Contrarian Climate Scientists

I thought it would be helpful to maintain a complete list of contrarian scientists on AGW. The purpose of this is not to be a kind of hit piece on contrarian climate scientists. To the extent that these scientists actually do research and publish these results in reputable, on-topic scientific journals, I have no beef with them. However, this list has not aged well. Seven years ago, Roy Spencer lamented that the average age of contrarians with credentials in climate science was between 65 and 70 and there are no new contrarian "researchers coming up through the ranks." This means that the average age of contrarian climate scientists has increased to 72 to 77 now. Lists promoted by other contrarians often include scientists that are now dead or retired. I thought it would be useful to maintain an accurate list to document what is so painfully obvious even to Roy spencer: contrarian positions among credentialed climate scientists is experiencing a death by attrition.

To make the list of "active" scientists you need to meet the following criteria:

  1. be a credentialed climate scientist with a PhD in a relevant scientific field, and 
  2. have published at least one paper in a reputable, peer-reviewed and on-topic scientific journal in the last 5 years with original research that challenges some aspect AGW. 

To make the "inactive" list I drop the requirement for a recently published paper. I'm not including people on my lists that are:

  1. deceased (Michaels, etc)
  2. social media influencers (Martz, Biggers, Stossel, etc)
  3. shills and grifters (Lueken, Plimer, Wrightstone, Shewchuk, Heller, etc)
  4. non-scientists (Pielke Jr, Lomborg, Shellenberger, etc.)
  5. scientists who are non-experts in climate science, but have decided to be use their retirement years for political activism (Happer, Clauser, Koonin, etc).
Feel free to comment with people that fit the criteria for active or inactive contrarian climate scientists, and I'll edit this page to make it more complete.

Active Credentialed Climate Scientists

Living scientists with a PhD in a climate-related field that have published research in a reputable journal in the 2020s. Hyperlinks with their names link to posts I've written having to do with either their work or work they have supported.

1. John Christy
Atmospheric sciences, University of Illinois, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Christy is retired as of July 2026, so I will be moving him to the inactive list.

2. David Legates
Climatology, University of Delaware

3. Nicola Scafetta
Physics, University of North Texas, Duke University

4. Nir Shaviv
Solar science, Israel Institute of Technology (Technion)

5. Roy Spencer
Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Spencer has announced that he's planning to retire with John Christy, but he has not indicated that this is official yet, to my knowledge.

6. Henrik Svensmark
Physics, Technical University of Denmark. Svensmark was recently laid off from the Technical University of Denmark, which may be (according to him) a "death blow" to his research. I will wait before moving him to the "inactive" list to see where he lands.

Inactive Credentialed Climate Scientists

Scientists with a PhD in a climate-related field that are still alive but have not published contrarian research in a reputable journal in the 2020s. This includes people who have retired from publishing and who have never published climate research in a reputable journal.

1. Judith Curry
Geophysical sciences, University of Chicago. Curry retired from academia in 2017.

2. Richard Lindzen
Applied mathematics, MIT; professor of atmospheric sciences emeritus at MIT. Lindzen retired from MIT in 2013.

3. Lennaert Bengtsson Meteorology, Stockholm University, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. Bengtsson retired in 2000.

4. Ferenc Miskolczi
Atmospheric physics, former NASA Ames Research Center. Miskolczi retired from NASA in 2006.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Data Tampering by Shewchuk and Heller

Image
If you follow climate discussions on X, you're bound to see John Shewchuk and/or Tony Heller show graphs that reportedly show that NOAA is tampering with temperature data to fabricate global warming with spurious warming trends. I've gone over many of the reasons why this is nonsense before in posts about bias correction and so-called  ghost stations . I think it's good to show what's actually going on with the graphs they present as "proof" of data manipulation, though. I think it can be easily demonstrated here that it's actually Shewchuk and Heller that are tampering with data. Shewchuk (Top) and Correct (Below) Above are two graphs. The top graph shows what John Shewchuk claims shows that NOAA is manipulating data. It shows USHCN "raw" and "altered" Tmax data for 1900 to 2023. The bottom graph above is the correct plot of NOAA's published data from the current and correct dataset ( nClimDiv ) with a 5-year running mean to m...
Read more

What about Those 50 Failed Climate Predictions?

Image
Did you know that there have been 50 failed doomsday predictions since the 1960s? Yea, neither did I, but that's what an opinion piece at AEI from 2019 claims. The article compiles its list from several sources, including 27 from Tony Heller. A Breitbart article upped that to 41. Then Perry added 9 more from Heller to get it up to 50. When his list had 41 predictions, Perry wrote, "For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong. In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent... and it never happened. And not once — not even once!" The logic of this is bafflingly stupid, even if we accept his opinions on these predictions at face value. If there are 41 (updated to 50) failed predictions on this list, that doesn't indicate a ...
Read more

Does NOAA have "Ghost Stations" for US Temperatures?

Image
The Epoch Times (ET) is a newspaper operated by the Falun Gong cult, formed in 1992. The cult has opposed the Chinese Communist Party, but recently it has made some inroads into the US politics, where it supports far-right political agendas; its ET newspaper has promoted a number of conspiracy theories involving QAnon, anti-vaccine propaganda, and climate science denial. In a recent " premium report ," the Epoch Times claims that the U.S. Temperature dataset operated by NOAA contains data from "non existent temperature stations" and asserts that there are "hundreds of ‘ghost’ climate stations" that are no longer operational, and data is just filled in from surrounding stations, with the implication that this is done to support Biden's climate policies. The tl;dr point here is that what the article calls "ghost stations" are actually just interpolated values used to calculate area-weighted means in an old dataset that NOAA no longer uses. The...
Read more