Thus the actual number of peer-reviewed papers on the list can be much greater than stated. All Supplemental papers are preceded by an asterisk and italicized; Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. Presidential Candidate (2000) "I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. (PDF) (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, Issues 3-4, pp. * Response to comment on "Are there connections between Earth's magnetic field and climate? 259-282, March 2007)- Ernst-Georg Beck * Comments on "180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods" (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a scholarly journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. Ordering of the papers is chronological per category. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. 641-646, September 2007)- Ernst-Georg Beck Climate Change is Nothing New! : The IPCC states that, "climate sensitivity is likely (66%) to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate value of about 3°C." Thus, climate sensitivity estimates where the mean does not exceed 2°C (low end of the IPCC range) or the high end of the range does not exceed 3°C (the IPCC mean) are considered to support skeptical arguments for a low climate sensitivity.
"A tour de force list of scientific papers..." - Robert M. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)].
Environmental Scientist "Wow, the list is pretty impressive ... General Antarctica Arctic Climate Sensitivity Clouds Coral Reefs Deaths Disease Ecological Glaciers Greenland Gulf Stream Hockey Stick Medieval Warm Period Roman Warm Period Ocean Acidification Permafrost Polar Bears Sea Level Species Extinctions Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism [e.g. Pilkey Global Climate Change (Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Volume 113, Issue 3, pp. 105-121, January 2009)- Tom Quirk Earth's Temperature / CO2 Equilibrium Prior to 1850 (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. Cropp Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF) (International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. Tscheuschner * Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B.
This means the papers are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. "You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed? The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people." - Al Gore, Former U. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line." - John H., Comment at Real : No 97% study exists that shows 44,000 peer-reviewed papers explicitly endorsing AGW. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. Archer Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. (PDF) (New Concepts In Global Tectonics, Number 42, pp. Soon Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. Archibald On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system (PDF) (Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering, Volume 13, Number 3, pp.
While only 64 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as 50% (humans are the primary cause). (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review. 685-706, September 2006)- Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 3-17, March 2007)- Lance Endersbee Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (PDF) (Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. Soon Climate stability: an inconvenient proof (Proceedings of the ICE - Civil Engineering, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp. 260-268, September 2007)- Olavi Karner Formulations of human-induced variations in global temperature (PDF) (Renewable Energy, Volume 32, Issue 13, pp. Njau Evolution of the Earth's Global Climate (Energy Sources, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp.
The purpose of the list is to show that peer-reviewed papers exist that support skeptic arguments and to be used as a bibliographic resource to locate these papers. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of "On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate.
: This is absolutely false, as the list does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints and the purpose of the list is clearly stated, "To provide a bibliographic resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise." Using this logic the IPCC reports are "cherry picked" because they failed to included most of these papers. Theoretical Physicist "I really appreciate your important effort in compiling the list." - Willie Soon, Ph. Astrophysicist and Geoscientist "An excellent place to start to take stock of the scientific diversity of positions on AGW." - Emil A. Thanks to the pop tech team." - Joanne Nova, Author of The Skeptics Handbook "I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..." - John Cook, Cartoonist at Skeptical Science † This resource has been cited over 100 times, including in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Sorokhtin The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic (PDF) (Science, Volume 319, Number 5864, pp. 470-479, March 2008)- Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, Orrin H. 87-98, July 2008)- John Stubbles Human population and carbon dioxide (Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 7, pp. Schaffer On the credibility of climate predictions (PDF) (Hydrological Sciences Journal, Volume 53, Number 4, pp. 101-104, January 2009)- Craig Loehle Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. Senior Research Scientist "...it's a very useful resource. 281-286, March 2008)- Klaus-Martin Schulte Evidence for "publication Bias" Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. Michaels Useless Arithmetic: Ten Points to Ponder When Using Mathematical Models in Environmental Decision Making (PDF) (Public Administration Review, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp. An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers (PDF) (Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. (PDF) (Economic Analysis and Policy, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp. 995-1011, December 2008)- Fred Goldberg Computer Study of Cluster Mechanism of Anti-greenhouse Effect (International Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, Volume 1, Number 1, pp. Galashev Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. Kerton Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003 (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann" (PDF) (International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp. Tscheuschner Global warming and carbon dioxide through sciences (PDF) (Environment International, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp. Florides, Paul Christodoulides Oceanic influences on recent continental warming (PDF) (Climate Dynamics, Volume 32, Issue 2-3, pp. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings. : This is misleading since only a very small minority of scientists have actually expressed a position on AGW from these organizations. 707-714, September 2006)- Vincent Gray Thermocline flux exchange during the Pinatubo event (PDF) (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 19, October 2006)- D. 66-72, May 2007)- David Bellamy, Jack Barrett Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF) (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. Policy statements release by a handful of council members or signed by just the president of a scientific organization can speak for no one other than these few scientists. Chilingar Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (PDF) (Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 17, pp. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. 1059-1072, December 2007)- Olavi Karner Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission (PDF) (Energy Sources, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp.