Ernst-Georg Beck

German scientist Ernst-Georg Beck, a biologist, authored a February 2007 paper entitled 180 Years of Atmospheric C02 Analysis by Chemical Methods that found
levels of atmospheric CO2 levels were not measured correctly

A paper published to the Journal "Energy and Environment":
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

There are also other statements made on the same website, eg:
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2-Dateien/CO2-no-climate-driver.pdf [ref1]
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2-Dateien/7-kern-PIKe.pdf [ref2]

Arguments Condensed

• Atmospheric co2 level was higher in the early 20th century
• Ice core co2 histories are wrong
• Scientific conspiracy
• Human co2 is a tiny % of co2 emissions (2)
• Ocean acidification is of no concern (3)

Notes:

• There's a gold mine of claims on that site, just about every claim under the sun can be found.
• In the PDF above he compares co2 concentrations with temperature of antarctica over 200 years and concludes "there is no connection"
• (2) [ref2] "A reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by 1% means 26GT/year instead of about 29 GT CO2/year (= 3% of the whole natural CO2 emissions). The 26,7% are still negligible compared to the natural emissions of oceans and biomass."
• (3) [ref2] "A pH-range of sea water of 8,2-7,7 is a normal range and was still measured during the warm period since 1920 and 1930 [4]. A pH higher than 7 is still alkaline."

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, a Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion in the department of Mechanical Engineering at Ohio State University, who has published over 45 peer reviewed studies

List cites a freerepublic post that still has a copy of an original news article that is no longer available:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1422147/posts

It starts off badly with "man’s addition to the carbon-dioxide flux in the atmosphere, by fossil-fuel combustion, is essentially irrelevant"

Arguments Condensed:

• Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
• Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
• The "Arctic Ocean Model" explains warming
• We need the greenhouse effect
• co2 rise is natural
• I am part of a "large minority"

Notes:

• uses the phrase "so-called greenhouse gas". I see this phrase a lot. What does it mean? Are they casting their luck whether co2 is a greenhouse gas? Perhaps they are suggesting the possibility that "greenhouse gases" don't even exist. What is up with this frequently used phrase?
• This author actually puts forward their own explaination for the warming: "And behind that again is the alternative warming concept, most generally known as the Arctic Ocean Model, which is considered by many to be the real driver for the temperature oscillations and has been for the last million years or so.".

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"

Art Horn

Meteorologist Art Horn, currently operating The ‘Art' Of the Weather business

The list cites nothing, and that's the shortest introduction so far. Horn has actually written to the EPW according to the list.

But here's some more info:
http://www.theartofweather.com/arthorn.htm
and he has a website:
http://www.theartofweather.com/index.htm

On his FAQ page he has a topic "Is Global Warming For Real? Click here for the answer"
http://www.theartofweather.com/PageQ4.htm

There's also a news article interviewing him here where he talks about global warming:
http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=2114

Arguments condensed

• Climate's changed before
• Global warming is good
• Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
• Carbon dioxide concentration is a very small number
• It's the sun
• Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
• "concerns over warming are silly since he believes the world could be in store for another little ice age."
• Natural Cycles (the God Did It of arguments)
• Global warming industry conspiracy

Notes:

When I found the news article and started reading it I wondered why The List hadn't cited it, as it cites many news articles for other names. My guess is because at the end of the article Horn's arguments are firmly tackled by climate scientists Dr Bill Chameides and Dr Brenda Ekwurzel:

"Ekwurzel or Chameides both discounted Horn's claim that only three percent of carbon emmisions are man-made.
"The claims are common if you haven't been trained in climate science," said Ekwurzel. "He's looking at the composition of the atmosphere and drawing conclusions without understanding all the various properties of water vapor versus carbon dioxide and so on."

Quotes:

"A self-described political moderate, Horn said he first conceived of the global warming presentation to engage with the popular topic of climate change, and he started from the premise that global warming didn't exist."

"Horn said that he wasn't alone in his beliefs about global warming, citing Web sites such as icecap.us and climatescience.org"

"In addition, Horn says, only about three percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is man-made. The amount of man-made carbon in the atmosphere, Horn says, composes less than a tenth of the total atmosphere. According to Horn, such a small percentage couldn't possibly have an effect on global climate."

Qualifications:

• From the article we learn that Horn has a BSc in meteorology.

Mike Thompson

"Chief Meteorologist Mike Thompson of Kansas City’s Fox TV Channel 4 is a former U.S. Navy meteorologist who holds the American Meteorological Society (AMS) Seal of Approval and is a certified Broadcast Meteorologist"

The list cites an entry on his blog, although his comments in the comments section are more revealing:
http://community.myfoxkc.com/blogs/wxteam4/2008/04/14/Not_Over_Yet

Arguments condensed:

• "There have been a number of scientists who have lost grant money simply because they had a dissenting voice over global warming"
• "The truth is that only 3.5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human sources"
• "The warming is coincident with the rise in solar irradiance since the mid 1850s"
• "More and more climate scientists are admitting that the sun has played a major...if not the only...role in the warming that we have experienced"
• "If you look at charts of CO2 content over the past centuries, you will find there were times when the CO2 concentrations were at or above 7,000 ppm"

Notes:

• Claims that "today we're at 360 ppm" co2.
• The list claims "Thompson dissented from the view of a man-made climate crisis in 2008", yet a 2006 blog entry makes it clear he didn't accept manmade global warming back then either: http://community.myfoxkc.com/blogs/wxteam4/2006/09/25/USING_SCIENCE_TO_SCARE
• The 2006 blog entry contains a link to JunkScience.com, which (conicidentally?) contains the claim that only 3.5% of co2 emissions are human caused.
• In the 2006 blog entry he says "The key to understanding what is true, and what is not…is to take time to learn as much about the subject as possible. I cannot claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination."