little or no atmospheric science knowledge. One was selling shirts in London in the late 1990s.

Your list attempts to elevate Kininmonth to lofty heights however he was not involved in AGW research at all. But certainly involved with short term climate forecasts looking a year or so ahead for farmers, and others.

Your list is a bunch of misfits, some of whom may be funded to promulgate pro fossil fuel views by organizations like Heartland Institute.

See this site for reviews of many in your list:

http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

Bazz,
Amazing how the same authors keep on writing guff.
According to our current Milanchovic cycle position, we are in the beginning of a cooling phase. But, but, greenhouse gas global warming is overriding Milancovich.
Dont buy skiis, but stock up on sun screen.

"All deny the validity of science in the 1800s that firmed the central role of CO2 in managing earth's thermostat."

If they deny the basic physics that is demonstrable in *any* decent physics lab, then they're on a par with people who deny gravity or photons or other demonstrable, repeatable physics experiments. Avoid at all costs.

ant,

I'd suggest you do some reading on what 1 in 1000 years means but we know from your refusal to read the actual Exxon papers that you won't be reading anything that might challenge your beliefs.

Are you aware that this same region had two 1 in 1000 events in the first decade of the last century and one of those was much greater than anything seen today?

Are you aware that individual events mean nought. Since you want others to do the maths, try working out the possibility that some region on the planet will have some unusual clusters of unusual events sometime and then you might see why this means nothing.

Are you aware that the IPCC has agreed that these weather events can't be linked to AGW?

Are you aware that even if these events can be linked to warming that doesn't in the slightest bit demonstrate that the warming was caused primarily by man?

Just to play this game the other way....are you aware that London has had more white Christmas this century than the whole of last century.

Oh wait, I just realised that in your religion cool events are caused by warming, warm events are caused by warming, more events are caused by warming, less events are caused by warming. Pretty convenient...saves all that need for pesky thinking. If today's weather is different to yesterday's its caused by AGW.

This is how puerile the whole saga has become

Hi mHaze,
the physics of polar V equatorial temperature differentials *decreasing* due to warming and weakening the jet streams are well understood by atmospheric physicists. So while you have a much warmer planet, as reported by satellites and temperature stations all over the globe, YES, sometimes because of a warmer planet there are colder spots when a weakened jet stream dumps cold weather over some of North America. YES, the physics of a warmer planet are sometimes counter intuitive.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/did-global-warming-get-arctic-drunk

Science has many surprises in it. The real world is complex. It sounds like *you're* the one who wants to deny the data and dum it down to some denialist dogma. But then, science and data never were the denialista's motivation for moaning. Science adapts to new data. Dogma doesn't.

"All deny the validity of science in the 1800s that firmed the central role of CO2 in managing earth's thermostat. "

CO2 has the central role in managing earth's thermostat. Really? So the Roman Warm Period was caused by CO2 changes? The LIA? The Minoan Warm Period? The Holocene? I think you might have over-egged the pudding there.

What I think you meant was that, in the 1800's, it was demonstrated the radiative forcing of CO2 is real ie that all else being equal an increase in CO2 will cause a rise in temperatures.

Unfortunately for your view, almost no one rejects that science and, I'd venture, none of the people you are talking about would do so.

The issue isn't whether a rise in CO2 will cause a rise in temperature, but instead what is the extent of that rise and whether feedback mechanism will enhance or offset that increase.