Bob Breck

Chief Meteorologist Bob Breck of WVUE-TV

No link for this one, the list cites a letter to the list creators.
But I found a blogspot blog (join the family) of his:
http://bobbreck.blogspot.com/

Seems to contain more arguments than the letter, so most of the below are from the blog:

Arguments condensed

• Ice age predicted in the 70s
• It's the sun
• It's ocean cycles
• It hasn't warmed since 1998
• Dr James Hansen predicted cooling in the 70s
• They're in it for the money
• CO2 concentration is small (from http://bobbreck.blogspot.com/2008/12/fronts-keep-coming.html)
• Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

There's probably more..

Dr. Martin Hertzberg

Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry

Cites this media article this media article

However the article doesn't directly quote Hertzberg much and even contradicts him in one case.

The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide -The Innocent Source of Life by Dr. Martin Hertzbergment (PDF) is a better source of arguments directly from him

Arguments Condensed:

• warming causes co2 rise not the other way round
• co2 is already saturated
• CO2 concentration is small
• water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
• Scientists' conclusions are motivated by money.
• Ice age predicted in the 70s (well he says 60s, but same deal)
• It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
• CO2 rise is caused by the oceans
• Volcanos emit more co2
• co2 lifetime in atmosphere is only 5 years

Notes:

• Seems to suffer from a focus on co2 emissions rather than co2 concentrations, ie to think emissions should correlate with warming rather than concentration.
• Confuses atmospheric average lifetime of a co2 molecule with the residence time for a pulse of co2 added:
  "The global warming advocates including the IPCC argue that the CO2 we emit into the atmosphere lasts for centuries....The most authoritative study of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere was done by a Norwegian, Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Oslo. The measured lifetime, based on the studies of some 50 independent researchers is at most about 5 years"

An original argument..

1. human co2 emissions fell 30% from 1929 (1.17 Gt) to 1932 (0.88 Gt).

2. But co2 concentration rose about 1.5ppm in that time.

3. Given 1+2, therefore human co2 emissions aren't causing the rise in co2.

This brilliant argument is described as:

"One of the more dramatic contradictions to the Gore-IPCC hypothesis is one that I came up with myself, and which appealed to Cockburn and to an Australian group of fellow skeptics."

Hans Schreuder

Analytical chemist Hans Schreuder who publishes the UK based website
ILoveMyCarbonDioxide.com

list cites said website:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/about.html

Arguments condensed:

• co2 concentration is small
• the greenhouse effect doesn't exist
• greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

Notes:

• This is amazingly crazy stuff. Is it just one big joke?
• "Atmospheric "greenhouse forcing" does not warm the planet, never has and never will. In fact, the very idea that there is a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere is absurd."
• Simply noting the "co2 concentration is small" argument doesn't pay justice to the extraordinary effort made in giving it, the amazing 173x2860 gif and all: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/graph.html This and other effort on the site suggest it isn't a joke and the author is actually being serious.
• Some arguments are given on these pages: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/theory.html
• http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/FAQ.html
• http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html
• links to "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" and "Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics", and says " I salute all scientists who agree with these papers and will gladly publicise all papers on this subject"...

mwhaha! it's FALSE I tells you!!11 (Quotes):

• "The settled science that a greenhouse warms up due to re-radiated light (energy), as set out by Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), Arrhenius (1896), NASA (2008), et al., is false."
• "Yet carbon dioxide’s re-radiation of infrared energy warming up planet earth is the preposterous theory hailed by not only the alarmists, but accepted and elaborated by most skeptics as well, with mathematical theorems that do little more than calculate the number of fairies that can dance on a pinhead."

Frank Britton

Chemist Frank Britton rejected man-made climate fears in 2007.

list cites a news article, but the article seems to be gone:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_6489861

unable to find other references so far.

Arguments condensed

• co2 concentration is small
• Most co2 comes from ants and termites
• co2 is not a "particularly effective" greenhouse gas
• political conspiracy
• scientific conspiracy
• Humans have no measurable control over global temperatures

Notes

• Think he's thinking of methane with the termites and ants argument.
• The conspiracy arguments are that politicians and scientists know it's wrong but either for financial or ideological gain they push it nevertheless.

Quotes:

"Out of the wide spectrum of radiation received from the sun, CO2 only absorbs energy from
three very narrow levels"

Dr. Cal Evans

Oxford-educated Geochemist Dr. Cal Evans, a prominent researcher who has advised the Alberta Research Council, the Natural Sciences, and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and who is affiliated with the Calgary-based group Friends of Science

This is the article the list cites:

http://www.dobmagazine.nickles.com/article.asp?article=magazine/070709/MAG2007_L90001.html

Arguments condensed:

• It's the sun
• It's cosmic rays
• Carbon dioxide appears to be a very minor factor.
• Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
• carbon dioxide is a very inefficient greenhouse gas
• rejects water vapor feedback
• Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
• Mars is warming

Notes:

• Accepts many glaciers are melting
• Accepts the co2 rise since the industrial revolution, although preindustrial figure slightly wrong, and says ocean warming is the cause "at least in part" of the co2 rise.
• Accepts that sunspot activity on its own cannot account for the full swings in global temperature (although confusingly the article cites Habibullo Abdussamatov as claiming evidence that "current global warming on both Mars and Earth is being caused by a long-term increase in solar irradiation")

Quotes:

"The slight increase in ground temperature has no parallel in the troposphere. If atmospheric CO2 concentration was actually a significant factor in global warming, it stands to reason that atmospheric temperatures would rise but that hasn't happened."

"To date, no one has been able to identify a link between higher CO2 concentrations and greater volumes of atmospheric water vapour"

BIO info:

(this is from the article, unfortunately I can find no other references at this time)

-former head of Esso's research arm
-appointed executive vice-president of Canada's largest upstream petroleum producer in 1980
-worked for Pemoco Ltd, "Oil And Gas Field Services"