Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

Quote by Madhav L. Khandekar, UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist: "Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated climate change….As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."

Quote by Delgado Domingos, environmental scientist: “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”

And one interesting comment by a green thrown in:

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

The theories are an obvious scam.

There are more theories and models to list in the character limit imposed on the size of this answer.

Start with the references on the Wikepedia articles, and the more popular stories in the news like An Inconvienient Truth, Whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-... and then take a good look at the replies and rebuttals to each of those.

The general idea is:

The Sun is hot.

The Sun emits light and plasma that hit the Earth.

Some of what hits Earth is reflected, some is convertend to heat, some is absorbed in chemical reactions, some heat is radiated back into space.

The Earth is a complex ecology, and various things affect the rate at which energy is absorbed, converted (to heat) or reflected/re-emitted. This ratioof energy in to energy out is changed by a lot more than just atmospheric CO2.

Look for theories and models that address all aspects of this general concept. Many completely ignore variations in solar output, solar ejections, reflectivity, and land usage and cherry-pick data.

Whatever theory you decide to discuss it is important to compare and contrast with a historical reference. Such as any claim that 800+ parts per million of CO2 in the air will cause a runaway greenhouse effect and an earth so warm that it will cause mass extinctions, etc. when 50+ million years the exact opposite was true. 50+ million years ago there were no polar ice caps and CO2 was more than 1000+ parts per million. Antarctica was a thriving densely populated rain forest just as biodiverse as the rain forests at the equator at that time.

Also evidence proves that increased CO2 in the air is an effect of global warming and not a cause of it.

Only changes in the sun can explain climate change considering that climates have changed on other planets and moons in the solar system during the same time periods that occur on earth (during the times we can measure of course).

Try the Milankovitch Theory of climate change. Anthropogenic Global Warming is the scientific theory that explains recent global temperature.

James and Sagebrush – combined – know less about science than a 2-year old. Neither of them even knows what a scientific theory is.

There's a problem with selecting any specific scientist. He could be wrong. On the other hand, to get a good idea of where the argument is today, in the US, you'd do better to see what broad range of folks who should know, think.

1. You could look up what universities say. They have a reputation to uphold.

2. You could look up what various scientific organizations say. They also have a reputation to uphold.

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

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."

https://www.google.com/#q=scientific+org...

https://www.google.com/#q=universities+g...

Here's an interesting history:

http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effec...

Today, the science is quite settled. The debate is really about money. And that brings in politics. Suppose you own a large coal mine. What will happen to you if the USA passes laws that completely outlaw burning coal? Your coal mine suddenly is worth nothing. Maybe last year, you made millions selling coal. Next year, you'll have no income, but still be required to clean up the environmental damage that has been done by mining the coal you own, and can no longer sell.

The argument in America today isn't scientific, it's about money and politics. Looking at "scientific theories" is really about how to distract people from addressing the problem that this country, and the world face in the coming decades.

http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/carbon-... <== here's the physics.

http://web4.audubon.org/globalwarming/im... <== this is why CO2 is a problem.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/scie... <== melting of the Siberian tundra is a global warming time bomb.

See Climate Change and AGW on wikipedia.

Follow up by linking to some reference sites.

This blog has some non scientific answers.

Denialists want us to believe that governments are paying scientists to push global warming, but in reality, most governments are hostile to global warming.

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

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integri...

http://o.canada.com/news/government-aban...

http://rt.com/news/germany-poland-nuclea...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...

The scientists who are warning us about global warming have no reason to lie.

I have a project for my class that tells me to discuss global warming and climate change theories.

Can some please give me a list of a few important scientist/ philosophers and their theories?

They have to be IMPORTANT scientist with significant theories that I can discuss.

Thanks!