Is there even 1 climatologist who says that global warming is not happening, or even that man plays no role?

I don't think so. There are some which think humans are playing less of a role than the consensus opinion, but I don't think there are any climate scientists who would even say that humans aren't playing a significant role in the current warming.

Most skeptical climate scientists dispute the sensitivity of the climate to warming, not the causes. That's Lindzen and Christy's position.

*edit* While gwens is correct that Tim Ball thinks the current warming is natural, I don't consider him a climate scientist. He's a geographer, although technically he got a PhD in climatology for studying historical climate change in Canada. His BS and MS are in geography, and he taught geography after he graduated. He has never researched climate science.

Instead of a rant here's part of my answer to another question, when a guy claimed that the hottest year on record was 1998: on what basis do you say that 1998 was the hottest year on record? I assume that you're not in Melbourne, Australia, as I am. The hottest summer on record here was January & February 2009. The six hottest days on record in Victorian history were all set this February (in a 2-week period). The second hottest year was 2001. So where are you if 1998 was your hottest year ever? To judge whether global warming is real or not you need to check the weather in the colder parts of the world, where any temperature rise is easier to spot and harder for sceptics to explain away. Traditionally Victoria was the coldest state on mainland Australia, until this summer, when it was the hottest!

That would be pretty stupid to state that humans don't play any role. They obviously are releasing CO2. Lindzen criticisms are the most damning that I have heard.

"Professor Lindzen comments that this failure of observation to match prediction cannot be so easily explained, since the transient response would be likely to exceed the equilibrium response. He concludes that no more than about a third of the observed trend at the surface is likely to be due to greenhouse warming, and adds: “This is about as close as one ever gets to proof in climate physics.”

On this analysis, “global warming” is unlikely to be dangerous and extremely unlikely to be catastrophic."

That means that of the ~0.6 degrees warming, the most that you could attribute to humans is about a third of a degree. He also states that you get much diminished warming on additional CO2. Others state that the half life of CO2 is grossly overstated by the IPCC. Translated into normal English, that means that humans aren't significantly changing the climate with greenhouse warming. It isn't a crisis or even something to worry about. The maximum warming of less than a degree you could get IS beneficial and the extra CO2 is also beneficial.

That is not him stating that CO2 is causing the 1/3 of degree. He said about the most you could attribute is about 1/3 and that is about as close to proof. It is a statement casting great doubt on the climate models used by the left to spread fear. I would like to know how a legitimate scientist can use a model when it doesn't model the real world and claim that it is almost certainly correct and then say it indicates up to 8 degrees of warming. Are we supposed to take that kind of interpretation seriously? Science doesn't work on consensus. It requires verification and when the real world doesn't follow the models, that is damning indeed. Ignoring that basic scientific method is very instructive of the motives of those making the alarmist claims.

The accuracies of long term predictions of climate models are low due to chaotic nature of the atmosphere-ocean system and difficulties in representing natural forcings (solar activity, cosmic ray flux, volcanic eruptions, ... ) to climate models, so many scientists move to the skeptical side.

http://bluemarbleclimate.wordpress.com/2...

We have our very own here in Canada, Tim Ball who says it's the sun and increased CO2 is good for us. You may have seen him in blockbusters like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change". If you want him to appear in climate denial video just shake a dollar bill in front of his nose. I've personally met the man and will not repeat the mistake. He has little peer reviewed and nothing reviewed that casts doubt on AGW.

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Bal...

Spencer is correct. It is happening - though not much, and man plays a role - though a small one. Bjorn Lomborg has a good book in which he argues forcefully that we need to spend our money elsewhere first.

There are 31,000 scientist that disagree.

You can even see John Cristy disagrees with the IPCC.

Check the links I provided.

I prefer to believe scientists.

If you don't select me as best answer, unless someone else has more scientific based proof, then you have been brainwashed by the nonsense that has been presented as "science".

You have to dig just a little bit, to find the truth that is being obscured on TV and the internet.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4860344067...

This pretty much answers your question. The only thing I disaree with is the last ten minutes. Right diagnosis, wrong suspects.

Not to my knowledge. I have been to Alaska and seen numerous videos.

All the information I've seen quacks like a duck,

no everyone has a part to take place in global warming NASA, people who dont pick up thier dogs crap, hairspray, etc.