List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
This is a list of notable scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream scientific understanding of global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies.
Establishing the mainstream scientific assessment, climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming were as follows:
- The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
- "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
- If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.
These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations.
Listing criteria: The notable scientists listed in this article have made statements since the publication of the Third Assessment Report which disagree with one or more of these 3 main conclusions. Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. To be included on this list it is not enough for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement.
As of August 2012[update] less than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations. Academic papers almost never reject the view that human impacts have contributed to climate change. In 2004, a review of published abstracts from 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing "global climate change" found that none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations'" A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity. (see also Scientific opinion on climate change and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change).
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
- Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society 
- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
- Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing
- Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU
- Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
- Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute 
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
- Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
- Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
- Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
- Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
- David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
- Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
- William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
- William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
- William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
- David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
- Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
- Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
- Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
- Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
- Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
- Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
- Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
- Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
- Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
- Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
- Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks
- Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
- Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University
- John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC
- Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory
- Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
- David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
- Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
- Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 
- Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
- Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia
- Global warming controversy
- Global warming conspiracy theory
- Hockey stick controversy
- List of authors from the IPCC AR4 WGI report
- List of climate scientists
- Merchants of Doubt
- Oregon petition
- ^ In its 2007 assessment report, IPCC projected likely temperature rise for various hypothetical levels of future greenhouse gas emissions, known as "emissions scenarios". They reported that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C (2 to 5.2 °F) for the lowest emissions scenario used in the report, and 2.4 to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for the highest.
- Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
- Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
- Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis p.5 – IPCC
- Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis p.7 – IPCC
- Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis p.8 – IPCC
- Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability p.958 – IPCC
- "Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF). Retrieved August 9, 2010.
- Oreskes, Naomi (3 December 2004). "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Science 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594., internal citation omitted
- Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S. A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B. R.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P. et al. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters 8 (2): 024024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
- Freeman Dyson, in correspondence with editor Steve Connor (February 25, 2011), "Letters to a heretic: An email conversation with climate change sceptic Professor Freeman Dyson", The Independent, "First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. [...] Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it."
- "The Climate Science Isn't Settled", The Wall Street Journal online, November 30, 2009, "Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. [...] The quality of the data is poor [...] The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century."
- Nils-Axel Mörner (Mar 30, 2005), Economics of Climate Change: 12-ii Session 2005–06 Evidence to Select Committee on Economic Affairs II, The Stationery Office, p. 269, "In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it."
- Paltridge, Garth (2009). the Climate Caper. Connor Court Publishing. ISBN 978-1-921421-25-9. "There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."
- Global Warming Is Not A Crisis, "It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 – 6.4 C warming. What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans."
- Tennekes, Hendrik. "A Skeptical View of Climate Models". "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."
- Meehl, G.A.; W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721–3727.
- "Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming". Russian International News Agency. 15 January 2007. Retrieved 24 August 2012. "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases [...], but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and [...] growth in its intensity."
- Baliunas, Sallie (August 2002). "Warming Up to the Truth". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved 31 August 2012.
- Baliunas, Sallie; Willie Soon (22 August 2002). "Global Warming Science vs. Computer Model Speculation: Just Ask the Experts". Capitalism Magazine. Retrieved 31 August 2012. "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."
- Ian Clark (March 22, 2004). "Letter to the editor of The Hill Times". National Resources Stewardship Project. Archived from the original on February 10, 2009. Retrieved August 26, 2011. "We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."
- Chris de Freitas (May 9, 2006). "Chris de Freitas: Evidence must prevail". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on May 23, 2006. Retrieved August 26, 2011. "To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing [global warming], the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."
- Phillip V Brennan (December 10, 2007). "New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story". Newsmax.com. Archived from the original on May 11, 2008. Retrieved August 26, 2011. "[...]observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."
- Easterbrook, Don (22–25 October 2006). "THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING AND PREDICTIONS FOR THE COMING CENTURY". Philadelphia Annual Meeting. Retrieved 31 August 2012. "Because the warming periods in these oscillations [of glaciers] occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon[...]"
- Achenbach, Joel (28 May 2006). "The Tempest". The Washington Post (Washington DC: WPC). ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 1 September 2012. "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."
- Raymond Brusca (January 12, 2009). "Professor denies global warming theory". "[Global warming] probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"
- William Kininmonth, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard, archived from the original on August 28, 2007, retrieved August 26, 2011, "Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."
- Legates, David (May 2006). "Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts". National Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved 31 August 2012. "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming." Text " NCPA" ignored (help)
- Robinson, Cindy (Spring 2005). "Global warning? Controversy heats up in the scientific community". Carleton University Magazine. Retrieved 31 August 2012. "There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities."
- Tom, Harris (June 12, 2006). "Global warming, Scientists, Al Gore climate change". Canada Free Press. Retrieved 31 August 2012. "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame."
- Patterson, Timothy (June 2007). "Read the Sunspots". Financial Post.
- "Wild weather ignites climate change debate". Australian Broadcasting Company - Lateline. Aug 2002 (US). Retrieved 31 August 2012. "Natural climate changes occur unrelated to carbon dioxide contents."
- "I cambi climatici e le loro cause, una discussione su alcuni punti chiave (Climate Change and Its Causes, A Discussion About Some Key Issues)". La Chimica e l'Industria. 2010. pp. 70–75. Retrieved 31 August 2012. "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."
- "Scafetta webpage".
- Segalstad, Tom. "What is CO2 – friend or foe?". Retrieved July 4, 2009. "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error [...] All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate"
- Singer, S. Fred (April 22, 2005). "'Flat Earth Award' nominee's challenge to Chicken Littles". Christian Science Monitor. "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."
- "The Denial Machine".
- "Google Video Link". CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23. "It's not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists."
- William J Cromie (April 24, 2003). "Global warming is not so hot: 1003 was worse, researchers find". Harvard University Gazette. Retrieved August 26, 2011. "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions [...] may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations."
- "Testimony of Roy W. Spencer". before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 22 July 2008. Retrieved 31 August 2012. "I predict that [scientists will realise] most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor"
- Svensmark, Henrik (2007). "Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges" (PDF). Astronomy & Geophysics 48 (1}): 18–24. Retrieved December 19, 2011. "The case for anthropogenic climate change during the 20th century rests primarily on the fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increased and so did global temperatures. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001) have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule."
- "Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle". Geoscience Canada. 1 32. 2005. Retrieved 26 August 2012. "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. The two scenarios are likely not even mutually exclusive, but a prioritization may result in different relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."
- Syun-Ichi, Akasofu (June 15, 2007). "On the Fundamental Defect in the IPCC’s Approach to Global Warming Research by Syun-Ichi Akasofu". Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. wordpress.com. Retrieved 31 August 2012. "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless." Text " Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr." ignored (help)
- "Climat: la prévention, oui, la peur, non" (in French). L'Express. May 10, 2006. Archived from the original on November 17, 2006. Retrieved August 26, 2011. ":The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."
- Balling, Robert (September 2003). The Increase in Global Temperature: What it Does and Does Not Tell Us. George C. Marshall Institute. "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."
- Christy, John R.; Douglass, David H. (2009). "Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth" (PDF). Energy & Environment 20: 177–189. Retrieved June 17, 2011. "...the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. [...] There is disagreement in regard to the validity of the global warming hypothesis that states that there are positive feedback processes leading to gains g that are larger than 1, perhaps as large as 3 or 4. However, recent studies suggest that the values of g is much smaller."
- Christy, John (November 1, 2007). "My Nobel Moment". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 2, 2007. "...I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."
- Petr Chylek (April 2002). "A Long Term Perspective on Climate Change". Heartland.org. Archived from the original on September 29, 2007. Retrieved August 26, 2011. "Carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"
- "The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness". 27 February 2012. Retrieved 25 October 2012. "The most recent IPCC assessment report states: "Most [50%] of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is very likely [>90%] due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." There is certainly some contribution from the greenhouse gases, but whether it is currently a dominant factor or will be a dominant factor in the next century, is a topic under active debate, and I don’t think the high confidence level [>90%] is warranted given the uncertainties."
- Dr. David Deming (12 06 2006). "U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, Hearing Statements". epw.senate.gov. Retrieved 31 August 2012. "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."
- "ZENIT - Global Warming Natural, Says Expert". zenit.org. 04 27 2007. Retrieved August 31, 2012. "it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes"
- Craig Idso. "A Science- Based Rebuttal to the Testimony of Al Gore before the United States Senate Environment & Public Works Committee". Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Retrieved 26 August 2012. "The rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."
- Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso (November 2003). "Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World". Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. p. 30. Retrieved 26 August 2012. "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."
- Michaels, Patrick (October 16, 2003). "Posturing and Reality on Warming". CATO Institute. Retrieved June 10, 2009. "Scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter."
- WG1. "Chap 10, Executive Summary". IPCC.
- Boykoff, Maxwell (2009), "Ch. 39: Carbonundrums: The Role of the Media: Contemporary Media Courtesans: Climate Contrarians", in Schneider, Stephen H.; Rosencranz, Armin; Mastrandrea, Michael D. et al., Climate change science and policy, Island Press, p. 401, ISBN 978-1-59726-567-6
- Fleming, James Rodger (2005), Historical Perspectives on Climate Change, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-518973-5
- Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik M. (2010), "The Denial of Global Warming", Merchants of Doubt, Bloomsbury, pp. 169–215, ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4
- Solomon, Laurence (2010), The deniers, Richard Vigilante Books, ISBN 978-0-9800763-7-0
- Powell, James Lawrence (2011), "The Scientist Deniers", The Inquisition of Climate Science, Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-231-15718-6
- Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011), "Ch. 10: Organized Climate Change Denial: 2.4 Contrarian Scientists", The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Oxford University Press, p. 151, ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — Consensus, mainstream assessment of climate change
- Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) — Compilation of some non-consensus views and study references